PDA

View Full Version : Fairfield Winter Cup



arosar
10-07-2004, 06:24 PM
Some early news. alexmdc beat George Xie.

AR

Alan Shore
11-07-2004, 06:28 AM
Wow, crazy... well done alex!

Bill Gletsos
11-07-2004, 11:53 PM
1 Wei, Michael ACT 1953 5.5 29:W 22:W 20:W 2:W 5:D 6:W
2 Agulto, Edgardo NSW 2113 5 30:W 11:W 3:W 1:L 14:W 7:W
3 Mendes da Costa, Alex NSW 1782 5 31:W 4:W 2:L 18:W 17:W 14:W
4 Xie, George NSW 2319 5 24:W 3:L 30:W 21:W 16:W 5:W
5 Charles, Gareth NSW 2119 4.5 36:W 16:W 7:W 6:W 1:D 4:L
6 Chan, Jason NSW 1978 4 33:W 8:W 19:W 5:L 20:W 1:L
7 Bautista, Elpidio NSW 1787 4 23:W 42:W 5:L 15:W 19:W 2:L
8 Huynh, Arthur NSW 1699 4 34:W 6:L 31:W 10:D 12:D 19:W
9 Doan, Peter NSW 1802 4 18:W 38:D 15:D 19:L 25:W 20:W
10 Yu, Michael NSW 1867 4 26:W 19:L 43:W 8:D 21:W 17:D
11 Huddleston, Heather NSW 1746 4 27:W 2:L 23:W 20:L 36:W 24:W
12 Barisic, Frank NSW 1818 4 39:W 37:W 21:D 14:L 8:D 23:W
13 Villanueva, Anthony NSW 1533 4 21:L 31:L 46:W 39:W 32:W 22:W
14 Castor, David NSW 1934 3.5 25:W 15:D 38:W 12:W 2:L 3:L
15 Song, Angela NSW 1673 3.5 32:W 14:D 9:D 7:L 29:W 16:D
16 Descallar, Levi NSW 1724 3.5 41:W 5:L 26:W 40:W 4:L 15:D
17 Harp, Joel NSW 1906 3.5 43:W 20:L 29:W 22:W 3:L 10:D
18 Wu, Edwin NSW 1277 3.5 9:L 45:W 37:W 3:L 33:W 21:D
19 Trkulja, Slavko NSW 1644 3 46:W 10:W 6:L 9:W 7:L 8:L
20 Buza, Muhamed NSW 1672 3 35:W 17:W 1:L 11:W 6:L 9:L
21 Singh, Jaspal NSW 3 13:W 33:W 12:D 4:L 10:L 18:D
22 Savelieff, Geoffrey NSW 1698 3 28:W 1:L 41:W 17:L 26:W 13:L
23 Xu, William NSW 1410 3 7:L 44:W 11:L 30:W 38:W 12:L
24 Smit, George NSW 1525 3 4:L 27:W 32:D 37:D 40:W 11:L
25 Bisson, Danny Wayne NSW 1510 3 14:L 32:L 45:W 27:W 9:L 40:W
26 Losh, Gary NSW 1458 3 10:L 46:W 16:L 42:W 22:L 36:W
27 Baldwin, Tony NSW 1358 3 11:L 24:L 44:W 25:L 43:W 38:W
28 Parker, Trent NSW 1298 3 22:L 29:L 36:L 46:W 39:W 37:W
29 Greenwood, Norman NSW 1513 2.5 1:L 28:W 17:L 41:W 15:L 35:D
30 Huang, Jim NSW 1519 2.5 2:L 34:W 4:L 23:L 37:D 42:W
31 Boyce, Jamie NSW 1395 2.5 3:L 13:W 8:L 36:L 34:D 43:W
32 Nguyen, Andrew NSW 1089 2.5 15:L 25:W 24:D 38:D 13:L 33:D
33 Art, Carl NSW 1581 2.5 6:L 21:L 34:W 43:W 18:L 32:D
34 Kumar, Anish NSW 1339 2.5 8:L 30:L 33:L 44:W 31:D 41:W
35 Kumar, Dhirendra NSW 1009 2.5 20:L 43:L 39:L 45:W 46:W 29:D
36 Sewell, Robert NSW 1524 2 5:L 41:L 28:W 31:W 11:L 26:L
37 Keuning, Anthony NSW 1610 2 40:W 12:L 18:L 24:D 30:D 28:L
38 Tubic, Luka NSW 1554 2 45:W 9:D 14:L 32:D 23:L 27:L
39 Christensen, Joshua NSW 1434 2 12:L 40:L 35:W 13:L 28:L 44:W
40 Beveridge, David NSW 2 37:L 39:W 42:W 16:L 24:L 25:L
41 Kumar, Rakesh NSW 1355 1.5 16:L 36:W 22:L 29:L 42:D 34:L
42 Kresinger, Frank NSW 1547 1.5 44:W 7:L 40:L 26:L 41:D 30:L
43 Aich, Alexander NSW 1484 1 17:L 35:W 10:L 33:L 27:L 31:L
44 Kumar, Sanjesh NSW 1 42:L 23:L 27:L 34:L 45:W 39:L
45 Franca, Edis NSW 1 38:L 18:L 25:L 35:L 44:L 46:W
46 Balgi, Kabir NSW 0 19:L 26:L 13:L 28:L 35:L 45:L

Garvinator
12-07-2004, 12:04 AM
i was literally about to do that :whistle:

Trent Parker
12-07-2004, 10:05 AM
I had an excellent game against Tony Keuning in the last round. We were both under the 5 minutes - the things we do in time trouble...

Round about the 10 min each mark I played a check which Anthony took with his knight forgeting that it was pinned to his queen! But it was still difficult because he still had 3 minor pieces and a rook and a couple extra pawns to my Q and 2 R and my queen was at risk of being trapped.

Now all this happened whilst both of us were under 5 min:
I had to give up a couple of my pawns to enable my queen to escape but this enabled him to get a defended pawn on the 7th rank.
I moved my queen to a place where it was en prise.... but he didn't see it!
I made a blunder which enabled him to Queen the pawn on the 7th rank.
I kept on checking him until he blundered and interposed his king infront of his newly promoted queen... so i won the queen back.... and he ended up resigning with 37 secons left on the clock.

Man oh man was i stuffed after that game!! :lol:

Trent Parker
12-07-2004, 10:37 AM
hmm, using Barry's Ratings calculator my rating should increase by about 23 ratings points!

PHAT
12-07-2004, 03:50 PM
AlexDMC - What a player? :clap:

I guess his games in that brutaly strong C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N tournie must have realy toughened him up. I mean, the
CM had 25% >1900 and 13% >2000 while Fairfield
only had 15% >1900 and 7% >2000.

I s'pose that since BG thought the CM was so bloody weak, he should come out now and say that the Fairfeild was so feeble, that he doesn't consider it a ratible tourniment :P

Bill Gletsos
12-07-2004, 04:10 PM
AlexDMC - What a player? :clap:

I guess his games in that brutaly strong C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N tournie must have realy toughened him up. I mean, the
CM had 25% >1900 and 13% >2000 while Fairfield
only had 15% >1900 and 7% >2000.

I s'pose that since BG thought the CM was so bloody weak, he should come out now and say that the Fairfeild was so feeble, that he doesn't consider it a ratible tourniment :P
I guess it was too much to expect that your posts would be any more intelligent than they had been in the past.
With such a small field (16 players) in the C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N your percenatges are meaningless.

Oepty
13-07-2004, 10:34 AM
Great effort by Alex. His play seems to have taken a huge step forward since he was told he wasn't strong enough to play in the Young Masters. Will he qualify age wise for the tournament next year. If so I put him down as a very early favourite.
Also good effort by Michael Wei to win and Angela Song also had a good tournament.

And on tournament merits both the Farfield and Common Man tournaments were weaker than the Uni Open.

Scott

PHAT
13-07-2004, 11:41 AM
With such a small field (16 players) in the C.O.M.M.O.N.M.A.N your percenatges are meaningless.

