PDA

View Full Version : C.o.m.m.o.n.m.a.n



PHAT
05-06-2004, 10:43 PM
The
C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N
Chess Tournament

Swiss weekender, 7 !! rounds and no thieving byes

Games: 60 mins + 5 secs per move

100% of all entry fees back in prizes. All entries $40

Four equally sized divisions - a quarter of pool to each division

Plus, $400 in sponsored “special” prizes - no open prize

When: 26/27 June 2004 Entries on the day 10:00 to 10:20. Half point bye available by arrangement
Saturday: R1 10:30 sharp; Lunch 12:30; R2 1:00; R3 3:15; R4 5:30
Sunday: R5 9:30; R6 11:30; Lunch 1:30; R7 3:45; Early finsh 6:00; and Free Beer !

Where: Wollongong Collegians Club, Princes Highway Wollongong 30 minute drive from Sutherland, or 10 minute walk from Wollongong Train Station.

Further information: Matthew Sweeney 42299107, mhjs@bigpond.net.au

Alan Shore
05-06-2004, 11:06 PM
Free Beer !

Wow, now that's my kind of tournament... the rest sounds good too, I wish you every success.

Garvinator
06-06-2004, 12:23 AM
Wow, now that's my kind of tournament... the rest sounds good too, I wish you every success.
find a cheap fare and you could be there ;)

Alan Shore
06-06-2004, 12:33 AM
find a cheap fare and you could be there ;)

I will most likely be playing in the Gold Coast Open which falls on the same weekend and is about 1000km less to travel to :rolleyes:

Trent Parker
06-06-2004, 12:36 AM
Hey sweeney. LC and I have a 99% chance of playing in that tournament. LC has a car now so we just have to drive down the mountain rather than getting accomodation.

Garvinator
06-06-2004, 12:39 AM
I will most likely be playing in the Gold Coast Open which falls on the same weekend and is about 1000km less to travel to :rolleyes:
but no free beer ;) :lol:

JGB
07-06-2004, 05:11 AM
did I here free beer!??? :clap:

Maybe Ill be coming home early after all!!!! :lol:

Rincewind
07-06-2004, 01:36 PM
What is C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N. an abbreviation for?

eclectic
07-06-2004, 02:16 PM
What is C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N. an abbreviation for?

Can
Others
Make
Matthew
Organise
No
More
Alcoholic
Nights

?

;)

eclectic

ursogr8
07-06-2004, 02:22 PM
Call
Off
My
Madness
Or
Neanderthal
Man
Activates
Nuclear



:hmm:

starter

arosar
07-06-2004, 02:43 PM
C ommonly
O bnoxious
M an
M akes
O outrageous
N oise
M uckraking
A gainst
N SWCA

AR

JGB
07-06-2004, 04:27 PM
C ommunity
O rganised
M ercy
M ission.
O bjective:
N egotiate with
M en who have
A lcoholic
N eeds

Rincewind
07-06-2004, 09:20 PM
C ommunity
O rganised
M ercy
M ission.
O bjective:
N egotiate with
M en who have
A lcoholic
N eeds

Cheater! :D

JGB
07-06-2004, 10:02 PM
Cheater! :D

sorry. :uhoh:

Candy-Cane
08-06-2004, 11:01 AM
Free beer....does that include minors?!

jenni
08-06-2004, 11:52 AM
Free beer....does that include minors?!
I would insist on free beer, or a discount on your entry fee....

Candy-Cane
08-06-2004, 12:17 PM
If juniors don't get free beer how about compensation ....on their entry fees...I don't see that mentioned...!?

PHAT
08-06-2004, 02:08 PM
Matthew,

No i mean how much exactly is the prize money planned to be? There are four divisions with a first and second? What?

Vaness Reid.

eg. based on 40 entries = 10 per division.
10 entries = 10 x $40 = $400 per division.
Expect 1st 2nd 3rd = approx. $200, $120, $80

PHAT
08-06-2004, 02:10 PM
I would insist on free beer, or a discount on your entry fee....

Since it is actually my shout, and nothing to do with the event budget ...

PHAT
08-06-2004, 02:12 PM
If juniors don't get free beer how about compensation ....on their entry fees...I don't see that mentioned...!?

Since it is actually my shout, you can have a candy cane.

Kevin Bonham
08-06-2004, 07:04 PM
Matt's tournaments sound highly entertaining. It is now one of my 2000 lifetime ambitions to someday compete in one. If he lets me.

Rincewind
08-06-2004, 07:08 PM
Matt's tournaments sound highly entertaining. It is now one of my 2000 lifetime ambitions to someday compete in one. If he lets me.

Well John Slidziunas made the event last year so anything is possible.

Trent Parker
09-06-2004, 12:25 AM
There is one good thing about not having good eyesight....... I can't drive...... therefore I can never be designated driver,.............. therefore i can drink :lol:

Although it doesn't take me long to get blind........ I'm already half way there! :lol:

Trent Parker
09-06-2004, 01:19 AM
BTW i'm talking generally not about this tourney....

ursogr8
09-06-2004, 08:25 AM
The
C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N
Chess Tournament

Swiss weekender, 7 !! rounds and no thieving byes

...
100% of all entry fees back in prizes. All entries $40

....
Further information: Matthew Sweeney 42299107, mhjs@bigpond.net.au

Matt
While wishing you well with your promotion of this chess tournament, I must admit my curiosity was aroused by the bolded advertising line in your post (see the line I have coloured above).

What is the COMMONMAN to make at this pitch for his entry dollar?
> Is he to conclude that you have a separate source of funding that covers the overheads that are unavoidable for all tournaments?
>> Is he to conclude that the COMMONMAN is specially entitled to tournaments where the organisers have been energetic enough to be able to cover overheads from a source other than entry fees? I guess I am asking what makes the COMMONMAN tournament applicable to the COMMONMAN.

starter

jay_vee
09-06-2004, 10:17 AM
Matt
While wishing you well with your promotion of this chess tournament, I must admit my curiosity was aroused by the bolded advertising line in your post (see the line I have coloured above).

What is the COMMONMAN to make at this pitch for his entry dollar?
> Is he to conclude that you have a separate source of funding that covers the overheads that are unavoidable for all tournaments?
>> Is he to conclude that the COMMONMAN is specially entitled to tournaments where the organisers have been energetic enough to be able to cover overheads from a source other than entry fees? I guess I am asking what makes the COMMONMAN tournament applicable to the COMMONMAN.

starter

While I have nothing whatsoever to do with this tournament, I liked the idea behind it, so here is my take:

What makes this tournament special is not that all entry fees are paid out as prizes, but the distribution of the prize money. In a tournament for the professional player you will see a large chunk of the prize money go to the first three or so prizes, most common players just get to show up, deliver the money, play a few games and leave without a realistic chance at winning some cash. Not so in this case:



Four equally sized divisions - a quarter of pool to each division


Here, the common man has a much better chance of not just being reduced to a cash cow. In effect, lots of big rating prizes and no special treatment of the overall winner.

I really like the idea, and if I ever get to organize a tournament here, something like this would be my choice.

ursogr8
09-06-2004, 12:28 PM
While I have nothing whatsoever to do with this tournament, I liked the idea behind it, so here is my take:

What makes this tournament special is not that all entry fees are paid out as prizes, but the distribution of the prize money. In a tournament for the professional player you will see a large chunk of the prize money go to the first three or so prizes, most common players just get to show up, deliver the money, play a few games and leave without a realistic chance at winning some cash. Not so in this case:



Here, the common man has a much better chance of not just being reduced to a cash cow. In effect, lots of big rating prizes and no special treatment of the overall winner.

I really like the idea, and if I ever get to organize a tournament here, something like this would be my choice.

hi jay_vee

There is much I would agree with in your post.

But you have introduced quite a different topic from mine.
Distribution-strategy is one thing. Percentage-distributed is another.

I was asking Matt why he linked the 100% strategy with the COMMONMAN title.

starter

Bill Gletsos
09-06-2004, 12:47 PM
hi jay_vee

There is much I would agree with in your post.

But you have introduced quite a different topic from mine.
Distribution-strategy is one thing. Percentage-distributed is another.

I was asking Matt why he linked the 100% strategy with the COMMONMAN title.

starter
The real question is where does the money come from to pay for rent, arbiter fees and ACF admin fees.
Perhaps the rent is free and the arbiter charges no fee.

ursogr8
09-06-2004, 01:24 PM
The real question is where does the money come from to pay for rent, arbiter fees and ACF admin fees.
Perhaps the rent is free and the arbiter charges no fee.

hey Bill, back off for a while.

We all know that the cost items you mention have to be covered in some way. And if Matt is advertising that 100% of entry fees are distributed in prizes then obviously he has other source(s) of fund(s) to cover these extra cost items. I have no problem with Matt's position on that.

But first; I am trying to understand why Matt links the 100% achievement with the title 'the COMMONMAN". Now, he may come back and say it is entirely unrelated. He may say that he chose COMMONMAN for other quite reasonable objectives. Give him a chance to respond. For example, he may come back and say that he chose COMMONMAN as a title in order to reflect what jay_vee nicely described as "lots of big rating prizes and no special treatment of the overall winner."

Matt?

starter

PHAT
09-06-2004, 03:30 PM
Vee Jay has it sussed.

The idea is that all common players have a reasonable chance to win a few bob. Just like playing two-up without a house take. A player can be crap or giant, it doesn't matter, if you win more than those who are your rating peers, you get a prize. As much as I do not mind better players beating me, I do not like paying top dollar just to see it creamed to the top players. The common player just wants a few good games and a fair go at winning an equitable share of the money they have put into the pot. Juniors, seniors, girls, boys, rich, poor, good and bad, all treated the same with a similar chance at winning.

The "100% fees paid back", is an appeal to players who rightly see that no group (elites, DOPs, clubs, Associations) should be profiting from an amateur sport. We are fortunate that our Wollongong Chess club receives a small sponsorship from a footy club that covers chess administration fees and charges. NSW has laws regarding compulsory support (%) to community projects and clubs from the owner-operaters of poker machines. Ryde-Eastwood footy club also does a lot of sponsorship for the NSWCA by way of supplying a fee free venue for some big tournaments - thanks greatly to Bill Gletsos' persuasive ways in that club.

Rincewind
09-06-2004, 04:59 PM
Matt,

Doesn't the law of exponential error tend to lead to a disenfranchisement of the bottom-half of the first and 4th quartiles?

Trent Parker
09-06-2004, 11:00 PM
But no one knows where the first quartile will end.....? As for the fourth quartile......

Rincewind
10-06-2004, 01:01 AM
But no one knows where the first quartile will end.....? As for the fourth quartile......

No but you can guess based on past history. In fact even distribution of ratings will give you a clue. Knowing nothing else you'd expect the divisions cut offs around

1300, 1500 and 1700.

Guys in the 1700-1900 range run the risk of being mauled by a couple of 2000+ players who turn up. Whereas the 1500-1690 guys are competing against player no more than 190 points away from their rating. Likewise the sub-1000 rating competitors might be disappointed that some lower rating prize or junior prize is not on offer.

Still diversity is the spice of life. Just asking questions on the format to gauge opinion. I don't have a particular opinion.

ursogr8
10-06-2004, 07:59 AM
No but you can guess based on past history. In fact even distribution of ratings will give you a clue. Knowing nothing else you'd expect the divisions cut offs around

1300, 1500 and 1700.

Guys in the 1700-1900 range run the risk of being mauled by a couple of 2000+ players who turn up. Whereas the 1500-1690 guys are competing against player no more than 190 points away from their rating. Likewise the sub-1000 rating competitors might be disappointed that some lower rating prize or junior prize is not on offer.

Still diversity is the spice of life. Just asking questions on the format to gauge opinion. I don't have a particular opinion.

Baz
Rather than presenting your arguments based on one-off anecdotal-type mismatches, why not measure all and calculate the competitive index for last year's cross-table? (Why; you might be able to even include a calculator on your web-site; to accompany the ratings calculator).
And then, and then, if you are unhappy with the level of the index you could redesign the tournament to ensure competitive games AND reliable data for 3rd and 4th quartile prizes. (You know the type of redesign I have in mind.)
Now that truly would be 'design for the common-punter'.

starter

ursogr8
10-06-2004, 08:22 AM
Vee Jay has it sussed.

The idea is that all common players have a reasonable chance to win a few bob. Just like playing two-up without a house take. A player can be crap or giant, it doesn't matter, if you win more than those who are your rating peers, you get a prize. As much as I do not mind better players beating me, I do not like paying top dollar just to see it creamed to the top players. The common player just wants a few good games and a fair go at winning an equitable share of the money they have put into the pot. Juniors, seniors, girls, boys, rich, poor, good and bad, all treated the same with a similar chance at winning.

The "100% fees paid back", is an appeal to players who rightly see that no group (elites, DOPs, clubs, Associations) should be profiting from an amateur sport. We are fortunate that our Wollongong Chess club receives a small sponsorship from a footy club that covers chess administration fees and charges. NSW has laws regarding compulsory support (%) to community projects and clubs from the owner-operaters of poker machines. Ryde-Eastwood footy club also does a lot of sponsorship for the NSWCA by way of supplying a fee free venue for some big tournaments - thanks greatly to Bill Gletsos' persuasive ways in that club.

Matt
We agree with a lot of what you say about the egalitarian spread of prizes all the way down the cross-table, to all rating groups. So good luck with your tourney.
It was great that you were able to cover all the usual admin. costs by sponsors money and 'in-kind' deals. Leaving you with 100% of the entrance money to distribute to prizes. A catchy offer to the punters.

Now let me try a hypothetical on you for a moment. Let us imagine that next year a sizeable new cost comes into your planning. For example.........hmmm....thinks.....errr...what about tripled insurance costs. Say.
And let us imagine that you could not get extra sponsorship to cover these, so there was no other recourse but to distribute 80% of the entrance fees. Would you then advertise the COMMONMAN 80% of all entry fees back in prizes. ?

starter

Rincewind
10-06-2004, 12:05 PM
Rather than presenting your arguments based on one-off anecdotal-type mismatches, why not measure all and calculate the competitive index for last year's cross-table? (Why; you might be able to even include a calculator on your web-site; to accompany the ratings calculator).
And then, and then, if you are unhappy with the level of the index you could redesign the tournament to ensure competitive games AND reliable data for 3rd and 4th quartile prizes. (You the type of redesign I have in mind.)
Now that truly would be 'design for the common-punter'.

Starter,

I think you miss the point. It is not the competitiveness of the individual games that is the issue. The point is someone in the bottom half of the first or fourth quartiles has less chance of winning anything compared to anyone in the second or 3rd quartiles. Therefore there is an argument that that 25% of the field is subsidising the middle 50%. This is a direct result of the even division of prizemoney.

I've got nothing against rating prizes but Matt's model only works if you get an even distribution of entries when classed by rating. As this is not expected, then I'm not sure the model is as equitable as everyone assumes.

Please go push your accelerated swiss barrow in the appropriate thread. :hand:

ursogr8
10-06-2004, 12:24 PM
Starter,

I think you miss the point. It is not the competitiveness of the individual games that is the issue. The point is someone in the bottom half of the first or fourth quartiles has less chance of winning anything compared to anyone in the second or 3rd quartiles. Therefore there is an argument that that 25% of the field is subsidising the middle 50%. This is a direct result of the even division of prizemoney.

I've got nothing against rating prizes but Matt's model only works if you get an even distribution of entries when classed by rating. As this is not expected, then I'm not sure the model is as equitable as everyone assumes.

Please go push your accelerated swiss barrow in the appropriate thread. :hand:

Baz

1 I have never pushed an accelerated swiss barrow .
Instead, I have advocated breaking the field into 2 (or 4) divisions, and allowing intermixing between the divisions after round 3 of the tournament (achieved by giving A Division a permanent bonus of +2 for the whole of the tournamnent. SP allows this easily).

2 And my proposal does in fact resolve the distortion, so it was relevant to this thread.

Yours in equity, for the COMMONMAN
starter

ursogr8
10-06-2004, 01:25 PM
The idea is that all common players have a reasonable chance to win a few bob.

And who could argue with such an egalitarian objective. I for one applaud your objective.


Just like playing two-up without a house take.

But this smacks of quite a different objective. This sounds like a clarion call to all those individuals who expect some-one else to pay and provide for the ‘house-supervision/management’. The players may be amateurs Mr Sweeney, but there is effort required to manage amateur events; such effort should be recognised don’t you think?




A player can be crap or giant, it doesn't matter, if you win more than those who are your rating peers, you get a prize.

Back again on the egalitarian objective, I see. So, I agree with this sentiment.



As much as I do not mind better players beating me, I do not like paying top dollar just to see it creamed to the top players.



Hear, hear.




The common player just wants a few good games and a fair go at winning an equitable share of the money they have put into the pot. Juniors, seniors, girls, boys, rich, poor, good and bad, all treated the same with a similar chance at winning.



Hear, hear. Agreed. Spot on.




The "100% fees paid back", is an appeal to players who rightly see that no group (elites, DOPs, clubs, Associations) should be profiting from an amateur sport.


And here my agreement comes to a screeching halt.
For example, the DOP provides a service, what is so wrong with the DOP being paid to run the tournament?
Your words indicate that you want to attract players who are anti the payment of DOPs. What about the rest of us who are happy for the DOP to be paid out of entry-fees so that we have a well-run tournament? Are we not COMMONMAN too?

Another example; somebody has to provide the service of rating the games in the COMMONMAN tournament. That somebody is a State rating officer or a National rating officer. Why can’t they be paid for the service Mr Sweeney. What is this philosophy of yours of expecting something for nothing? It is just downright unAustralian, and certainly unLABOUR.


starter

PHAT
10-06-2004, 03:47 PM
Matt,
Doesn't the law of exponential error tend to lead to a disenfranchisement of the bottom-half of the first and 4th quartiles?

Not if they truly know what is going on, because I could simply say that the (non)problem you have highlighted applies to all fields where there are divisions determined by rating. Are you suggesting that we go to:

Number of divisions = Number of players

Of course it would be nice to have rating bands with a both an equil range and an equil numer. However, we know that they are mutualy exclusive. We could give priority to range rather than number, but then the number in each division becomes different. Then you have to explain why the middle divisions won big prizes, while the elite and the dross both win tiny prizes.

If preference is given to rating band width in a field of 40, we could find that some divison had 1 player in it, in which they win their entry fee back.

Machiavelli
10-06-2004, 05:40 PM
I believe I shall be there ...

I am under an obligation to play after last year, am I not?

Rincewind
10-06-2004, 05:50 PM
Not if they truly know what is going on, because I could simply say that the (non)problem you have highlighted applies to all fields where there are divisions determined by rating.

Not so as mostly this is done as rating prizes with thresholds which are evenly distributed by rating, rather than entrants. (Commonly 200 rating points).


Are you suggesting that we go to:

Number of divisions = Number of players

No, that would be ludicrous.


Of course it would be nice to have rating bands with a both an equil range and an equil numer. However, we know that they are mutualy exclusive. We could give priority to range rather than number, but then the number in each division becomes different. Then you have to explain why the middle divisions won big prizes, while the elite and the dross both win tiny prizes.

True but it would be a fairer distribution of funds I feel. The trouble with the Commonman format, is basically it is four separate tournaments broken down into even numbers with even prize allocation. The 1st quartile is effectively an Open tournament but the cut off is around 1700, which seems too low for those player to have any real chance of getting a return on their entry fee.

Also at the time of entering players around the 1700 mark mark won't know whether they are playing in the 1st or 2nd quartile event. The difference makes a huge difference to their prospects of getting a prize and it basically reduced to a lottery depending on the number of entrants and their ratings.


If preference is given to rating band width in a field of 40, we could find that some divison had 1 player in it, in which they win their entry fee back.

True, but perhaps it would be better to specify the bands ahead of time and adjust prizes depending on number of entrants. At least that way players could make an informed decision on whether to participate.

Kevin Bonham
10-06-2004, 07:08 PM
If preference is given to rating band width in a field of 40, we could find that some divison had 1 player in it, in which they win their entry fee back.

I use rating bands and put on the entry form that bands can be altered at the organisers' discretion. Typically I fudge them to stop divisions having less than 4 entrants, or if one player is just above or below the intended cutoff with a very large gap to the next up or down.

jay_vee
10-06-2004, 08:01 PM
Not so as mostly this is done as rating prizes with thresholds which are evenly distributed by rating, rather than entrants. (Commonly 200 rating points).

But even then, the bottom, say under-1300, group usually has a wider distribution of ratings than the 1500-1700 group, doesn't it? And the same is true about the open, say over-1900, group at least if a few titled players turn up.


For example, the DOP provides a service, what is so wrong with the DOP being paid to run the tournament?
Your words indicate that you want to attract players who are anti the payment of DOPs. What about the rest of us who are happy for the DOP to be paid out of entry-fees so that we have a well-run tournament? Are we not COMMONMAN too?

Why on earth would you pay someone (DOP), if he or somone else is willing to do the job just for the enjoyment he get's out of it? It may well be unLABOUR, but it's smart nevertheless to let the person who isn't asking for money be the DOP.


Another example; somebody has to provide the service of rating the games in the COMMONMAN tournament. That somebody is a State rating officer or a National rating officer. Why can’t they be paid for the service Mr Sweeney. What is this philosophy of yours of expecting something for nothing? It is just downright unAustralian, and certainly unLABOUR.


While we do not have that particular problem here, due to a wider distribution of the chores involved with rating a tournament and no rating fees, I agree that some costs cannot be avoided. Here, these costs are usually covered by selling food and beverages at the venue. Often, parents from the club's junior division are willing to donate some cake or spend some time selling coffee. If you sell for reasonable prizes almost all players will see the advantage of supporting the club in that way and not bring their own. This usually covers the associated costs and more often than not the club will actually make a small profit out of it. I see no reason not to pay out all entry fees in prizes.

Well, thinking about it, the only reason may be if you can't find an affordable venue that allows selling food.

ursogr8
10-06-2004, 08:26 PM
Why on earth would you pay someone (DOP), if he or somone else is willing to do the job just for the enjoyment he get's out of it? It may well be unLABOUR, but it's smart nevertheless to let the person who isn't asking for money be the DOP.


jay_vee
You probably wouldn't pay a DOP if you could get an adequate volunteer. Everyone would agree.

But, I was challenging quite a different proposition. Matt seemed to be saying that if no volunteer stepped forward then on principle he would not pay a DOP. And by inference this means if there is no volunteer-DOP then there is no tournament. Personally, if there is no volunteer-DOP then I would rather have a tournament and pay a DOP.




I see no reason not to pay out all entry fees in prizes.



The logical conclusion of your argument then jay-vee is that you are happy to run the tournament with a cap on expenses equal to the money you can make out of donated cakes.
This probably means that you have to exclude web-services for promotion, brochures for promotion, NSWCA channels for promotion, perpetual trophies for significant events, newsletters for Club members, insurance, allowing for financial depreciation of assets, subsidies to financially disadvantaged entrants, coaching for juniors in after the game analysis, scoresheets, incorporation fees etc.





Well, thinking about it, the only reason may be if you can't find an affordable venue that allows selling food.


Oops, now you have backed away from your central proposal of 100% distribution of entry fees.
You show flexibility jay_vee. Some might call it flip-flop.

starter

jay_vee
10-06-2004, 08:58 PM
Personally, if there is no volunteer-DOP then I would rather have a tournament and pay a DOP.

Of course then you'd have to pay all other former volunteers as well. I know I wouldn't donate my time if someone else gets payed. If a tournament is so unattractive that it can't even attract an appropriate number of volunteers is it worth running it?


The logical conclusion of your argument then jay-vee is that you are happy to run the tournament with a cap on expenses equal to the money you can make out of donated cakes.
This probably means that you have to exclude web-services for promotion, brochures for promotion, NSWCA channels for promotion, perpetual trophies for significant events, newsletters for Club members, insurance, allowing for financial depreciation of assets, subsidies to financially disadvantaged entrants, coaching for juniors in after the game analysis, scoresheets, incorporation fees etc.

web-services for promotion --> volunteer work
brochures for promotion --> can do without, unless it's just a copied sheet of paper, in which case it's easily paid for from the food money
NSWCA channels for promotion --> I'm not a nswca member, do they actually charge a lot? It would seem to me that the state association channels should be easily accessible for members.
perpetual trophies for significant events --> if a tournament is significant enough, after a few years you have earned enough to afford such a trophy, or some nice person is willing to donate one
newsletters for Club members --> what does that have to do with the tournament? Should be part of the club's services, but why pay it from tournament money?
insurance --> not a problem here (all chess tournaments are covered through the state sports federation), how much would that be?
allowing for financial depreciation of assets --> EDIT: (Whoops, got that one wrong in my first reply.) What you are talking about is the loss in value of materials/equipment you use, right? Well, what equipment is there to use? Chess boards and pieces more or less last an eternity, clocks do too if treated well. Besides, here, this material is usually provided by a book seller, sometimes in return for the right to run a book stall, or put up ad posters. If you don't like that, you could always run a BYO-clock tournament, or rent out clocks for a small fee. The venue itself is not losing too much value, and I have never been charged for that. That leaves the pairing computer and printer. These are usually either owned by the club or are the private property of one of the volunteers. Printing costs are again covered by food money (or are sometimes donated by the volunteer owner), the value loss of the computer is negligible
subsidies to financially disadvantaged entrants --> can do without. If they can afford the travel, they can afford the entry fee.
coaching for juniors in after the game analysis --> volunteer work, if you want it. I've done it myself,
scoresheets --> can easily be payed from selling food, if you don't get a chess book seller to provide them for free in return for an ad on it.
incorporation fees --> you incorporate a tournament? Usually the club is incorporated, and it would be, whether they run the tournament or not. So not a tournament cost, really.



Oops, now you have backed away from your central proposal of 100% distribution of entry fees.
You show flexibility jay_vee. Some might call it flip-flop.

The earth finds me much too attractive for me to be able to do such acrobatic feats as a flip-flop :-). No, I'm quite flexible. And of course, if you don't have a venue, you don't have a tournament, therefore, if you can't find a free or affordable venue you have to decide if you want to back away from the 100%. Personally, if I couldn't find a sponsor for the venue, I'd probably look for something else to invest my time in, but I agree that in this case others might have to reduce the pay-out.

Rincewind
10-06-2004, 09:12 PM
But even then, the bottom, say under-1300, group usually has a wider distribution of ratings than the 1500-1700 group, doesn't it? And the same is true about the open, say over-1900, group at least if a few titled players turn up.

That's true. In fact I have cooled on the idea that the lower half is the 4th quartile is that disadvantaged by the CM format. In fact they are probably better off than under a standard tournament prize model, but not much. The most advantaged are those at the top of the 4th quartile. They have a good chance of winning 1/4 of the total prize fund.

What you say about opens in true but in general the cut off is higher than 1700. Remember the the number 1700 was picked out of the air based on standard distribution of ratings of entrants. However, entrants might not be distributed in that manner.

For example, high rated players might not play due to the smaller slice of pie on offer for their skills. This might lead to a better chance for the bottom half of the top quartile. But without better intelligence, standard distribution seems a reasonable first guess.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2004, 10:46 PM
Why on earth would you pay someone (DOP), if he or somone else is willing to do the job just for the enjoyment he get's out of it? It may well be unLABOUR, but it's smart nevertheless to let the person who isn't asking for money be the DOP.
It may be ok for a club tournament to have a local club member act as DOP.
In fact where this haooens no DOP fee is paid.
However for weekend events and Opens the quality of the DOP is an issue.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2004, 11:03 PM
Of course then you'd have to pay all other former volunteers as well. I know I wouldn't donate my time if someone else gets payed. If a tournament is so unattractive that it can't even attract an appropriate number of volunteers is it worth running it?
Guess that says a lot about you.

I dont get paid for any of my volunteer chess work whether it be for the NSWCA or the ACF. Neither do any of the other NSWCA council members. I dont however begrudge paying DOP's. Good DOP's are worth it.
The DOP is required to have a good knowledge of the rules.
The average player certainly doesnt know them so any casual volunteer isnt satisfactory.
As such the DOP gets paid.

Basically to run a weekender all you need is a venue, equipment, players and a DOP.
Unless you can get a free venue then you need to pay rent for the venue.
The NSWCA owns its own equipment.
Since the players expect the event to be rated then ratings fees have to be paid.
DOP's get paid.
If its a Grand Prix event the GP fee needs to be paid.

All those expenses need to be paid somehow.

If there is no sponsorship it comes out of the entry fee.


Most venues used in NSW have food provided by the facilities at the venue or food is available nearby if you prefer fast food.

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2004, 11:09 PM
For example, high rated players might not play due to the smaller slice of pie on offer for their skills. This might lead to a better chance for the bottom half of the top quartile. But without better intelligence, standard distribution seems a reasonable first guess.
Spot on.
Last year the tournament attracted 38 players.

1 in the 1900's but less than 1950.
4 in the 1800's
4 in the 1700's
8 in the 1600's
3 in the 1500's
3 in the 1400's
6 in the 1300's
5 in the 1200's
2 in the 1100's
2 under 1000

Bill Gletsos
10-06-2004, 11:15 PM
NSWCA channels for promotion --> I'm not a nswca member, do they actually charge a lot? It would seem to me that the state association channels should be easily accessible for members.
The NSWCA does not charge for it.

We do charge for the use of our digital clocks.
$1000 bond + $100 fee paid up front.
If all tournament members are NSWCA members then the fee is only $40.

Rincewind
11-06-2004, 12:06 AM
1 in the 1900's but less than 1950.
4 in the 1800's
4 in the 1700's
8 in the 1600's
3 in the 1500's
3 in the 1400's
6 in the 1300's
5 in the 1200's
2 in the 1100's
2 under 1000

Thanks for that Bill.

Cut-offs of around 1300, 1500 and 1700 look about right but there is an interesting "hollow" in the 1400-1600 range. Also the a truncated tail on the top end of the scale as compared to the bottom. but no more than a 250 point spread is a reasonably good result for the 1st quartile field.

First, second and third being paid in 4 divisions is 12 prizes across 38 players sounds pretty high though. I guess you have to look at the "high 1st prizes attracts stronger players and stronger players in turn attract more players" argument vs the Common Man approach.

Still have to give new tournaments a few years to establish a player base to build on. So it may still provide a rethink on that line of reasoning.

ursogr8
11-06-2004, 09:02 AM
Of course then you'd have to pay all other former volunteers as well. I know I wouldn't donate my time if someone else gets payed.

Well then jay_vee you are the exception in my experience.
I can see plenty of Clubs and events that are successful, and have a mix of paid officials, unpaid volunteers and activities that are out-sourced to a service provider (like a canteen or a book-store, or a coaching service).


If a tournament is so unattractive that it can't even attract an appropriate number of volunteers is it worth running it?

On the contrary jay_vee. A tournament may be so successful that the volunteers would be exhausted running it and it is entirely appropriate to pay DOPs to take that part of the load.




web-services for promotion --> volunteer work

Yes, but, …who pays for the web-hosting charge?



brochures for promotion --> can do without, unless it's just a copied sheet of paper, in which case it's easily paid for from the food money



Ballarat and Doberl and others must smile at you low ambition for field size.




perpetual trophies for significant events --> if a tournament is significant enough, after a few years you have earned enough to afford such a trophy,


But jay_vee, I thought nothing was being earned. I thought that 100% of the prize-money is being distributed.


or some nice person is willing to donate one



So jay_vee, you don’t have a plan to get a trophy, just a HOPE that one emerges eh?



what does that have to do with the tournament? Should be part of the club's services, but why pay it from tournament money?
insurance --> not a problem here (all chess tournaments are covered through the state sports federation), how much would that be?
allowing for financial depreciation of assets --> EDIT: (Whoops, got that one wrong in my first reply.) What you are talking about is the loss in value of materials/equipment you use, right? Well, what equipment is there to use? Chess boards and pieces more or less last an eternity, clocks do too if treated well. Besides, here, this material is usually provided by a book seller, sometimes in return for the right to run a book stall, or put up ad posters. If you don't like that, you could always run a BYO-clock tournament, or rent out clocks for a small fee. The venue itself is not losing too much value, and I have never been charged for that. That leaves the pairing computer and printer. These are usually either owned by the club or are the private property of one of the volunteers. Printing costs are again covered by food money (or are sometimes donated by the volunteer owner), the value loss of the computer is negligible
subsidies to financially disadvantaged entrants --> can do without. If they can afford the travel, they can afford the entry fee.
coaching for juniors in after the game analysis --> volunteer work, if you want it. I've done it myself,
scoresheets --> can easily be payed from selling food, if you don't get a chess book seller to provide them for free in return for an ad on it.
incorporation fees --> you incorporate a tournament? Usually the club is incorporated, and it would be, whether they run the tournament or not. So not a tournament cost, really.


It strikes me jay_vee that you are leveraging off the work of others and aiming for a free ride where ever possible. That is OK. All chess promoters do that to some degree. We do it too.

Just let me know when you have run a tournament for 120 players and still achieved the 100% distribution of entry fees .

starter

PHAT
11-06-2004, 06:12 PM
I believe I shall be there ...

I am under an obligation to play after last year, am I not?

:lol: Defend that title of the commonman's commonman.

PHAT
11-06-2004, 06:46 PM
I use rating bands and put on the entry form that bands can be altered at the organisers' discretion. Typically I fudge them to stop divisions having less than 4 entrants, or if one player is just above or below the intended cutoff with a very large gap to the next up or down.

Your approach is excellent for fairness, but surely you must get someone squealing like a stuck pig that they or another player has been bumped up/down.

What I think Barry needs to accept is that cut-offs are a delicate balance between fairness, openess, practicality and consistancy. As such, it is a bit of a "three bodies solution" [astronomical calcs] - no solution. But we try to approximate fairness, openess, practicality and consistancy. The huge open prizes that are part of the landscape of Australian amateur chess, mean that the only objective met is consistancy of creaming.

PHAT
11-06-2004, 06:56 PM
I dont get paid for any of my volunteer chess work whether it be for the NSWCA or the ACF. Neither do any of the other NSWCA council members. I dont however begrudge paying DOP's. Good DOP's are worth it.

... but good treasurers and ratings officers are not :owned:



The DOP is required to have a good knowledge of the rules.
The average player certainly doesnt know them so any casual volunteer isnt satisfactory. As such the DOP gets paid.

Errrrrrrr. So by that logic, any casual voluteer is an average player.

Further, since when has been being an average player (like 4 out of 5 of NSW usual DOPs !!!) dictate that they are also substandard DOPs?


Basically to run a weekender all you need is a venue, equipment, players and a DOP.
Unless you can get a free venue then you need to pay rent for the venue.
The NSWCA owns its own equipment.
Since the players expect the event to be rated then ratings fees have to be paid.
DOP's get paid.
If its a Grand Prix event the GP fee needs to be paid.

All those expenses need to be paid somehow.

If there is no sponsorship it comes out of the entry fee.


Now for your next stupifying trick, will you tell us all something that, we all don't already know.

Bill Gletsos
11-06-2004, 07:06 PM
... but good treasurers and ratings officers are not :owned:
I didn't say that. I just said DOP's deserved to be paid.




...
Errrrrrrr. So by that logic, any casual voluteer is an average player.

Further, since when has been being an average player (like 4 out of 5 of NSW usual DOPs !!!) dictate that they are also substandard DOPs?
Again thats not what I said.
I said the average player does not know the rules. Therefore they are no good as DOP's.
A good DOP knows the rules. Whether they are a good or average player is immaterial.


Now for your next stupifying trick, will you tell us all something that, we all don't already know.
Well clearly jay-vee did not know it.

As for telling you what you dont know that would be a neverending task, because when it comes to chess you know virtually nothing.

Bill Gletsos
11-06-2004, 07:10 PM
Your approach is excellent for fairness, but surely you must get someone squealing like a stuck pig that they or another player has been bumped up/down.

What I think Barry needs to accept is that cut-offs are a delicate balance between fairness, openess, practicality and consistancy. As such, it is a bit of a "three bodies solution" [astronomical calcs] - no solution. But we try to approximate fairness, openess, practicality and consistancy. The huge open prizes that are part of the landscape of Australian amateur chess, mean that the only objective met is consistancy of creaming.
You just seem to have a problem with rewarding skill. Understandable I suppose when you have none.

Aou are doing is rewarding mediocrity.

PHAT
11-06-2004, 07:15 PM
It may be ok for a club tournament to have a local club member act as DOP.
In fact where this happens no DOP fee is paid.
However for weekend events and Opens the quality of the DOP is an issue.

In my experiance, the following is true in the large majority of chess events. Opens with paid DOPs start very late and finish very late. Club events with unpaid DOPs start on time and end on time. Grade matches with no DOPs, just captains, run very smoothly, because players feel that they are part of the decission making processes.


If a "performance based" payment system was to be introduced for DOPs conducting NSWCA events, we could prolly save $1k+, because we would only have to pay them 20% of the time.

Bill Gletsos
11-06-2004, 07:26 PM
In my experiance, the following is true in the large majority of chess events. Opens with paid DOPs start very late and finish very late. Club events with unpaid DOPs start on time and end on time. Grade matches with no DOPs, just captains, run very smoothly, because players feel that they are part of the decission making processes.
As usual you misrepresent the situation.
Club events are generally much more casual affairs.
With weekenders and Opens the taking of entry fees on the day and the arrival of players often close to the start time causes the delays.
The other problem is often lack of volunteers in setting up the equipment. Very few players actually help in this regard at weekenders. Thats why they start late.
As for finishing late that is normally just due to late finishing games. It goes with the incremental time limits. If you have a long game the round runs longer than expected. Not normally a problem at club events where the host club throws you at at a particular time.


If a "performance based" payment system was to be introduced for DOPs conducting NSWCA events, we could prolly save $1k+, because we would only have to pay them 20% of the time.
Personally I think all of the NSWCA's DOP's earn their money.
However why dont you name the DOP's the NSWCA use that you feel are not worth it.

Garvinator
11-06-2004, 07:35 PM
Opens with paid DOPs start very late and finish very late. Club events with unpaid DOPs start on time and end on time.

part of it does relate to players arriving just on time and then paying on the day, but also i would say part of it has to do with the numbers involved. 80-100 players will take more time to organise than a club event of generally about 30-50 players. The more players- the more chance for something to go wrong. Especially using swissperfect and related system, one little problem with draw and time has to be chewed up trying to identify what the problem is and how to best fix this said problem.

Also another reason days finish late is that everyone has to wait for one long lasting game to actually get a result. I would love to see the day when say round 5 is started for the majority of players just as round 4 is being completed for the players who finished last. This might be a pipe dream, but i think it would shorten, or at least help to shorten, the day for the high majority. The players who finish latest would still get a rest period, but everyone gets to start and get home earlier :D




Grade matches with no DOPs, just captains, run very smoothly, because players feel that they are part of the decission making processes.
I dont agree with this, usually ppl who play in grade matches/interclub, have a fair idea what is going on and how things work. The captains just have to put their board order on a piece of paper and play can begin. Again less numbers, so less things can go wrong.

For your third quote Matt, name names ;)

PHAT
11-06-2004, 07:38 PM
All you are doing is rewarding mediocrity.

Firstly, the Commonman is rewarding comparively good efforts amoung peers.

Second, the tone you have used denigrates the vast majority of our "mediocre" members and is not what a NSWCA President ought to engage in. :evil:

Bill Gletsos
11-06-2004, 09:14 PM
Firstly, the Commonman is rewarding comparively good efforts amoung peers.
In other words it does not reward excellence.


Second, the tone you have used denigrates the vast majority of our "mediocre" members and is not what a NSWCA President ought to engage in. :evil:
I used no tone at all.
I just pointed out you have an issue with rewarding excellence over mediocrity.

Rincewind
11-06-2004, 11:25 PM
What I think Barry needs to accept is that cut-offs are a delicate balance between fairness, openess, practicality and consistancy. As such, it is a bit of a "three bodies solution" [astronomical calcs] - no solution. But we try to approximate fairness, openess, practicality and consistancy. The huge open prizes that are part of the landscape of Australian amateur chess, mean that the only objective met is consistancy of creaming.

Most tournaments announce rating prize ranges a head of time and have arbitrary limits (1400, 1600, 1800 for example). Doeberl and Grade matches runs totally separate competitions. I was just wondering if people had an opinion on whether the CM format might leave certain groups out in the cold.

Sure the entry fee -> prize money equation might be closed for each group but as the pools are intermixed is it fair. The guy who wins the first quartile (for example) may have 3 or 4 games against people from ter quartiles. Whereas 2nd place might have played more. Some people may enter assuming they would fall into one quartile and due to the details of other competitors, actually end up in another. There is also added incentive to sandbag your rating due the effectively larger than normal rating prizes.

All things that need to be considered.

I think you need to get someone of Lagrange's calibre to work on your tournament model for several years before you can start making analogies to the three-body problem. As the saying goes: this isn't rocket science.

Garvinator
11-06-2004, 11:31 PM
As the saying goes: this isn't rocket science.
nah its not rocket science, it much harder than that :p :owned: at least rocket science usually has a clear cut answer at the end :lol: :hand:

Trent Parker
11-06-2004, 11:45 PM
Most tournaments announce rating prize ranges a head of time and have arbitrary limits (1400, 1600, 1800 for example). Doeberl and Grade matches runs totally separate competitions. I was just wondering if people had an opinion on whether the CM format might leave certain groups out in the cold.

In WHATEVER you do certain groups may fee "out in the cold".

Just for the record I am pretty sure that Bob Keast always divides the ratings prizes into 4 divisions accoriding to equal amount of people in each division because I think he believes that this way is fairer compaired to giving set ratings.

(Bob normally DOP's the Fairfield tournaments)

Trent Parker
11-06-2004, 11:53 PM
BTW U1000 could be classed as the common Kid?? :lol:

Bill Gletsos
12-06-2004, 12:09 AM
In WHATEVER you do certain groups may fee "out in the cold".

Just for the record I am pretty sure that Bob Keast always divides the ratings prizes into 4 divisions accoriding to equal amount of people in each division because I think he believes that this way is fairer compaired to giving set ratings.

(Bob normally DOP's the Fairfield tournaments)
Thats true.
But for the unwarey that should not be construed as equal prize money.
e.g in the 2003 fairfiled summer Cup total prizes were advertised as $2500. However $1400 were for the top 3 prizes.
The remainong $1100 was spread over:
Best in Divisions A, B, C, D
Best Fairfield Chess Club Member
Best Junior U18 years
Juniors U15

Rincewind
12-06-2004, 12:00 PM
I see nothing wrong with rating prizes, even if the divisions or the prizes are not known in advance. The difference is everyone is (in theory) in the running for the biggest carrot (open prizes) and the rating prizes are there to encourage and keep interest for those who do well for their rating but not well enough to win.

The common man approach is basically to have four rating prize divisions worth equal value and no open prizes at all. Since the big carrot is removed I think there is more onus on the organisers to publish ahead of time what the rating bands will be. Still, I guess is people are still entering then I might be wrong.

Lucena
13-06-2004, 09:50 PM
Free beer....does that include minors?!

sorry Vaness :naughty:

Trent Parker
13-06-2004, 11:12 PM
Perhaps should be free drinks.... under a certain price tag :lol:

PHAT
14-06-2004, 09:21 PM
Personally I think all of the NSWCA's DOP's earn their money.

However why dont you name the DOP's the NSWCA use that you feel are not worth it.

When you say "it", I presume you mean money - none of them are faultless - but noone is perfect. However, Bob Keast seems to keep closest to the schedueled times.

Perhaps if the NSWCA had a condition of, say, no DOP fee for any start later than 10 minutes we would see them organise the bloody entry process. That goes for the prise giving as well.

FMD, the last round to day should have started at 3:00 but was 15 minutes before a call to start clocks. WHY? All the round 6 games finished before 3:00. Apparently, the pairings were "a bit tricky". :wall:

jenni
14-06-2004, 09:35 PM
FMD, the last round to day should have started at 3:00 but was 15 minutes before a call to start clocks. WHY? All the round 6 games finished before 3:00. Apparently, the pairings were "a bit tricky". :wall:

Swiss Perfect apparently is far from perfect and can come up with some inequitable pairings. A good DOP will try and fix these. By round 7, doing a manual fix on the pairings can be error prone. Probably better to do a good check, rather than read out a wrong draw and then have to reseat everyone.

Incidentally I used to get twitchy about late starts to rounds, but in Crete in 2002, the first round was 5 hours late starting. Since then I've been grateful for our prompt competitions.

ursogr8
14-06-2004, 09:44 PM
Swiss Perfect apparently is far from perfect and can come up with some inequitable pairings. A good DOP will try and fix these. By round 7, doing a manual fix on the pairings can be error prone. Probably better to do a good check, rather than read out a wrong draw and then have to reseat everyone.



The VIC OPEN had 98 players and started on time for every round. The first round pairings were on the notice-board 45 minutes before the first round scheduled time. As far as I am aware there is no fiddling with the SP pairings. Can some-one expand on what are some inequitable pairings. And if they cause a delay to the schedule are they worth the fiddle?

starter

Garvinator
14-06-2004, 09:48 PM
FMD, the last round to day should have started at 3:00 but was 15 minutes before a call to start clocks. WHY? All the round 6 games finished before 3:00. Apparently, the pairings were "a bit tricky". :wall:

I was next to charles while this was going on, mainly to get everyone else away from him while he tried to sort out what the problems were.

I cant say what they were until i have seen the swiss perfect files myself. It would have been a lot quicker process for charles had a nswca council member been there next to charles telling everyone to go away and let him fix it up. :whistle: :hand:

I think part of it was also that as the tournament was fide rated, he was trying to get legal pairings and players for fide rating purposes. I cant guarantee this as a reason,but i do remember charles saying as such to someone.

Garvinator
14-06-2004, 09:52 PM
can we move this across to the nsw open thread plz :lol:

Bill Gletsos
14-06-2004, 11:08 PM
can we move this across to the nsw open thread plz :lol:
I dont see why.
There has been no discussion of DOP fees in the NSW thread.
Its relevant here, not in the NSW Open thread.

Trent Parker
15-06-2004, 12:05 AM
When you say "it", I presume you mean money - none of them are faultless - but noone is perfect. However, Bob Keast seems to keep closest to the schedueled times.

Perhaps if the NSWCA had a condition of, say, no DOP fee for any start later than 10 minutes we would see them organise the bloody entry process. That goes for the prise giving as well.

FMD, the last round to day should have started at 3:00 but was 15 minutes before a call to start clocks. WHY? All the round 6 games finished before 3:00. Apparently, the pairings were "a bit tricky". :wall:

Ultimately it would be excellent to get a chess tournament running on time. However this in reallity is probably near impossible given the umm... whats the word for it?... the spur of the moment nature that some chess players have. Unlike myself (normally). I think to start on time there needs to be a time at which the entries are closed before round 1 is started in order to have enough time to enter details into swiss perfect. Thus giving a higher probability of the tournament starting on time. (although apparently this still didn't stop the NSW Open from starting late on saturday???). One problem for a wekender, i think, is that there is not much time between the opening of the club and the scheduling of the first round. And not much time could be found if it is a 4 round day.... unless you wanted to go till late at night.

Hey BTW Sweeney. Just letting u know that i will definitely be going to commonman regardless of whether Chiddy comes with me. Have u had any other confirmations yet?

Alan Shore
15-06-2004, 08:27 AM
Hey BTW Sweeney. Just letting u know that i will definitely be going to commonman regardless of whether Chiddy comes with me. Have u had any other confirmations yet?

Come for the chess, stay for the beer ;)

Garvinator
15-06-2004, 08:38 AM
I dont see why.
There has been no discussion of DOP fees in the NSW thread.
Its relevant here, not in the NSW Open thread.
was anticipating a big discussion about swiss pairings and how they can be difficult or not. so thought it might have been better to have that in the nsw open thread. but that discussion hasnt occurred yet in this thread ;)

Ian Rout
15-06-2004, 09:06 AM
Matthew can't have it both ways. At Rose Bay the DOP pressed the button and printed the pairings without close checking, handing one player a wrong pairing which, being extremely soft, gave him a free ride to a rating group prize. Matthew complains. At the NSW opening the DOP gave the computer pairings more scrutiny than most witnesses get at Royal Commissions, delaying the start of the round. Matthew complains.

Having said that, I would prefer a more pragmatic middle-of-the-road approach, checking critical pairings and looking for known bugs and obvious errors (such as the Rose Bay incident), and verifying glaring oddities, but accepting the risk of the odd obscure technical error when diminishing marginal returns start to bite. Forensic examination after the event could show for future reference the circumstances where SP might have bugs.

Garvinator
15-06-2004, 09:26 AM
charles actually only took about ten seconds to see a problem and identify it. The solution took a lot longer :doh: part of the problem also was that the tournament was fide rated, so charles was attempted to get players who wanted or had fide ratings, a fide rateable pairing(something like that).

I would rather see the pairings be done right and take a bit longer, than the pairings be done incorrectly and then have a player challenge a pairing and be correct with the challenge.

As i said before, half the problem was that everyone was standing around the dop table asking charles are the pairings out yet. This took him twice as long to do the pairings as his concentration would be broken telling ppl to go away.

Maybe if the two nswca council members that were present were keeping ppl away from charles so he could get the pairings done, we might have started on time at 3pm.

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 10:03 AM
Having said that, I would prefer a more pragmatic middle-of-the-road approach, checking critical pairings and looking for known bugs and obvious errors (such as the Rose Bay incident), and verifying glaring oddities, but accepting the risk of the odd obscure technical error when diminishing marginal returns start to bite. Forensic examination after the event could show for future reference the circumstances where SP might have bugs.

I think I agree with Ian.
While it might sound like providing good service to manipulate the pairings to give 'good FIDE pairings' there are two down-sides to this

> chess players are very argumentative about pairings and if they get changed (from the computer pure solution) then there will always be complaints from a newly aggrieved party,
>> it take time to check and alter without new errors.

We prefer the procedure
* press pair in SP
** press print
*** place pairings on the noticeboard
**** point all complaints to the computer for discussion.

starter

Ian Rout
15-06-2004, 10:06 AM
charles actually only took about ten seconds to see a problem and identify it. The solution took a lot longer :doh: part of the problem also was that the tournament was fide rated, so charles was attempted to get players who wanted or had fide ratings, a fide rateable pairing(something like that).

I would rather see the pairings be done right and take a bit longer, than the pairings be done incorrectly and then have a player challenge a pairing and be correct with the challenge.

As i said before, half the problem was that everyone was standing around the dop table asking charles are the pairings out yet. This took him twice as long to do the pairings as his concentration would be broken telling ppl to go away.

Maybe if the two nswca council members that were present were keeping ppl away from charles so he could get the pairings done, we might have started on time at 3pm.
That's a valid position too, except that I don't believe you can "challenge" a pairing, other than feeling good about being proven right. A mistake in the pairings by the arbiter doesn't invalidate the outcome of a tournament. Just as well, otherwise every pre-SP event would probably have to be expunged from the record.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 11:49 AM
I think I agree with Ian.
While it might sound like providing good service to manipulate the pairings to give 'good FIDE pairings' there are two down-sides to this

> chess players are very argumentative about pairings and if they get changed (from the computer pure solution) then there will always be complaints from a newly aggrieved party,
>> it take time to check and alter without new errors.

We prefer the procedure
* press pair in SP
** press print
*** place pairings on the noticeboard
**** point all complaints to the computer for discussion.

starter
Because of color preference I've seen SP get the pairings wrong on even the top boards. As such a good DOP will check it and not take it as gospel.
In the later rounds this can take a non trivial amount of time.

Just claiming its the computers fault and leaving it at that isnt the way to go.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 03:29 PM
Matthew can't have it both ways. At Rose Bay the DOP pressed the button and printed the pairings without close checking, handing one player a wrong pairing which, being extremely soft, gave him a free ride to a rating group prize. Matthew complains. At the NSW opening the DOP gave the computer pairings more scrutiny than most witnesses get at Royal Commissions, delaying the start of the round. Matthew complains.


Foul!

I did not comment on Rose bay pairings, someone else did. I whined about players being able to play half an event and still claim a rating prise on the strength of being granted two half point byes. I don't think I have ever partaken in any debate over SP pairings at all.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 03:42 PM
charles actually only took about ten seconds to see a problem and identify it. The solution took a lot longer :doh: part of the problem also was that the tournament was fide rated, so charles was attempted to get players who wanted or had fide ratings, a fide rateable pairing(something like that).


Is it ethical to fiddle with the pairings that are generated in accordance with FIDE rules just to get more fide ratable games. I assume that while players would still be playing players with the correct number of points, they would actually be player plaeyers higher/lower that they would have, had the fiddle not occured. Ethical?



Maybe if the two nswca council members that were present were keeping ppl away from charles so he could get the pairings done, we might have started on time at 3pm.

I have no sympathy for DOPs who do not seek my help, and reject my help when it is offered. :p

ursogr8
15-06-2004, 03:46 PM
Because of color preference I've seen SP get the pairings wrong on even the top boards. As such a good DOP will check it and not take it as gospel.
In the later rounds this can take a non trivial amount of time.

Just claiming its the computers fault and leaving it at that isnt the way to go.

Bill
I understand your point of view and I know a lot of players would like to see extraordinary accuracy.
But I would vote instead for a procedure that ensures the timetable is adhered too. And if fiddling with the pairings jeopardizes the timetable then we would stick with 4 p's outlined.
It is a trade-off where we come down on the other side from you. Both views are legitimate.

starter

PHAT
15-06-2004, 03:46 PM
Just claiming its the computers fault and leaving it at that isnt the way to go.

Does this also apply to the questioning of Glicko ratings.

Ian Rout
15-06-2004, 04:28 PM
Foul!

I did not comment on Rose bay pairings, someone else did. I whined about players being able to play half an event and still claim a rating prise on the strength of being granted two half point byes. I don't think I have ever partaken in any debate over SP pairings at all.

Yes, but the effect that you complained about was primarily due not to the player's byes but to him being given a ridiculous pairing in the last round. Had it not been for that, the player would have either not won the prize or would have had to put in a performance that would have would have been more commensurate with the prize.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 04:38 PM
Does this also apply to the questioning of Glicko ratings.
A nice throw away line but as usual totally irrelevant.
Cite an example where I have blamed the computer with regards Glicko ratings.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 05:31 PM
A nice throw away line but as usual totally irrelevant.
Cite an example where I have blamed the computer with regards Glicko ratings.

I cannot and was not saying you do/did blame the Glicko. However, you do no allow others to blaim the Glicko and insist on human intervention. Then you claim human interventionis OK for SP pairings. They are both imperfect programs. But in your eyes, Glicko is close to perfect. Therefore you will noy tolerate any blasphemy against it.

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 06:34 PM
I cannot and was not saying you do/did blame the Glicko. However, you do no allow others to blaim the Glicko and insist on human intervention. Then you claim human interventionis OK for SP pairings. They are both imperfect programs. But in your eyes, Glicko is close to perfect. Therefore you will noy tolerate any blasphemy against it.
Its not the same situation.
At times SP does not do the pairing in accordance with the FIDE rules. Hence the need for human intervention.
A rating system can always be improved, however manual inntervention is really not an option. As for blasphemy against Glicko, I just demand proof that an idea is workable and an actual improvement and not some airy fairy feel good crap.

PHAT
15-06-2004, 07:09 PM
A rating system can always be improved, however manual intervention is really not an option.


Why?

Bill Gletsos
15-06-2004, 08:07 PM
Why?
You are talking about 2000 players per rating period.
As such it isnt practical to manually intervene.
Also manual intervention just leads to dopes making claims of manipulation.

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2004, 04:20 PM
It will be interesting to see how many people play in this, especially non locals as the 9.30am start on the Sunday would mean an early start for those communting even from Sydney. A later start on Sunday would in my opinion have made more sense.

ursogr8
26-06-2004, 04:29 PM
It will be interesting to see how many people play in this, especially non locals as the 9.30am start on the Sunday would mean an early start for those communting even from Sydney. A later start on Sunday would in my opinion have made more sense.

In planning for the recent VIC OPEN we were influenced by argument from highly rated players to start latish in the day. We eventually settled on a noon start. All entrants were in by 11am.
In the evening we had a slight bingle as a dance was held in the adjoining hall; fortunately the time-overlap between the end of the games, and the start of the dance was not too great.
We would re-think next year.

starter

Rincewind
26-06-2004, 04:29 PM
It will be interesting to see how many people play in this, especially non locals as the 9.30am start on the Sunday would mean an early start for those communting even from Sydney. A later start on Sunday would in my opinion have made more sense.

I might drop in tomorrow and have a look. Although not at 9:30 as I'm playing tennis at 8.

Good weather for chess at the moment though.

PHAT
26-06-2004, 09:51 PM
Imagine a tournament where every player won a prize that at least covered their entry fee.

Bill Gletsos
26-06-2004, 10:03 PM
Imagine a tournament where every player won a prize that at least covered their entry fee.
Thats possible in any tournament that has no expenses.
Of course it also means that many of the prize recipients dont deserve a prize.
In fact your special prize fund of $400 would mean you could give 10 prizes of at least the entry fee.

Of course instead of playing these silly games you could just announce how many you got and how many were not locals.

Rincewind
26-06-2004, 11:10 PM
Imagine a tournament where every player won a prize that at least covered their entry fee.

Aren't there laws of conservation that need to be observed?

PHAT
27-06-2004, 12:05 AM
Of course it also means that many of the prize recipients dont deserve a prize.


And who the F are YOU to tell ME who I should or should not give prizes to? As far as I am concerned, anyone who has a go, who actually plays in tournaments, is a winner!! As winners, I reckon a prize is not out of order for the Common Man. Those who did not play but could have, are the true losers.

PHAT
27-06-2004, 12:09 AM
Aren't there laws of conservation that need to be observed?

Only in a closed system. :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
27-06-2004, 12:12 AM
And who the F are YOU to tell ME who I should or should not give prizes to?
I'm as entitled to an opinion just as much as you are you moron.


As far as I am concerned, anyone who has a go, who actually plays in tournaments, is a winner!! As winners, I reckon a prize is not out of order for the Common Man. Those who did not play but could have, are the true losers.
Yes, well you would be an expert at not turning up to things, especially council meetings.

AS for prizes they should be awarded for some sort of achievement.
Just turning up and playing does not qualify.

Of course I find it interesting that you wont announce how many people played.

Rincewind
27-06-2004, 03:24 PM
I might drop in tomorrow and have a look. Although not at 9:30 as I'm playing tennis at 8.

Good weather for chess at the moment though.

Small turn out but very good prize to entrant ratio. There were only 16 entrants but a stong field for the size with Gareth, Bolens, Castor and Jason Chan forming the top quartile. Locals didn't turn out for the tournament unfortunately, only Vaness, Barakat and Nicholson, all of whom play regularly in Sydney/Canberra weekenders. I think I might try to make it next year though. Casting an eye over the boards (and the prize list) made me feel a little disappointed that I decided to give it a miss.

When I left (at the start of round 6) AlexMDC was looking very good with outright first on 4/5 playing Vaness (3.5), Bolens was playing Charles (3.5 each) and Castor (3.5) was playing Nicholson (3).

Bill Gletsos
27-06-2004, 06:23 PM
Small turn out but very good prize to entrant ratio. There were only 16 entrants.
Thats 22 down on last year.

Rincewind
28-06-2004, 12:18 PM
What was the final results of this one? I tried quizzing alexmdc on FICS last night, but he didn't seem to want to talk to me (or maybe he left his machine while waiting for the WCC games to start).

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2004, 12:24 PM
What was the final results of this one? I tried quizzing alexmdc on FICS last night, but he didn't seem to want to talk to me (or maybe he left his machine while waiting for the WCC games to start).
No idea.
Matt was noticably absent at providing any real information regardiing this event at the end of the first day and it appears is continuing in the same vein.

Rincewind
28-06-2004, 12:29 PM
No idea.
Matt was noticably absent at providing any real information regardiing this event at the end of the first day and it appears is continuing in the same vein.

Also with Gareth_Charles, Machiavelli, alexmdc, Candy Cane and tparker all in the field, I would have thought someone would be able to supply some details.

Rincewind
28-06-2004, 12:32 PM
Thats 22 down on last year.

I don't think it was advertised as much this year which is probably the main cause of the much lower turnout. Also the GC Open conflicted but that didn't distract too many Sydneysiders, I think.

Trent Parker
28-06-2004, 12:44 PM
Mr Alexmdc won the tourney!

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2004, 12:44 PM
I don't think it was advertised as much this year which is probably the main cause of the much lower turnout. Also the GC Open conflicted but that didn't distract too many Sydneysiders, I think.
What would appear to be surprisng is the small number of Wollongong locals who bothered to turn up.

Rincewind
28-06-2004, 01:18 PM
What would appear to be surprisng is the small number of Wollongong locals who bothered to turn up.

Last year I played as well as a number of other locals. Going through the report from last year: Erkan, Reid, Cox, Mazzieri, Kanostrevac, Kreznovic, Vujic, Barakat, Nicholson, Hellyer, Wilms, Stojkovski and Gulaboski. Not sure about the junior situation so there might have been a couple of others.

Of these only Reid, Barakat, Nicholson and Hellyer returned this year. Around 1/3 of last year's local field. This is pretty much on par with the field drop off as a whole. I knew about the event but didn't play. I'm pretty sure Erkan, Mazzieri and Kanostrevac also knew about it. Not sure which of the others knew it was on.

Trent Parker
28-06-2004, 01:57 PM
I ended up on 1/7. considering i had a bit of a cold.... and I was lowest rated (except for sweeney, who played in the first round, and an unrated player) I am happy with my performance except for the fact that the games where i had advantages I lost. My results were:
Round
1. Candycane. Lost after being a pawn up with Candycane having a semi exposed king
2. Adrian Miranda. Lost after a long battle. Played a cold (bug) induced blunder in the early middlegame which allowed Adrian to take the pawn.
3. Gary Losh. Gary ended up on the same score as I, but he was no 0/6! In this game I missed a forced mate and ended up mating him whilst being a piece down.
4. Scott Nicholson. Lost to Scott. I played an Alapin french which having a look at a book i have i should have played differently. Had a huge lead in development but fell apart in the middlegame.
5. Anthony keuning. He was late 40 minutes to the table. And in my stupidity I played a little too quickly in the opening in an opening that i am not all that familiar with and he was. (c3 sicillian). I ended up being mated with Mr Keuning having only one minute on the clock left.
6. Gerry Bell. This Guy was the unrated guy. I should have won this game. I was a pawn up and had a strong centre. But I wrongly thought I could simplify into an endgame advantage and ended up losing.
7. I cannot remember who my opponent was in this round. I sacked a bishop for a pawn thinking i could get the bishop back but miscalculated and ended up being down a piece. Still ended up in a tough endgame for him. Hey Matt. Who did I play in this round? I didn't write it down.

PHAT
28-06-2004, 04:51 PM
The smallness of the field was more than made-up for by the congenality of the participants. 1st was Alex Mendes da Costa (1782) who, slayed the opposition 6/7. On the way, he beat the perenial Johny Bolens (2061) and Gareth "Never Draw" Charles (2119) but lost to last years defending champion David Castor (1934), who came outright second on 5.5/7. Jason Chan was third 5/7 after defeat at the hands of Wollongong local, Martin Baraket (1683). Local Junior Vaness Reid won the Junior section. (Full results and cross-table to be posted on Wednesday.)

There were 14 players for the first round and 17 int the following 6 rounds. Matthew Sweeney withdrew without permission when he was given a bye in the 2nd round by some fool software, thus creating an even BYE-free 16 for the remainder of the event. With the help of some extra funds, it was possible to ensure there were 16 prizes for 16 players !! The smallest prize was $40 which was equil to the flat entry fee for all players.

Other reports: During a time scramble, Gareth Charles reminded his opponent Scot Nicholson to press the clock - true sportsmanship. Jason Chan (1978) gave a stack of free coaching to Joe Frias (1416), as compensation for savaging him OTB in round 6. One Junior rang another junior during a round becaus e they knew their mobile was not turned off. Having a real Barry Crocker, Gary Losh went into the last round on 0/6, worried that he would set some kind of record with 0/7, but was able to salvage some dignity by beating unrated and returning chess player Gerry Bell. The first round pairings were posted at 10:25, welcome adress at 10:30 and clocks started at 10:32. All 16 prizes were calculated and the prize giving started <10 minutes after the last game concluded. Free beer (and fizzy) was on 5 minutes after that.

An anomomous survey form was given to all players, asking for positives and negatives for the event. Overwhelming the responses were positive. Most common were: Great atmosphere; pleasent venue, prizes for everyone, cheap food, and the DOP. A few negatives were; SwissImperfect draw for the last round, lack of free caffine, small field and someone's personal hygiene. Noone wrote that the thin flat prize structure (1st $100 2nd$60, in all four rating divisions) was a negative.

The DOP (me) did not have to turn ugly once and will run it again next year, and it may include a Saturday night cheap-eats.

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2004, 04:59 PM
(Full results and cross-table to be posted on Wednesday.)
Why such a long delay in posting the crosstable.


An anomomous survey form was given to all players, asking for positives and negatives for the event. The overwhelming responses were positive. Most common were: Great atmosphere; prizes for everyone, cheap food, and the DOP. A few negatives were; SwissImperfect draw for the last round, lack of free caffine, small field and someone's personal hygiene. Noone wrote that the thin flat prize structure (1st $100 2nd$60, in all four rating divisions) was a negative.
Those sort of surveys can be fairly useless as one would suspect that those that bothered to turn up are happy with the format, prizes etc.
Its the ones that didnt turn up that obviously have a problem with some aspect of the event.

Kevin Bonham
28-06-2004, 05:03 PM
1st was Alex Mendes da Costa (1782) who, slayed the opposition 6/7.

:clap: :clap: :clap:


Matthew Sweeney withdrew without permission when he was given a bye in the 2nd round by some fool software, thus creating an even BYE-free 16 for the remainder of the event.

:lol:


A few negatives were; SwissImperfect draw for the last round

How did it disgrace itself this time? I guess we'll know when you put the crosstable up.

PHAT
28-06-2004, 05:19 PM
Why such a long delay in posting the crosstable.

Software and hardware - What else could it be, ya dill.



Those sort of surveys can be fairly useless ...

A bit like the quote I've quoted.

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2004, 05:24 PM
Software and hardware - What else could it be, ya dill.
Well knowing you it could have been just about anything form stupidity to laziness.



A bit like the quote I've quoted.
I figured you couldnt give an actual intelligent response.

PHAT
28-06-2004, 06:03 PM
I figured you couldnt give an actual intelligent response.

Exactly when did you figure it out - before or after you decided to put schit a survey just because it didn't give results what you want to hear. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2004, 06:07 PM
Exactly when did you figure it out - before or after you decided to put schit a survey just because it didn't give results what you want to hear. :hand:
That is where you are just being a moron.
I dont care about your damn survey.
I'm just pointing out why it is flawed.

PHAT
28-06-2004, 09:20 PM
I'm just pointing out why it is flawed.

Why? Does it make you feel better to do so? Or perhaps you are preparing the way to say something constructive ... I won't hold my breath.

Bill Gletsos
28-06-2004, 10:37 PM
Why? Does it make you feel better to do so? Or perhaps you are preparing the way to say something constructive ... I won't hold my breath.
Well we woulnt want anyone to be misled by you now would we.

As for constructive I thought it was obvious what you should do.

You should find out from your club mates why they ignored the event this year.

PHAT
29-06-2004, 03:48 PM
As for constructive I thought it was obvious what you should do.

ummm, I thought that what I should do is report the facts and act on them. On the other hand, you seem to think that what I should do is go for a quantity tournament rather than a quality tournament. One quarter of the players were >1900 and players enjoyed their chess and the company.


You should find out from your club mates why they ignored the event this year.

Since the mid 1990s Wollongong players have been extremely reluctant to play in any Wollongong weekenders - check the records. They each have their unconvincing excuses and yet we have 20 players every Tuesday night. Neither John Mazzieri nor I know the reason for this chronic contrast in participation. So you getting up me is gratuitous.

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2004, 04:21 PM
ummm, I thought that what I should do is report the facts and act on them. On the other hand, you seem to think that what I should do is go for a quantity tournament rather than a quality tournament. One quarter of the players were >1900 and players enjoyed their chess and the company.
With only 16 players then one quarter(4) is not really signiificant.
As for quality over quantity it might be relevant if you actualy had some titled players participating.



Since the mid 1990s Wollongong players have been extremely reluctant to play in any Wollongong weekenders - check the records. They each have their unconvincing excuses and yet we have 20 players every Tuesday night. Neither John Mazzieri nor I know the reason for this chronic contrast in participation. So you getting up me is gratuitous.
Well when it comes to gratuitiously getting up people you would be an expert as you do it all the time.
However in this particular case I did not think I was getting up you at all.
I was just suggesting that you should be determining why your local numbers were so small.

arosar
29-06-2004, 04:37 PM
I was just suggesting that you should be determining why your local numbers were so small.

No you weren't. You just luurrve to argue. Thanks for the laughs anyways...

AR

Rincewind
29-06-2004, 04:40 PM
Since the mid 1990s Wollongong players have been extremely reluctant to play in any Wollongong weekenders - check the records. They each have their unconvincing excuses and yet we have 20 players every Tuesday night. Neither John Mazzieri nor I know the reason for this chronic contrast in participation. So you getting up me is gratuitous.

I think it is a matter of habit. Wollongong players are not used to there being any local weekenders. There being only one or two provided insufficient impetus to change habit (at least immediately). Therefore it is difficult to compete with other weekend activities (most local chess players not being one dimensional).

Therefore the local participation is limited to those players who do travel regularly weekenders and appreciate the home ground advantage (and lower logistical expense).

I think higher local participation last year was due partially to novelty, partially to support a new event and mostly to a good deal of advertising and cajolery. I think local participation could be increased next year with a good deal more of the last. ;)

PHAT
29-06-2004, 06:20 PM
With only 16 players then one quarter(4) is not really signiificant.


Actually, Bill, a quick chi^2 shows 4 out of 16 players >1900 is significant at the 0.999 level.



As for quality over quantity it might be relevant if you actualy had some titled players participating.


... and the presetigous 2004 NSW Open, offering 1st $1000, was a success with 1 master out of 82 players (major + minor)?

Furthermore, NSWCA took $4000+ and paid $3600, I think, = 90% payback. By comparison, we payed 1st $100, took $640 and payed $1040 = 160% payback. Pound for pound The Common Man makes NSWCA events look schithouse. So, don't put schit on the Common Man, f...er.

Garvinator
29-06-2004, 06:36 PM
Furthermore, NSWCA took $4000+ and paid $3600, I think, = 90% payback. By comparison, we payed 1st $100, took $640 and payed $1040 = 160% payback. Pound for pound The Common Man makes NSWCA events look schithouse. So, don't put schit on the Common Man, f...er.
ok then next time run the commom man concept with the same size as the nsw open paying out the same prizemoney etc

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2004, 08:00 PM
Actually, Bill, a quick chi^2 shows 4 out of 16 players >1900 is significant at the 0.999 level.
No one would consider > 1900 a definition of a strong field.
Try 2200 or maybe 2100.
At > 2200 you had 0. At > 2100 had 1. Thats 0% and 6.25% respectively.


... and the presetigous 2004 NSW Open, offering 1st $1000, was a success with 1 master out of 82 players (major + minor)?
If you are only counting the first prize in the Open then you should only count the number of players in the Open which was 52.
If you want to count the minor then it had its own seperate 1st prize of $600 so the combined first prizes are $1600.
There were 17 players over 1900. That 32.69% if you use 52 and 20.73% if you use 82.
There were 11 over 2100. Thats 21.15% if you use 52 and 11.41% if you use 82.
There were 8 over 2200. That is 15.38% if you use 52 and 9.76% if you use 82.

No matter how you look at it your event was extremly weak at the top by comparison.


Furthermore, NSWCA took $4000+ and paid $3600, I think, = 90% payback.
Wrong as usual and considering you received Norm's financial report on the event have no excuse for getting it wrong. Maybe you never bothered to read it.

Entry Fees totalled $5260. Expenses were $1023.50
We paid $4815 in total prizes for the Open and the U1600 Divisions, which was 91% of entry fees and 113.7% of available funds after expenses.



By comparison, we payed 1st $100, took $640 and payed $1040 = 160% payback. Pound for pound The Common Man makes NSWCA events look schithouse. So, don't put schit on the Common Man, f...er.
As usual you show you cannot carry on a conversation without using the f word.

Now your "by comparison" is not accurate because we had expenses you didnt.

Firstly you did not have to pay any GP fees($314), FIDE rating fees($220) or arbiters fees($330).
We also have ACF Admin fees of $139.50.
Are you going to ACF rate the event? If so how are you funding the ACF Admin fee?
It is obvious the amount paid to the respective arbiters was in line with what they were worth based on skill, knowledge and experience.

Finally $200 of your prize fund came from a donation from the NSWCA to offset any impact the 6th round of the NSW Masters and the CJS Purdy event running on the Sunday evening may have had on your entrants. (I believe it had no impact.)

PHAT
29-06-2004, 10:30 PM
No one would consider > 1900 a definition of a strong field.
Try 2200 or maybe 2100.


No thanks. All things are relative. since it was a small field, it is a bit hard to ask that we have half a player of 2200 and a quarter at 2300. So, your sugestion is silly.



If you are only counting the first prize in the Open then you should only count the number of players in the Open which was 52.

Wrong. Event had 82 (+the special Womens' Open) so lets talk about the total number of people who came and played. The fact the there were two fields, effectively made it only a split swiss.


If you want to count the minor then it had its own seperate 1st prize of $600 so the combined first prizes are $1600.

Total garbage logic. It cannot be seen as $1600 becuse , you schiester, nobody can actually win $1600 as a first prize. The max was $1000.



There were 17 players over 1900. That ... 20.73% if you use 82.

Less than our 25%


No matter how you look at it your event was extremly weak at the top by comparison.

Surely you cannot believe this crap you are writing.



Wrong as usual and considering you received Norm's financial report on the event have no excuse for getting it wrong. Maybe you never bothered to read it.

Dead right. I was wondering when the public publication of the balance sheet was going to be posted. Or maybe you don't recall that NSWCA meeting where it was agreed that such info be published. But hey, who cares about transparency when you can just get rid of an honest broker.


Entry Fees totalled $5260. Expenses were $1023.50
We paid $4815 in total prizes for the Open and the U1600 Divisions, which was 91% of entry fees and 113.7% of available funds after expenses.

[yawwwn] No player gives a flying fornication about your expenses. 91% payback is the bottom line. I estimated 90%, so shoot me.


As usual you show you cannot carry on a conversation without using the f word.

So? I choose to, - not, I have no choice but too. So FOC.



Now your "by comparison" is not accurate because we had expenses you didnt.

Firstly you did not have to pay any GP fees($314), FIDE rating fees($220) or arbiters fees($330).
We also have ACF Admin fees of $139.50.
Are you going to ACF rate the event? If so how are you funding the ACF Admin fee?

Again, no player cares what your expenses are. You should run your events in such a way that either you minimise your expenses or get them paid for through a third party. The bottom line is 91% Vs. 162% payback.



It is obvious the amount paid to the respective arbiters was in line with what they were worth based on skill, knowledge and experience.

Yep reeeeal obvious. We started on time and had a prize giving almost imeadiately after the last game finished. And I achieved this with out provoking any players to threaten to break my neck.


Finally $200 of your prize fund came from a donation from the NSWCA to offset any impact the 6th round of the NSW Masters and the CJS Purdy event running on the Sunday evening may have had on your entrants. (I believe it had no impact.)

So dude, are you admitting to throwing away $200 of NSWCA members' money to act as nothing more than a ex gratia silencer donation. You are more stupid than I ever imagined. Keep digging that hole - you may need to share it with some other councilers.

Garvinator
29-06-2004, 10:50 PM
Yep reeeeal obvious. We started on time and had a prize giving almost imeadiately after the last game finished. And I achieved this with out provoking any players to threaten to break my neck.
you are kidding right, no one could be so completely stupid and inept in debating a topic as you are with this point. How is enforcing the rules as they are written provoking a player? Maybe your way is to just ignore the rules. Again I point out that you didnt nothing to help charles during round six and seven, that is a council members responsibility, to allow the dop to do their job and to keep players away when the dop is trying to do his/her job.

By the way, it is my understanding that this is not the first time that this player concerned has ended up in trouble for similar reasons. I guess your solution is to just ignore it and hope it goes away. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2004, 11:14 PM
No thanks. All things are relative. since it was a small field, it is a bit hard to ask that we have half a player of 2200 and a quarter at 2300. So, your sugestion is silly.
Small field is an understatement.



Wrong. Event had 82 (+the special Womens' Open) so lets talk about the total number of people who came and played. The fact the there were two fields, effectively made it only a split swiss.



Total garbage logic. It cannot be seen as $1600 becuse , you schiester, nobody can actually win $1600 as a first prize. The max was $1000.
You cannot have it both ways. Its either $1000 with a 52 field or $1600 with a 82 because with the 82 field there is effectively two first prizes.


Less than our 25%
Yes but your 1900 metric is useless. Of coursre for someone of your rating I can imagine why you would consider it immense.


Surely you cannot believe this crap you are writing.
You are the only one sprouting crap.
Your event was weak.



Dead right. I was wondering when the public publication of the balance sheet was going to be posted. Or maybe you don't recall that NSWCA meeting where it was agreed that such info be published.
You should check your meeting minutes.
No such motion was passed.


But hey, who cares about transparency when you can just get rid of an honest broker.
If you are referring to yourself you contribution whilst on Council was zip.


[yawwwn] No player gives a flying fornication about your expenses.
Then that just shows what a total moron you are.



So? I choose to, - not, I have no choice but too. So FOC.
It just confirms what an abolute joke you are.
You cannot debate without using foul language.



Again, no player cares what your expenses are. You should run your events in such a way that either you minimise your expenses or get them paid for through a third party. The bottom line is 91% Vs. 162% payback.
When you can get 82 to a tournamnt then you can criticise how we run the event.


Yep reeeeal obvious. We started on time
Would have been difficult not to with only 16 players.


and had a prize giving almost imeadiately after the last game finished.
Again fairly easy with only 16 players.


And I achieved this with out provoking any players to threaten to break my neck.
More a case of good luck than good management.



So dude, are you admitting to throwing away $200 of NSWCA members' money to act as nothing more than a ex gratia silencer donation.
I am admitting no such thing.
Some of us on Council believed that getting the NSW Masters & CJS Purdy event up and running during May, June & July was important.
However by doing so it was considered it might have some impact on some non sydney events. Therefore we decided to donate to a couple of them.


You are more stupid than I ever imagined. Keep digging that hole - you may need to share it with some other councilers.
You as usual speak for no one.
You contributed nothing all year to the NSWCA.

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2004, 11:17 PM
ok then next time run the commom man concept with the same size as the nsw open paying out the same prizemoney etc
Dont hold your breath.
Matt contributed nothing to the debate about the NSW Open when it was being discussed by Council between April & June.

Bill Gletsos
29-06-2004, 11:23 PM
you are kidding right, no one could be so completely stupid and inept in debating a topic as you are with this point.
You dont want to bet on that. ;)



How is enforcing the rules as they are written provoking a player? Maybe your way is to just ignore the rules.
I would suggest that Matt has never had the likes of those players to deal with in a tournament hence he has no idea what he is talking about.
Then again what else is new.


Again I point out that you didnt nothing to help charles during round six and seven, that is a council members responsibility, to allow the dop to do their job and to keep players away when the dop is trying to do his/her job.
Sounds like Matt's time on Council.


By the way, it is my understanding that this is not the first time that this player concerned has ended up in trouble for similar reasons.
Yes, I believe the last time was at an Australian Rapid play at Hakoah.


I guess your solution is to just ignore it and hope it goes away. :hand:
He would probably criticise the organiser for admitting them in the first place. :hand:

Garvinator
29-06-2004, 11:31 PM
Dont hold your breath.

i wasnt, i can assure you, more likely that i wouldnt waste my breath waiting. :whistle:

Kevin Bonham
30-06-2004, 01:41 AM
Actually, Bill, a quick chi^2 shows 4 out of 16 players >1900 is significant at the 0.999 level.

Significant compared to what?

Rincewind
30-06-2004, 02:40 AM
Significant compared to what?

I think Matt means a signficant proportion of the field was over 1900 but if this means anything practical-wise is debatable. It certainly attracted a few stronger players than last year like Gareth and Johnny but as compared to tournies like the NSW Open, I'll leave that exercise for the interested reader.

Ian Rout
30-06-2004, 09:05 AM
Dead right. I was wondering when the [b]public publication of the balance sheet was going to be posted.


Since this is the last day of the financial year it is only slightly off-topic for it to be noted that the document you two are squabbling about is probably not a balance sheet. A balance sheet is a statement of your assets and liabilities, which is not applicable to most tournaments.

A statement of revenue and expenses, which is probably what you mean, appears to go under various names. Where I work we refer to it internally as the Operating Statement but the accountants seems to like to call it the Profit and Loss Statement (or just P&L when they talk to each other).

ursogr8
30-06-2004, 09:24 AM
....
a good deal of advertising and cajolery. I think local participation could be increased next year with a good deal more of the last. ;)

Baz

Yes. Cajolery is a good tactic.
The VICOPEN organisers commissioned a strong player (actually the guru on the Fischer_Random game) to ring all the strong players in the Melbourne area and invite them personally to the OPEN week-ender. Followed up by a personal brochure through the mail.

starter

Garvinator
30-06-2004, 10:17 AM
A statement of revenue and expenses, which is probably what you mean, appears to go under various names. Where I work we refer to it internally as the Operating Statement but the accountants seems to like to call it the Profit and Loss Statement (or just P&L when they talk to each other).

im just used to it being called a tournament budget statement.

Bill Gletsos
30-06-2004, 11:13 AM
Since this is the last day of the financial year it is only slightly off-topic for it to be noted that the document you two are squabbling about is probably not a balance sheet. A balance sheet is a statement of your assets and liabilities, which is not applicable to most tournaments.

A statement of revenue and expenses, which is probably what you mean, appears to go under various names. Where I work we refer to it internally as the Operating Statement but the accountants seems to like to call it the Profit and Loss Statement (or just P&L when they talk to each other).
You are correct.
However I was more interested in pointing out that no such motion was moved or passed irrespective of what Matt called it.

Lucena
30-06-2004, 02:53 PM
During a time scramble, Gareth Charles reminded his opponent Scot Nicholson to press the clock - true sportsmanship..

Hehe. Careful Matthew. I can indulge in the odd bit of gamesmanship as well too: When Bolens started Macchiavelli's clock 2 minutes before he sat down at the board (at a point when it was not completely clear whether clocks were in fact meant to be started), I was unimpressed. A couple of rounds later when I was paired with Bolens, and heard the announcement that games could start, I took some satisfaction in racing to the board and starting his clock about 2 minutes before he arrived. I was amused(but by no means surprised) to see that he protested strongly, but he shut up when I pointed out sternly he had done the same thing to Macchiavelli! What's more, I beat Bolens...on time :D. (his position by that time was already lost)

If I have time over the next couple of days I might post some of my games or at least parts of them.

Rincewind
30-06-2004, 03:09 PM
If I have time over the next couple of days I might post some of my games or at least parts of them.

I was looking at that Bolens game and would be interested to see it either annotated or not. Particularly how did you solve the problem of Bolens N on b5 threatening c7. From memory Bolens was threatening c4 hitting your N off d5 and your a6 wasn't as effective as the R on a8 was undefended and the pawn on a6 was pinned.

Lucena
30-06-2004, 03:27 PM
I was looking at that Bolens game and would be interested to see it either annotated or not. Particularly how did you solve the problem of Bolens N on b5 threatening c7. From memory Bolens was threatening c4 hitting your N off d5 and your a6 wasn't as effective as the R on a8 was undefended and the pawn on a6 was pinned.

Yes his response to that was to move the Knight! I have no idea why he moved it as the pawn was pinned, you're quite right. My reason for playing a6 was mainly so he couldn't take on a7(or at least think about taking on a7), not to threaten the knight(which I wasn't doing). Anyway so I don't tantalise people further I'll have to post the game in question tonight-have to go now.

PHAT
30-06-2004, 05:45 PM
Significant compared to what?

:lol: OK OK. It is a little dodgy. I looked at the percentage of players above 1900. http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm. 10% are, so the expected number in 16 players was 1.6, actual was 4, degrees of freedom 16.

Yes, I know that the best theoretical expected, should be gleened from a huge number of tounament records, but the ranges found on the ratings list suffices as a close approximatation.

Rincewind
30-06-2004, 08:32 PM
:lol: OK OK. It is a little dodgy. I looked at the percentage of players above 1900. http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm. 10% are, so the expected number in 16 players was 1.6, actual was 4, degrees of freedom 16.

Yes, I know that the best theoretical expected, should be gleened from a huge number of tounament records, but the ranges found on the ratings list suffices as a close approximatation.

You should be waving your hands around :banana: (1001 emoticons and this is the closest they have to hand waving) when making statements like that. :)

It ain't necessarily so. Is it not reasonable to assume the rating and tournament participation to be correlated? IE Higher rated players generally play in more tournaments then lower rated players. It may not be true, but the argument for the null hypothesis is not convincing.

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2004, 12:51 AM
:lol: OK OK. It is a little dodgy. I looked at the percentage of players above 1900. http://www.auschess.org.au/ratings/acfrate.htm. 10% are, so the expected number in 16 players was 1.6, actual was 4, degrees of freedom 16.


I still don't get .999, I only get weakly significant (.023 as a one-tailed). Given the reservation Barry mentioned, Bill's comment:


With only 16 players then one quarter(4) is not really signiificant.

is looking pretty good to me.

Lucena
01-07-2004, 02:04 AM
And here's the position from the Bolens game Barry was talking about. His next move was Nc3, I thought c4 was strong. At the end he was very low on time. He spent ages on Kg2 for some reason. At this point although he lost on time White is also in a real mess in the position on the board.

1.Nc3 Bd6 2.Ne4 Bxg3 3.hxg3 b6 4.Ne5 Bb7 5.Qh5 f6 6.Nf3 e5 7.Rfe1 Qd7 8.Re2 Rae8 9.Rae1 c5 10.Qh4 Ne7 11.Nc3 Nf5 12.Qh3 Bc8 13.Re4 Qf7 14.Qh2 Bb7 15.Ra4 b5 16.Ra5 Qc7 17.Ra2 Bxf3 18.gxf3 Nd4 {and White lost on time then played}19.Kg2

PS I was Black

Lucena
02-07-2004, 03:08 PM
This is a position I got as Black versus Jason Chan. He was in pretty bad time shortage so I thought I could try some tricks...He probably could draw around move 8 by waiting for Kf4, then he goes passive with Ke2 and if Kg3 then Kf1.

1.h3 b5 2.Bb3 Bb6 3.a4 Bxf2 4.axb5 cxb5 5.Bd5 Be1 6.Bc6 Bxb4 7.Bxb5 Kf5 8.g3 Be1 9.Bd7+ Kg5 10.f4+ Kh5 11.g4+ Kh4 12. Ke2 Bc3 13.Kf3 Kxh3 14.Bc6 g5 15.f5 a5 16.Ba4 h5 17.gxh5 g4+ 18.Ke2 g3 19.Bc6 g2{ and White resigned}


Btw it's funny how many contributors to this board I played in the tournament: Alexmdc, Jason Chan (correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he posts on this board from time to time), Candy-Cane, Machiavelli. I didn't play Matthew or Trent though.

Lucena
02-07-2004, 03:49 PM
Here's my game vs Alex-after making a shocking error in the opening where I missed the clear win of a pawn, we got the following position. I thought after his Nde3, b3 was strong(if Nc2 moves, then Nd4 is very good for Black), but I didn't realise 3.Qxc6 was so strong in the continuation-a piece of good judgement by Alex. At the end I blundered the rook in time trouble and an already lost position.

Alexmdc-Garethbcharles

1.Nde3 b3 2.Qxd6 bxc2 3.Qxc6 cxd1=Q+ 4.Rxd1 Ra6 5.Qxc5 Qb6 6.Qxb6 Rxb6 7.b3 Be6 8.Nd5 Rb7 9.Rb1 Rfb8 10.Kf2 Kf8 11.Ke3 a4 12.Bd1 Ke8 13.Kd2 Kd7 14.Kc3 axb3 15.axb3 Ra7 16.b4 Ra2 17.Bc2 f5 18.Kb3 Ra7 19.b5 fxe4 20.fxe4 Kd6 21.Kb4 Bxd5 22.exd5 Rc8 23.Bb3 e4 24.Rc1 e3 25.c5+ Ke5 26.Bc4 Kd4 27.Re1 Rxc5 28.Rd1+{and White soon won}

Lucena
02-07-2004, 04:20 PM
alexmdc-A. Keuning:

After going one (I think) pawn down for what didn't seem like a lot of compensation, Anthony Keuning staged a tremendous fightback against Alex in the last round to reach a winning position. Unfortunately he did not have a lot of time at the end, overlooked that he had a mate in one, then got mated himself.

1.Kh3 Be6+ 2.Kh4 Rg4+ 3. Kh3 Rg1+ 4. Kh4 Rxc1 {Rh2#} 5.Bc3 Rg2{ I'm pretty sure this or Rg1 was the move played} 6. Ra8+ Kh7 7.Rh8

Bill Gletsos
02-07-2004, 04:26 PM
Move 7 should be Rh8#

Lucena
02-07-2004, 04:33 PM
Move 7 should be Rh8#

fixed it now. One or two more games to come later.

Trent Parker
03-07-2004, 12:13 AM
I might put some of my not so good games up for analysis tomorrow or sunday or when i put them into fritz :)

Lucena
05-07-2004, 04:56 PM
Garethbcharles-Machiavelli

1.Nd5 Nxd5 2.cxd5 Qb7 3.Bxg7 Kxg7 4.Rfc1 Rc8 5.Rc3 b5 6.a5 b4 7.Qd4+ Kg8 8.Rb3 Rab8 9.Ra4 Qc7 10.Raxb4 Rxb4 11.Rxb4 Qxa5 12.Rb7 Re8{ I thought now White must have an advantage but it is not so easy to prove}13.b4 Qa3 14.Kh2 f6 15.Qb6{Ra7 is a better move I think. Black should then play Qa4 I think when after Qc4 best is Qb5 when White can win a pawn but it looks pretty hard to win} Qa1 16.Qc6 Kf8 17.Qc4 Qb2 18.Kg3{ steinitz would be proud} g5 19.Rc7 Qd2 20.f3 Qf4+ 21.Kf2 Qd2+ 22.Kg1 Qe3+ 23.Kh1 Kf7 24.Qxa6 Qe1+ 25.Kh2 Qxb4 26.Rc8{ and the game was eventually drawn}

skip to my lou
05-07-2004, 06:36 PM
Please do not use PGNFEN tags anymore. It will be discontinued soon. Instead use:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=919

Bill Gletsos
05-07-2004, 08:25 PM
Please do not use PGNFEN tags anymore. It will be discontinued soon. Instead use:

http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=919
What effect if any will it being discontinued have on existing posts that currently use it.

skip to my lou
05-07-2004, 08:33 PM
No effect, All PGNFEN will be replaced with the current system.

alexmdc
07-07-2004, 04:21 PM
I was asked to post this game, so here we go:

Mendes da Costa,A (1782) - Bolens,J (2061) [B40]
Comman Man Wollongong (5.1), 27.06.2004

1.e4 e6 2.d4 c5 3.Nf3 b6 4.c4 Bb7 5.Nc3 Na6 6.d5 d6 7.dxe6 fxe6 8.Ng5 Nc7 9.Qa4+ Ke7 10.f4 h6 11.Nf3 Kf7 12.Bd3 Ne7 13.0-0 Nc6 14.Be3 Be7 15.Rad1 Rf8 16.Bb1 Kg8 17.e5 Ne8 18.Qc2 Rf5 19.g4 Nb4 20.Qe2 Rf7 21.a3 Bxf3 22.Qxf3 Na6 23.Qe4 g6 24.Qxg6+ Rg7 25.Qxe6+ Kf8 26.Ne4 Qc8 27.Qxc8 Rxc8 28.exd6 1-0

I think Bolens played a particularly bad opening, since all the time he wasted having to castle manually I managed to just develop and get a nice position in the mean time.

In the final position his flag fell, but he's losing a piece anyway.

Also, is Matt going to post a crosstable at any time??

Candy-Cane
09-07-2004, 05:24 PM
hey don't where to ask this but how come my June rating went from 1634 to 1637 in the same rating period? It first came out as 1634 then changed to 1637. Why is that?

skip to my lou
09-07-2004, 08:01 PM
hey don't where to ask this but how come my June rating went from 1634 to 1637 in the same rating period? It first came out as 1634 then changed to 1637. Why is that?

Probably Bill updated the ratings. Why are you complaining about it anyway? :hmm: :ogre:

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 08:02 PM
hey don't where to ask this but how come my June rating went from 1634 to 1637 in the same rating period? It first came out as 1634 then changed to 1637. Why is that?
Hi Vaness,

It took me a second to remeber why.

A player Farshid Sabodri was added to file in March 2004.
You played him in the 2003 Fairfield Summer Cup which was rated in March 2004.
Now the NSW ratings officer added a Farsid Saboori to file in June 2004. You played him in the 2004 Anzac Day Weekender.

Your original 1634 rating was based on them being two different players. :whistle:

However Saboori (the correct spelling) is actually the same player as Sabodri(incorrect spelling). :doh:
So I removed the addition of the new player Saboori from the June additions file, created a change record for the player Sabodri to rename him as Saboori and corrected his id number in the Anzac Day weekender SP file.
I then reran the June ratings and you got a new rating of 1637. :owned:

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 08:04 PM
Probably Bill updated the ratings. Why are you complaining about it anyway? :hmm: :ogre:
I didnt take it she was complaing, but rather just being inquisitive and naturally curious.

skip to my lou
09-07-2004, 08:07 PM
I didnt take it she was complaing, but rather just being inquisitive and naturally curious.

Probably. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to complain about an increase in their rating anyway?

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 08:27 PM
Probably. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to complain about an increase in their rating anyway?
I've only ever had one person twice question their rating increasing in two seperate circumstances and I would never refer to them as stupid.
In one case Graham and I agreed with them not to increase it and in the other case we disagreed.

skip to my lou
09-07-2004, 08:29 PM
The same person complained more than once eh... :hmm:

Alan Shore
09-07-2004, 08:44 PM
Probably. I don't think anyone is stupid enough to complain about an increase in their rating anyway?

How about if your rating went from 1999 to 2001? No longer eligible for U2000 prizes or Grand Prix - now there's a definite instance that could be queried.

I see Kerry Stead (multiple U2000 Grand prix winner) has kept is rating under 2000 despite the 70 pt increase :P

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 08:46 PM
The same person complained more than once eh... :hmm:
I was very deliberate in my wording.
I never used the word complained.
I said questioned.
There is a considerable difference between the two.

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 08:49 PM
How about if your rating went from 1999 to 2001? No longer eligible for U2000 prizes or Grand Prix - now there's a definite instance that could be queried.
Actually it would only need to go from 1999 to 2000 to be ineligible for the U2000 prize.


I see Kerry Stead (multiple U2000 Grand prix winner) has kept is rating under 2000 despite the 70 pt increase :P
Yeah my mate Kerry's play went backwards there for awhile and was relected by his rating.
Obviously due to too much chess admin.

skip to my lou
09-07-2004, 08:52 PM
sorry, Questioned, then.

Alan Shore
09-07-2004, 09:00 PM
Actually it would only need to go from 1999 to 2000 to be ineligible for the U2000 prize.

Really!?!?! My goodness, thankyou Bill for sharing the meaning if the word UNDER with me! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

But I guess you were only trying to help, thanks anyway. :P

Garvinator
09-07-2004, 09:05 PM
Actually it would only need to go from 1999 to 2000 to be ineligible for the U2000 prize. oh dear, are you sure about this, ill have to go back and rip up all my calculations and do them again for 2004 gp points
:P :lol: :whistle:

Bill Gletsos
09-07-2004, 09:14 PM
Really!?!?! My goodness, thankyou Bill for sharing the meaning if the word UNDER with me! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Well since it appeared you specifically picked 1999 and 2001 in your example it was not obvious you realised that.

I actually know from experience that it isnt apparently obvious to everyone.


But I guess you were only trying to help, thanks anyway. :P
Exactly.
If I had been having a go at you then believe me you would have known. ;)

Lucena
09-07-2004, 09:31 PM
having a go at you then believe me you would have known. ;)
:D

Trent Parker
13-07-2004, 11:46 PM
Hey sweeney.
That "unrated" guy, Gerry Bell, I think may have had a rating except for that it had an ?? attached.

I decided to punch in his name into Barry's calculator and it returned a rating for him.... Same man I presume??

Bill Gletsos
14-07-2004, 12:03 AM
Hey sweeney.
That "unrated" guy, Gerry Bell, I think may have had a rating except for that it had an ?? attached.

I decided to punch in his name into Barry's calculator and it returned a rating for him.... Same man I presume??
Nope.
There is a Gerry V Bell from Vic rated with a ??. It appears Barry's calculator gave you him.
The Gerry Bell from NSW is as yet unrated.

Trent Parker
14-07-2004, 12:10 AM
oh ok thanks Bill

PHAT
14-07-2004, 09:27 AM
Hey sweeney.
That "unrated" guy, Gerry Bell, I think may have had a rating except for that it had an ?? attached.

I decided to punch in his name into Barry's calculator and it returned a rating for him.... Same man I presume??

Gee, I was hoping it was going to turn turn out to be 1900+ :lol:

Bill Gletsos
01-08-2004, 06:27 PM
Given over 6 months you did nothing on the NSWCA Council I guess it was expecting a bit much that you mig actually have submitted this event which finished just on 5 weeks ago to have been submitted for rating.

If you want this tournament rated I suggest you send it ASAP to the NSW Ratings Officer.

PHAT
02-08-2004, 05:32 AM
Given over 6 months you did nothing on the NSWCA Council I guess it was expecting a bit much that you mig actually have submitted this event which finished just on 5 weeks ago to have been submitted for rating.

If you want this tournament rated I suggest you send it ASAP to the NSW Ratings Officer.

The SP files are on JM's laptop with all the other Wollongong club SP files. I s'pose it was accidently overlooked when JM sent in the Wollongong files. But that's OK you can blaim me totally if it makes you feel better. :hand:

Bill Gletsos
02-08-2004, 07:04 PM
The SP files are on JM's laptop with all the other Wollongong club SP files. I s'pose it was accidently overlooked when JM sent in the Wollongong files. But that's OK you can blaim me totally if it makes you feel better. :hand:
Well you were the DOP and apparent main organiser of the tournament.
The responsability is therefore clearly yours and not JM's.

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2004, 12:03 AM
Since expecting the organiser to actually ever post this seems a forlorn hope here is the crosstable for this event.


1 Mendes da Costa, Alex 1782 6 13:W 2:W 4:L 6:W 5:W 8:W 9:W
2 Charles, Gareth 2119 5.5 7:W 1:L 10:W 3:W 4:D 5:W 8:W
3 Chan, Jason 1978 5 16:W 6:L 7:W 2:L 11:W 13:W 4:W
4 Castor, David 1934 4.5 10:W 8:W 1:W 5:L 2:D 7:W 3:L
5 Bolens, Johny 2061 4.5 0:D 9:W 6:W 4:W 1:L 2:L 14:W
6 Barakat, Martin 1683 4 11:W 3:W 5:L 1:L 8:L 14:W 15:W
7 Nicholson, Scott 1603 4 2:L 14:W 3:L 15:W 10:W 4:L 13:W
8 Reid, Vaness 1634 3.5 15:W 4:L 11:D 9:W 6:W 1:L 2:L
9 Keuning, Anthony 1610 3.5 17:W 5:L 12:D 8:L 15:W 11:W 1:L
10 Miranda, Adrian 1458 3.5 4:L 15:W 2:L 12:W 7:L 16:W 11:D
11 Boyce, Jamie 1395 3 6:L 16:W 8:D 13:W 3:L 9:L 10:D
12 Bell, Gerry 3 0:D 13:D 9:D 10:L 14:D 15:W 16:L
13 Frias, Joe 1416 2.5 1:L 12:D 14:W 11:L 16:W 3:L 7:L
14 Hellyer, Michael 1315 2 0:D 7:L 13:L 16:W 12:D 6:L 5:L
15 Parker, Trent 1298 1 8:L 10:L 16:W 7:L 9:L 12:L 6:L
16 Losh, Gary 1458 1 3:L 11:L 15:L 14:L 13:L 10:L 12:W
17 Sweeney, Matthew 1253 0 9:L 0: 0: 0: 0: 0: 0:

Garvinator
10-08-2004, 12:07 AM
is this tournament meant to be acf rated?

PHAT
10-08-2004, 07:01 AM
Since expecting the organiser to actually ever post this seems a forlorn hope here is the crosstable for this event.


I made all the right moves. The files were not in my command. I asked that they be sent. They were. Now you, GF.

PHAT
10-08-2004, 07:03 AM
is this tournament meant to be acf rated?

No, they are part of the new FIDE candidates matches.

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2004, 11:05 AM
I made all the right moves. The files were not in my command. I asked that they be sent. They were. Now you, GF.
You were the organiser.
You were the DOP.
You were the BB poster most likely to have access to the SP files.
You should have posted the crosstable.

Repeated email requests by Steve Carratt the NSWCA Ratings Officer to you for the SP files received no reply. You could have replied and told him that John had them.
It wasnt until he contacted John Mazzieri that he finally got the files.

PHAT
10-08-2004, 03:21 PM
You were the organiser.
You were the DOP.
You were the BB poster most likely to have access to the SP files.
You should have posted the crosstable.

Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. But I could not because I did/do not have them.


Repeated email requests by Steve Carratt the NSWCA Ratings Officer to you for the SP files received no reply. You could have replied and told him that John had them.

Prove that I saw or read such emails. If you cannot, just GF.


It wasnt until he contacted John Mazzieri that he finally got the files.

Well well well.


BTW, GF

Bill Gletsos
10-08-2004, 03:31 PM
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes. But I could not because I did/do not have them.
You could have obtained them easily enough.



Prove that I saw or read such emails. If you cannot, just GF.
There was no bounce to your email address.
Its probably just like the NSWCA Council emails where threre was no bounce and you were either to lazy to read them, too lazy to reply to them or basically not interested.
If you insist yoiu are not receiving emails then you need to get up your ISP.
An action that should not prove to difficult for you given your well demonstarted invective on the BB.

Either way you are a joke.

PHAT
11-08-2004, 04:21 PM
You could have obtained them easily enough.

Why would I email someone to email me the SP files just so I can email them on to the NWSCA, when that same person is goint to send the Wollongong files anyway. Stop beating up nothing.




There was no bounce to your email address.

Its probably just like the NSWCA Council emails where threre was no bounce and

you were either to lazy to read them,

too lazy to reply to them or

basically not interested.


True
True
Trueish (lower priority than other matters)
Trueish (lower priority than other matters)
Not true.


Either way you are a joke.

And other than email, you as President, over four months made no effort, zero, zip, zilch, donut, nix, blot, sh.t, naught, to contact me to see what I was up to. No telephone, no letter, no BB PM, n-o-t-h-i-n-g. I may or may not be a joke, but no more of a joke than is your Presidency.

Actually, Bill, it is this kind of presidency that makes the NSWCA council look like cabal of old grey men with no imagination and no plans. Lucky it arseholed me, 'cuz someone else would have had to go.

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 06:05 PM
Why would I email someone to email me the SP files just so I can email them on to the NWSCA, when that same person is goint to send the Wollongong files anyway. Stop beating up nothing.[/quoyte]
I was referring to you getting the SP files so you could have posted the crosstable on the BB.
Of course when contacted by Steve CArratt for the files As I understand you never responded.

[QUOTE=Matthew Sweeney]True
True
Trueish (lower priority than other matters)
Trueish (lower priority than other matters)
Not true.
Be that as it may, you made no effort to communicate with the NSWCA Council after April 5th.



And other than email, you as President, over four months made no effort, zero, zip, zilch, donut, nix, blot, sh.t, naught, to contact me to see what I was up to. No telephone, no letter, no BB PM, n-o-t-h-i-n-g. I may or may not be a joke, but no more of a joke than is your Presidency.
One of the few places you chose to actually make an appearance was on the BB.
I made numersous comments on this BB about your lack of attendence at NSWCA meetings.


Actually, Bill, it is this kind of presidency that makes the NSWCA council look like cabal of old grey men with no imagination and no plans. Lucky it arseholed me, 'cuz someone else would have had to go.
AH yes the person who did nothing whilst on the NSWCA Council posts scorn and blame on the others on the COuncil who have actually done things.
As I said you are a joke.

PHAT
11-08-2004, 06:35 PM
I made numersous comments on this BB about your lack of attendence at NSWCA meetings.

Exactly! You made no enquiry. As usual, you made comments like knives, and made bridges of air. You are not the man to lead NSW into the future. Under your fist, the NSWCA is a living dinosaur - big, slow and not suited to the current environment.

Bill Gletsos
11-08-2004, 07:03 PM
Exactly! You made no enquiry.
You confirmed on the bb what was clear to the other NSWCA Council members, that you had no interest in attending meetings.
You demonstrated by your actions of not responding to emails, promising thisngs at council meetings and doing nothing what you really stood for.
You never once apologised.
You were a waste of time.


As usual, you made comments like knives, and made bridges of air.
I had more important things to do than waste my time chasing a do nothing individual like you.


You are not the man to lead NSW into the future. Under your fist, the NSWCA is a living dinosaur - big, slow and not suited to the current environment.
You are big on criticism but lacking in any action.
You made no conribution whatsoever.
You represented no one.

In fact one thing is for certain, you certainly have no clue what is needed in NSWCA chess.

PHAT
11-08-2004, 08:00 PM
In fact one thing is for certain, you certainly have no clue what is needed in NSWCA chess.

That's rich. :lol:

Bill Gletsos
12-08-2004, 12:40 AM
That's rich. :lol:
Yes and accurate.
You did nothing.
You made no contribution.