Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 121 to 128 of 128

Thread: Australian OPEN 2019(8) metrics.

  1. | #121
    Senior Member CarrierPigeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Flying All Over The Place
    Posts
    139

    Default Fair Go says SCOMO!

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy009 on chesschat
    Thanks for publishing the prize list Peter. What about Dastam Nurzhaouv. I understand the ACF rules for unrated players. But 8.5/9 is still a tremendous performance at the national championship. Have the organisers considered at least a special prize for Dastam for such a great performance as a good will gesture to promote Chess. I hope the organisers consider that and in future unrated players also have a category of prize.
    A future organiser probably will not be interested in an UNRATED player entering a Rating-Restricted tournament in the circumstance where an OPEN tournament is available to the same player, particularly if the UNRATED is a player too strong for the Rating-Restricted opponents.

    Essentially, on this occasion the UNRATED (8.5/9) has pasted 8 opponents who thought they were going to get a MINOR opponent, but instead got a super unrated opponent, and perhaps biased the results overall.

    The opponents directly affected by the presence of the UNRATED:
    Ryder Testolin finished 4th overall on 7/9, Edwin Zou finished 15th on 6/9, Eric Menzies finished 5th on 7/9, and Chaitanya Naga finished 7th on 7/9

    The winner on 7.5/9 did not face the UNRATED.
    My job is to carry relevant posts to Ozchess.

  2. | #122
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,800

    Default

    I'm curious as to what type of thinking comes up with: Non-Rated players being eligible for Rated section prizes in the first place?
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  3. | #123
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Axiom View Post
    I'm curious as to what type of thinking comes up with: Non-Rated players being eligible for Rated section prizes in the first place?
    Well we are all in agreement with that ^^, (except Andy of course).

    But yours is a pithy way of saying it.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  4. | #124
    Siberian Chess Tiger Axiom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,800

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    Well we are all in agreement with that ^^, (except Andy of course).
    I think we can all agree Andy has issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by MOZ View Post
    But yours is a pithy way of saying it.
    Thank you. No greater praise can be bestowed upon a fully certified Reality Analyst specialising in the field of Axiomatica.
    (Thank goodness you don't have a lisp!)
    "Don't let the snow get down the back of your pants" ~ SCT

  5. | #125
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing at Hobsons Bay chess club where the tournaments are the best value in the state!
    Posts
    3,258

    Default

    The rule should be quite simple.
    Unrateds should not be allowed to play in the Australian open.
    Why collect an entry fee if you cannot win a prize?

    Anyway I think the organisers of the Australian open should be congratulated on their efforts.
    In the context of what was expected and achieved they did a wonderful job.


    I do want to make some points
    From a playing perspective there has to be a change to the way the Australian open is run.

    1- It should officially be marked as 1, 2 , 3 or 4 tournaments. With categories of 2000+, 2000-1600, 1600-1200 and 1200-

    2- The top section should be 1 game per day at this time of year. It is just too difficult to play 2 rounds in 40+ degree heat and expect a good nights sleep.
    Most players I talked with were completely exhausted by the event.

    3- For players in the 2100-1600 bracket I would say the large tail made the tournament somewhat disappointing from a competitive experience.
    It would be worthwhile to examine the playing up ratios of players in the 2100-1800 category. My own was at 22% and had the tournament been interstate that ratio would not justify the traveling expense.

    4- I think the bulletins were quite poor. I don't think any editor should attack the playing levels of any player in the tournaments. I found IM Jamiesons comments very polarising and was completely perplexed by his passive aggressive attack on the junior chess player Christopher Lim. There is no place for this sort of language within Australian chess, much less in an official bulletin.

    5- There needs to be more focus on the debriefing of players after a game with a shift towards media representing the views of the players and not those of a media editor.

    6- If 2 rounds remain the norm then there ought to be much more focus on where people are going to congregate between games.