Hang on! I recall you saying,


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.

[* Bold by MS]


So, first you give percentages to two decimal places in order to put [snip] on the Common Man, then you say that the numbers are meaningless. :confused:

Oh well, I s'pose you can use stats as loosely as you choose - as long as it fits your agenda. :naughty:

jenni
13-07-2004, 12:07 PM
Great effort by Alex. His play seems to have taken a huge step forward since he was told he wasn't strong enough to play in the Young Masters. Will he qualify age wise for the tournament next year. If so I put him down as a very early favourite.
Also good effort by Michael Wei to win and Angela Song also had a good tournament.

And on tournament merits both the Farfield and Common Man tournaments were weaker than the Uni Open.

Scott

Actually Alex was never told he wasn't strong enough to play in the Young Masters, he was told his rating wasn't high enough - a totally different thing.

The Young Masters was done on rating and Alex is still rated less than the lowest rated person to play in the Young Masters this year. I will repeat what I said then - if Alex continues to get the good results, that he has been getting all year, he should have a strong chance of getting into the Young Masters next year.

It is returning to Sydney next year - the plan is to have it be run in Sydney and Canberra on alternate years. This will make it a bit harder to get into, as I assume more of the eligible players will play in it, if it is in thie home town.

If I have my ages right, then I think Alex is still eligible to play next year, but looking at the top 20 list, he will probably need a rating of over 2000 to get in. However if he keeps getting the results he has for most of this year, then that shouldn't be a problem. :clap:

Bill Gletsos
13-07-2004, 12:19 PM
So, first you give percentages to two decimal places in order to put [snip] on the Common Man, then you say that the numbers are meaningless. :confused:
Those figures are for the NSW Open which had 52 in the Open and 82 overall. Those player numbers are significant unlike your 16 players in the Common Man.


Oh well, I s'pose you can use stats as loosely as you choose - as long as it fits your agenda. :naughty:
No, thats incorrect as usual.
You were the one who claimed his figures were significant.
I always said they werent.
However since you insisted on saying they were I calculated the figures for the NSW Open to show that using your logic your event was weak by compariosn.

PHAT
13-07-2004, 12:45 PM
However since you insisted on [CM stats were significant] I calculated the figures for the NSW Open to show that using your logic your event was weak by compariosn.

:hmm: So, you are using what you call, my insignificant stats, to show that the CM was weak. Now, could you please use significant stats to do the same thing? If you cannot, simply admit that the CM cannot be shown to be weaker than the NSW Open (82 entries).

Bill Gletsos
13-07-2004, 06:23 PM
:hmm: So, you are using what you call, my insignificant stats, to show that the CM was weak. Now, could you please use significant stats to do the same thing? If you cannot, simply admit that the CM cannot be shown to be weaker than the NSW Open (82 entries).
You were the moron claiming/implying it was not weak(i.e. strong) by claiming that one quater of your players were over 1900. (reference post 123 in the common man thread)
I argued your figures were insignificant based on 16 players. (post #124)
In post #12 in that thread you were the idiot would compared it to the NSW Open not I.
I simply responded in post #129 showing that using your logic that NSW OPen was significantly stronger than the Common Man.

In post #147 Kevin agreed that my comment about 16 being insignificant was "looking pretty good".

Therefore either admit you are still claiming your figures for the common man are significant, in which case my figures using your own logic show that in comparison to the NSW Open it was weak, or else admit that your figures were not significant in which case your pointing out that one quarter of your players being over 1900 was a useless statistic.

arosar
13-07-2004, 06:27 PM
alexmdc....could you post your game against Xie here mate?

Cheers,

AR

Trent Parker
13-07-2004, 10:59 PM
And on tournament merits both the Farfield and Common Man tournaments were weaker than the Uni Open.

Scott

I was talking to MInh Van Le - who had organised this Fairfield tourney and he said he wanted a tournament where everyone enjoyed playing in and where other players had a shot at winning a prize. Thus I think there might have been more of a flatter prize structure. The first prize was $500 and there were several divisions with 1st to 3rd prizes. I myself won $90 for an = 2nd under 1350 prize.

What type of stucture did the Uni open have? It really depends on what the tourney's objectives are.

adelandre
14-07-2004, 01:40 AM
In fact, tparker, the Uni Open has has over half the prize money, $2,100 in fact, devoted to divisonal prizes. With rediculously low entry fees of $40 adult and $30 juniors, along with entertainment/sports and a free buffet dinner, this tournament is a clear standout event in Australian chess in my and many other players experience in catering for player enjoyment and ensuring the "common" player is addressed. The objectives of this event is to put more enjoyment and a community event back into chess tournaments, while still attracting the top players.

Trent Parker
14-07-2004, 01:55 AM
well.. ok .. I guess it has something to do with budget as well

PHAT
14-07-2004, 09:33 AM
In fact, tparker, the Uni Open has has over half the prize money, $2,100 in fact, devoted to divisonal prizes. With rediculously low entry fees of $40 adult and $30 juniors, along with entertainment/sports and a free buffet dinner, this tournament is a clear standout event in Australian chess in my and many other players experience in catering for player enjoyment and ensuring the "common" player is addressed. The objectives of this event is to put more enjoyment and a community event back into chess tournaments, while still attracting the top players.

Sounds pretty good! BTW, $40 is not rediculously low. Maybe we are at the vangard of a new trend. :) I know that the CommonMan weekender will have a mid tournament social night next year.

Oepty
14-07-2004, 05:02 PM
I was talking to MInh Van Le - who had organised this Fairfield tourney and he said he wanted a tournament where everyone enjoyed playing in and where other players had a shot at winning a prize. Thus I think there might have been more of a flatter prize structure. The first prize was $500 and there were several divisions with 1st to 3rd prizes. I myself won $90 for an = 2nd under 1350 prize.

What type of stucture did the Uni open have? It really depends on what the tourney's objectives are.

Thankyou for your response Trent. It is exactly what I wanted to hear. I know the Uni Open organisers want as many people to play in it as possible and so they put hugh amount of effort into personally contacting people and other things. I was not trying to be critical of the organisers of any tournament just put Matt and Bill's stupid arguement into context.

Jenni. Rating is supposed to be a indicator of strength so by saying someones rating is not high enough is effectively saying they are not strong enough in my view.
Scott

adelandre
14-07-2004, 05:38 PM
Matt, I ment rediculously low in the context of a Cat 3, $4000 tournament with a free dinner included. We actually return about $1000-1500 more than the entry money we collect in prizes, which we make up for by Union Club Grants, sponsorship and fundraising (quiz nights etc) throughout the year.

I think your CommonMan tournament is also a v.good idea with the same ultimate aims as ours - I personally don't enjoy so called "top-heavy" tournaments that don't have much excitement or atmosphere. We've tried to include some largish top prizes to get the top players as well which in turn attracts more players ..... I've experimented with the prize pool/entry money over the last few years and found the current formula works. Perhaps not sustainable though!

Oepty
14-07-2004, 06:19 PM
Matt. In addition to what Andrew has said I was told by an interstate player in the tournament that the entries were rediculously low. You do have to take into account that that wages and the cost of living are generally lower in SA, but I would say this event is by far Australia's best money for value weekender. The players also get a free meal and entry into the Saturday night Transfer Tournament as well. Videos and Table tennis was also available in between rounds and I think a pianist played at the Saturday night meal.
Scott

jenni
14-07-2004, 06:48 PM
Jenni. Rating is supposed to be a indicator of strength so by saying someones rating is not high enough is effectively saying they are not strong enough in my view.
Scott

Hmm- well I am pretty cynical about ratings - for a start it is an historical measure. If someone is rapidly improving as in this case, their rating is going to be trailing their playing strength. It was obvious even at Easter that Alex was getting some really good results, but his actual number was not high enough to enable me to exclude James Obst or Raymond Song and put him in.

arosar
14-07-2004, 06:54 PM
You made the right decision jenni. Just forget about it.

AR