PDA

View Full Version : Australian Open Dec 04/Jan 05



peter_parr
30-06-2004, 02:36 PM
National Championships Dec 04/Jan 05 by Peter Parr (OAM) 30 Jun 2004 ================================================== ==================

I note the cancellation of all events at Mt. Buller.
An ideal venue is the NSW Bridge Association in Goulburn St, in the central business district in Sydney.

The premises are 588 square metres in one very large room which can comfortably seat well over 200 players.

The room is quiet, the lighting is very good, air conditioning is very good, catering facilities are available.

Very close accommodation is available in all price ranges in the centre of the Sydney CBD. Hyde Park is very close as is a large swimming pool, cinemas etc.

The venue is a short walk from Sydney Central Station.

The NSW Bridge Association set a great example to chess administrators by purchasing the entire level of a new building for $900,000 about 8 years ago and today's valuation would by in excess of $2.5 million.

The NSWCA has rented the premises from time to time (including a previous Australian Open Championship) and in the early years found the rent to be high as the Bridge Association needed to charge higher fees to pay for the premises. The situation is now much better.

The building has been paid for (largely by charging table money daily) and the NSWCA is currently paying a very low fee for the CJS Purdy Memorial Tournament currently in progress at the Bridge Centre (with new chairs).

For an event such as the Australian Open the following would be required.

(a) Availability of premises for 13 days commencing December 28th 2004. (during the holiday period very little Bridge is played)
(b) reasonable rental - (I estimate under $4000 in total)
(c) Two sessions - about 150 players - under 1600 rated - 10am - 2pm and main session from 3pm - 8pm about another 150 players.
(d) Sponsorship co-ordinator - I firmly believe all money raised from sponsors should be returned to the tournament - none should be kept as profit by ACF, State Association and individual organiser. I have organised a number of championships in the past - organiser receives nothing, ACF nothing, NSWCA nothing - balance $00.
(e) NSWCA have not yet had the time to discuss any proposal but all that is required is confirmation of the venue - everything else is easy - Ample digital clocks and equipment is available, arbiters, etc.
(f) ACF Approval.

Finally with over 8000 juniors competing in inter school chess matches in NSW alone I'm convinced that the use of a fantastic large well lit, quiet, spacious venue in the heart of the Sydney Central Business District would attract an entry of at least 150 in a 10am-2pm event and another 150 in the 3pm event.

I would be available if required by NSWCA to play a major role on the organising committee of the championships without any fee (last time the organiser was paid $1,000 as well as a share of the considerable profits and a low prize fund structure).

There may of course be other bids for the Australian Open - it had been scheduled for Mt. Buller in Victoria for the last 6 months until it's cancellation a few days ago.

I understand there is an ACF executive meeting to be held by telephone tomorrow evening July 1st 2004.

This is a very positive proposal and I hope will receive serious consideration by the ACF.

All that would need to be done in the next month would be to book the venue.

A detailed scheduled could be finalised with NSWCA and ACF approval within a few weeks of the booking and confirmation of the venue.

Regards
Peter Parr (OAM)
Three times former President NSWCA

Chess Discount Sales
Sydney, Australia
Web Site http://www.chessdiscountsales.com
Phone: 02 9211 2994
Fax: 02 9211 7047

Business address:
Basement Level
72 Campbell St
Surry Hills, Sydney
2010 Australia

arosar
30-06-2004, 04:57 PM
It appears everyone is rather shy towards you Peter. But I'm not. The chess players of Sydney must surely thank you for your initiative and vision.


I would be available if required by NSWCA to play a major role on the organising committee of the championships without any fee (last time the organiser was paid $1,000 as well as a share of the considerable profits and a low prize fund structure).

Yet one would think CDS to enjoy 'blanket' sponsorship - that is, and to borrow a Parliamentary phrase, 'to the exclusion of all others', no? Fair enough.


Peter Parr (OAM)
Three times former President NSWCA

Are you not also 6 time Olympiad skipper plus numerous other tele-matches?

All power to you!! See you in your shop tomorrow mate.

AR

Bill Gletsos
30-06-2004, 05:10 PM
I believe the NSWCA has no desire to bid for the event, even if the ACF calls for bids.
However if Peter is prepared to compile and put forward a formal bid and act as the organiser then I suspect the NSWCA would support it to the ACF as the sponsoring state.

Garvinator
30-06-2004, 11:23 PM
i dont seem to be able to find this question in the constitution, so ill ask here. How many rounds will the australian open be and also will there be a major and minor tournament too?

JGB
30-06-2004, 11:38 PM
i dont seem to be able to find this question in the constitution, so ill ask here. How many rounds will the australian open be and also will there be a major and minor tournament too?


Good question, and just maybe ill be back in time after all?! :)

Paul S
30-06-2004, 11:42 PM
This is a worthwhile proposal from Peter Parr and a constructive way forward out of yet another Mount Buller debacle.

At the least it deserves serious consideration by the ACF.

Garvinator
30-06-2004, 11:49 PM
This is a worthwhile proposal from Peter Parr and a constructive way forward out of yet another Mount Buller debacle.

At the least it deserves serious consideration by the ACF.
have you seen the correspondence from david cordover in the other thread?

Paul S
30-06-2004, 11:52 PM
have you seen the correspondence from david cordover in the other thread?

Yes

Kevin Bonham
01-07-2004, 03:18 AM
i dont seem to be able to find this question in the constitution, so ill ask here. How many rounds will the australian open be and also will there be a major and minor tournament too?

For the Australian Open there is no need for a major or minor event as everyone is eligible to play against the big boys in ye olde monster swiss.

As I recall CV's proposal did indeed include an Australian Open Minor type thing but it was pointed out that such a title doesn't exist so CV were free to hold such an event, so long as it didn't have any name suggesting it was an ACF title.

As for the Open overall - I guess it's up to someone in NSW to put their hands up to be the chief organiser of such an event and work with Peter to compile a formal bid if they want to give this a crack, but they'll need to be quick about it as Council meets in a couple of weeks.

eclectic
01-07-2004, 05:51 AM
For the Australian Open there is no need for a major or minor event as everyone is eligible to play against the big boys in ye olde monster swiss.

As I recall CV's proposal did indeed include an Australian Open Minor type thing but it was pointed out that such a title doesn't exist so CV were free to hold such an event, so long as it didn't have any name suggesting it was an ACF title.

As for the Open overall - I guess it's up to someone in NSW to put their hands up to be the chief organiser of such an event and work with Peter to compile a formal bid if they want to give this a crack, but they'll need to be quick about it as Council meets in a couple of weeks.

Don't forget that the Australian Open at Penrith as run by Brian Jones had supporting events.

The important point here is that the Open remains "open" ie that there are no moves to place a rating restriction on entry to the main event.

My preference though is for the one monster swiss as I regard the Australian Open as a litmus test for gauging ones chess performance against a representative cross section of the Australian chess community.

eclectic

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 10:21 AM
The important point here is that the Open remains "open" ie that there are no moves to place a rating restriction on entry to the main event.
im not suggesting for a second that there be a rating restriction or anything of that nature. I was just asking/hoping that there might be supporting events for those that would rather not play in a monster swiss style event.


My preference though is for the one monster swiss as I regard the Australian Open as a litmus test for gauging ones chess performance against a representative cross section of the Australian chess community.
and we would be back to the competitive games versus large monster swiss format- which there are many threads already on here for debating this point :hand:

Ian Rout
01-07-2004, 10:43 AM
At this year's Doeberl Cup

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2004DoeberlCup.htm

I count 96 under 1600s (including unrateds). Of these 16 exercised their right to play in the Major and 80 preferred to play in the Minor. This is roughly in line with previous years. I think this bears out ggray's comments. There was also a Minor in the 2001 Aust Open.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 11:17 AM
At this year's Doeberl Cup

http://www.netspeed.com.au/ianandjan/IansPage/results/weekenders/2004DoeberlCup.htm

I count 96 under 1600s (including unrateds). Of these 16 exercised their right to play in the Major and 80 preferred to play in the Minor. This is roughly in line with previous years. I think this bears out ggray's comments. There was also a Minor in the 2001 Aust Open.
2004 Gold Coast open- 100 entrants total, 35 in the open section- 65 in the u1600 version.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 11:36 AM
i do have one question regarding dates for australian open/championships. Why is the event played across the new year period, instead of the starting date being just after new years, say on the 3rd january? :hmm:

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 11:54 AM
i do have one question regarding dates for australian open/championships. Why is the event played across the new year period, instead of the starting date being just after new years, say on the 3rd january? :hmm:
Because most peoples Xmas/new year holidays from work start from Xmas with many business's having shutdowns and only skeleton staff during the period.
If you started after New year then potential players would need to take more days off work which may be impossible/undesirable and hence affect player numbers.

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 11:57 AM
There was also a Minor in the 2001 Aust Open.
Correct it was called the Penrith Minor, because the ACF would not sanction the use of the term Australian Open Minor.

Garvinator
01-07-2004, 12:01 PM
Because most peoples Xmas/new year holidays from work start from Xmas with many business's having shutdowns and only skeleton staff during the period.
If you started after New year then potential players would need to take more days off work which may be impossible/undesirable and hence affect player numbers.
fair enough then, i knew there had to be a reason. I was thinking maybe it had something to do with the length of the junior champs afterwards, that they have to be over before the school holidays finish.

Ian Rout
01-07-2004, 12:22 PM
Correct it was called the Penrith Minor, because the ACF would not sanction the use of the term Australian Open Minor.
No, I was referring to the 2001 in Canberra, not the 2003.

I presume ACF sanctioned it, if not I suppose we will have to retrospectively re-name it.

Bill Gletsos
01-07-2004, 01:25 PM
No, I was referring to the 2001 in Canberra, not the 2003.
You are right, my mistake.


I presume ACF sanctioned it, if not I suppose we will have to retrospectively re-name it.
I wonder how the Mexicans managed to let you slip that one thru.
They wouldnt let Brian get away with it.

Trent Parker
02-07-2004, 02:36 PM
couldn't they just call it "Australian minor" not "Australian open minor"?

Bill Gletsos
02-07-2004, 02:41 PM
couldn't they just call it "Australian minor" not "Australian open minor"?
Australian Minor is already used for the minor tournament which sometimes runs along with the Australian Championship and the Australian Reserves/Major.

Paul S
10-07-2004, 02:40 PM
It is unfortunate that the NSWCA has declined to provide assistance to Peter Parr's constructive proposal (especially as Peter has volunteered to be actively involved in the organisation of running a 2004/2005 Australian Open at the NSW Bridge Association Centre in Sydney's CBD). My understanding is that better sponsorship could be obtained if Peter's "NSW Bridge Association Centre in Sydney's CBD" bid came under the umbrella of the NSWCA (a non-profit organisation) as opposed to say Peter Parr running the Australian Open under the "Chess Discount Sales" umbrellla. Also, based on my (albeit minimal) involvement with the Brian Jones 2003 Penrith Australian Open, IMO running an Australian Open is too much for one person to do (whether it be Brian Jones, Peter Parr or anyone else) and needs/requires the logistical assistance of the NSWCA for it to avoid "overload" on any one particular individual. Still, to be fair to the NSWCA Council (based on my time there last year) I acknowledge that the NSWCA Councillors already have plenty of chess commitments to attend to as it is (due to the chronic problem in NSW Chess of not enough people doing the admin work), so I can understand their collective reluctance in not wanting to take on any more work for themselves.

Admittedly I don't have as many facts available to me as what the ACF Council does, but from where I sit it seems the best idea would be to go with the Whitehorse (Box Hill) proposal for the Juniors and the Peter Parr proposal for the "Seniors" (and the ACTJCL proposal for the Schools).

Based on what I have seen on this forum I don't think the ACF should give any of David Cordover's proposals the time of day. IMO the "Chess Guru's" responses on this forum regarding the Mt Buller cancellation have been unsatisfactory and so accordingly his proposal to run the seniors in Melbourne should be disregarded. It would be an insult to Australian chess if the Guru's Melbourne proposal was accepted.

My concerns with Mt Buller are essentially twofold:
1) If by say mid November the Mercure Mt Buller Resort only has, say 10 confirmed bookings, why wouldn't/shouldn't they (Mercure) pull the plug on the event? Where will that leave the ACF (and Australian Open)?
2) If the Mt Buller thing ends up being a financial disaster, no doubt there will probably be a doubling of ACF rating fees for 2005 to pay for it (I am the Treasurer of two chess clubs)!

Anyway, I wish the ACF Council best wishes in their upcoming decision on the matter of the 2004/2005 Australian Open and hope they come up with the best decision for Australian chess!

P.S. NSWCA Council, you still have about 30 hours left to back Peter Parr's 2004/2005 Australian Open bid/suggestion! ;) :P :)

Kevin Bonham
10-07-2004, 09:14 PM
Admittedly I don't have as many facts available to me as what the ACF Council does, but from where I sit it seems the best idea would be to go with the Whitehorse (Box Hill) proposal for the Juniors and the Peter Parr proposal for the "Seniors" (and the ACTJCL proposal for the Schools).

This is certainly the safer option. Whether it is the best in terms of the claimed long-term sponsorship-type advantages of Mt B is still subject to debate. Note that if the Sydney proposal is accepted someone still has to run it - it is not a formal bid at this stage. I did suggest on another thread that if we (ACF) could run Mt B we could just as easily run Sydney.


Based on what I have seen on this forum I don't think the ACF should give any of David Cordover's proposals the time of day. IMO the "Chess Guru's" responses on this forum regarding the Mt Buller cancellation have been unsatisfactory and so accordingly his proposal to run the seniors in Melbourne should be disregarded. It would be an insult to Australian chess if the Guru's Melbourne proposal was accepted.

From my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Guru to give a full and accurate account of why the Mt B bid really fell over, if he expects me to give his replacement bid or indeed any future bid of his for several years the time of day. Frankly he is not good at damage control.


My concerns with Mt Buller are essentially twofold:
1) If by say mid November the Mercure Mt Buller Resort only has, say 10 confirmed bookings, why wouldn't/shouldn't they (Mercure) pull the plug on the event? Where will that leave the ACF (and Australian Open)?

A very valid question. George?


2) If the Mt Buller thing ends up being a financial disaster, no doubt there will probably be a doubling of ACF rating fees for 2005 to pay for it (I am the Treasurer of two chess clubs)!

I think the risk is players getting ripped off on food etc rather than the organisers coming out behind.

Javier Gil
27-07-2004, 04:59 PM
Question: Does the organizer of an official Australian Open tournament have to provide some kind of endorsement before he can actually make the announcement that the tournament is being held?

By the way, after reading this thread I got the feeling that "organizing this event under the umbrella" of the NSWCA would be more welcome by the public than organizing it under the umbrella of, say, CDS. Is this really so? because it is not money that falls from the sky, but water.
I mean, wouldn't it be great if a private business organized an event of this importance and made some money as well?
In countries where chess is recognized as a sport and gets a goverment subsidy, finding an enterprise who is willing to organize chess events is a dream which doesn't come true too often...

Garvinator
27-07-2004, 05:10 PM
in response to javier, i think you need to read the mt buller championships thread ;)

on the comment about business running tournaments, i think you should run for the hills javier ;) cause you are probably going to cop it from the tournaments should never be run at a profit crowd.

PHAT
27-07-2004, 06:54 PM
In countries where chess is recognized as a sport and gets a goverment subsidy, finding an enterprise who is willing to organize chess events is a dream which doesn't come true too often...

Big prob with your analogy. Australian chess does not get a government subsidy. Therefore, every chess dollar is precious - too precious to have it going into private pockets. If Australian chess was flush with funds, then private operaters could well be a good thing - but not now.

Javier Gil
27-07-2004, 07:06 PM
Precisely because Australian Chess doesn't get any goverment subsidies (which was part of my comparative argument, when I say "in countries where chess gets a goverment subsidy", so the more reason to welcome private initiative in a country where it doesn't!), you can't build a wall around the chess players alone and expect them to organize world class events. Reminds me of Britain's overprotective commercial national laws.
I mean, what's the big deal about a chess books business making a few dollars? would you rather it closed down and people spent their bucks in amazon.com? because that's what would happen.
The way I see it, an Australian chess books business is part of the Australian chess comunity.

PHAT
28-07-2004, 07:23 AM
The problem as I see it, is that private operators should not be able to make a quid directely out of the efforts of voluteers. Eg. alot of people do stuff before, during and after an event, gratus. Should a business make money out of that. I say no.

However, if a business wishes to piggy back the event by, say, running a stall, providing coaching, or on-selling accommodation, venue booking, et cetera, that is I think, OKish.

Having a business running the whole event for profit is not OK when voluteers are invloved. It is called parasitism.

arosar
28-07-2004, 09:54 AM
Having a business running the whole event for profit is not OK when voluteers are invloved. It is called parasitism.

Speaking only re a big event like the Aus Open: then compensate everyone involved in the organisation of the event.

AR

Kevin Bonham
29-07-2004, 12:33 AM
The problem as I see it, is that private operators should not be able to make a quid directely out of the efforts of voluteers. Eg. alot of people do stuff before, during and after an event, gratus. Should a business make money out of that. I say no.

I think it is OK only if the business is completely upfront with the volunteers so that their consent is fully informed and they cannot be taken advantage of without their knowledge. Businesses trying to rope in volunteers with deceptive or incomplete claims should not be given the time of day.

george
06-08-2004, 05:17 PM
Hi Arosar and All,

All Organisers , Arbiters , helpers are being recompensed in some way shape or form for their labours on the Mt Buller Tourneys.

Without any reflection whatsoever on previous Organisers this is one of the few Chess Tournaments which is being professionally run ie people are being recompensed for their effort.

What that means is things will happen when they are supposed to happen barring external influences out of our control.

Regards to ALL
George Howard