    7- Spectators are highly problematic now. The players cannot even watch the other games. Whilst parents and friends still bring mobile phones into venues. This is a key problem. How do we transmit culture to future generations of players? The problem is balancing technology with competitive results and at the same time maintaining a chess game as a learning experience for the spectator. I actually think we have reached the point where all games should be recorded by DGT and spectators should simply be watching games in a media centre.

    8- Is it so wrong to encourage social blitz and transfer in between rounds?
    Ozchess died on the 7/4/2013- killed by Gatekeepers



  6. | #126
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    The rule should be quite simple.
    Unrateds should not be allowed to play in the Australian open.
    Why collect an entry fee if you cannot win a prize?

    Anyway I think the organisers of the Australian open should be congratulated on their efforts.
    In the context of what was expected and achieved they did a wonderful job.


    I do want to make some points
    From a playing perspective there has to be a change to the way the Australian open is run.

    1- It should officially be marked as 1, 2 , 3 or 4 tournaments. With categories of 2000+, 2000-1600, 1600-1200 and 1200-

    2- The top section should be 1 game per day at this time of year. It is just too difficult to play 2 rounds in 40+ degree heat and expect a good nights sleep.
    Most players I talked with were completely exhausted by the event.

    3- For players in the 2100-1600 bracket I would say the large tail made the tournament somewhat disappointing from a competitive experience.
    It would be worthwhile to examine the playing up ratios of players in the 2100-1800 category. My own was at 22% and had the tournament been interstate that ratio would not justify the traveling expense.

    4- I think the bulletins were quite poor. I don't think any editor should attack the playing levels of any player in the tournaments. I found IM Jamiesons comments very polarising and was completely perplexed by his passive aggressive attack on the junior chess player Christopher Lim. There is no place for this sort of language within Australian chess, much less in an official bulletin.

    5- There needs to be more focus on the debriefing of players after a game with a shift towards media representing the views of the players and not those of a media editor.

    6- If 2 rounds remain the norm then there ought to be much more focus on where people are going to congregate between games.

    7- Spectators are highly problematic now. The players cannot even watch the other games. Whilst parents and friends still bring mobile phones into venues. This is a key problem. How do we transmit culture to future generations of players? The problem is balancing technology with competitive results and at the same time maintaining a chess game as a learning experience for the spectator. I actually think we have reached the point where all games should be recorded by DGT and spectators should simply be watching games in a media centre.

    8- Is it so wrong to encourage social blitz and transfer in between rounds?
    All 8 points are worthy of debate. Thanks for your contribution; it is valued.
    Using your numbering
    6....I agree, this is in need of a rethink. The crowd needs to be moved away from the doors that lead to the playing arenas. The noise was not tolerable.
    7....Spectator access was debated a number of times in the organising Committee. But more DGT is not a solution.
    8....Nothing wrong with social blitz; which is recognised by providing facilities in Ashwood Hall, and in the marquee. Transfer leads to undisciplined behaviour.
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  7. | #127
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,048

    Default Many games available from both the OPEN and the MINOR

    Click through here to start reviewing games.
    https://chessmicrobase.com/microbase...token=dgf5iwd5
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

  8. | #128
    Volunteer MOZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MOZ* is my main signon; PMs to me should be directed here. Other special purpose signons are used.
    Posts
    5,048

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    The rule should be quite simple.
    Unrateds should not be allowed to play in the Australian open.
    Why collect an entry fee if you cannot win a prize?

    The organizing committee probably saw things differently on these two points you make.

    First, it is an OPEN, not a semi-OPEN that is CLOSED to some.

    Second, the event had not been held in Vicortia for decades, and an unrated player may see participation as value enough, without the additional value of a rating prize.

    Anyway I think the organisers of the Australian open should be congratulated on their efforts.
    In the context of what was expected and achieved they did a wonderful job.
    Very generous recognition, thanks.
    Overall, from the important metric point of view, it went well.


    ...
    FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789

Members who have read this thread since 19-02-19, 08:05 PM : 0

Actions :  (View-Readers)  (Set Date)  (Clear Date)

There are no names to display.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •