Friday, August 11, 2006

Open Thread

Our first open thread last week was a success - 25 comments! OK, here's another one. Discuss:

1. Matt Sweeney's rival forum - an ACF official asks, will he or will he not enforce Code of Conduct declarations?
2. A Sydney chess personality wonders why the 2007 Sydney International Open doesn't have rating prizes
3. Can someone please confirm that the 2008 Olympiad will have these changes (i) a 5-man team down from 6, four still play and (ii) distaff side will have also 5 players and 4 play up from 3?

Have a good weekend ladies and gents. Yours truly will be at the NSW Teams Challenge 2 event this Sunday. I can't wait.

47 comments:

jefferyjefferson said...

I don't know anything about chess, but I love monster trucks. Do you ever talk about monster trucks?

Anonymous said...

Does "Sydney chess personality" mean a player under 2000 who thinks he's a star? lol

You play in these tournaments for the FIDE rating,not the bloody rating prizes!

Pax said...

I wonder if this "Sydney chess personality" is a certain business rival of Brian Jones.

And you have to wonder if he's right. Not only are the entry fees reverse weighted according to rating, but if you are the average Joe Blow there is not a single prize that you can hope to win.

Seems like a risky ploy. There will be valid arguments for the prize structure of course, but if the punters just don't turn up then BJ will look a bit of a fool.

Anonymous said...

The tournament prizemoney structure and entry fee for the Sydney international looks pretty standard to me.

European tournaments are like this most of the time.
I cant see what the fuss is all about.

I'd rather have 1-12th place prizes than have some 1800 player getting a prize while scoring less than me.

This tournament is meant to be about PROFESSIONAL chess standards...if the 1600-1800 players arent good enough to finish in the top 12 ,well then tough luck!

Queenstown used a similar structure earlier this year,didnt see people crying then.

Pax said...

If the tournament were about PROFESSIONAL chess standards, then it would be an invitational round robin. It isn't, since they will need the punters to PAY for the prizes for the top 12.

The Queenstown event had modest rating prizes for u2000, u1800 and u1600.

It's a simple matter of economics. The decision not to award any rating prizes may cost more money in reduced numbers than it saves. I hope that doesn't happen, but we will see.

Anonymous said...

re 2008 olymiad conjecture:

http://www.olimpbase.org/2008/2008in.html but is this accuratE? ;)

Anonymous said...

The Sydney international open already has sponsors,so I dont think they are just relying on entry fees for the prize money.

Most professional chess tournaments in the world are opens,not invitational round robins!

Look at european tournament sites and you will see what reality is.
The prize format that Mr Jones has chosen is VERY common overseas.

Anonymous said...

Pax,I think you haved missed the point.

The Sydney international open being organised by Brian Jones is about giving australian chess players oppurtunities to earn IM and GM norms.

Rating prizes for players below 2000 is a distant second .

The players below 2000 who will be entering this tournament wont be worried about winning a prize,their main concern will be to get a FIDE rating or to improve the FIDE rating they currently have now.

If players below 2000 are concerned with winning prize money then they should stick with the Doeberl major,they have a much better chance of picking up cash there.

R.Reti said...

That is right . Cash I is not the only incentive to play chess. A great rating and the respect you get from that is worth a few dollars missed.

Anonymous said...

I havnt seen any bad behaviour on Matts new bb,the conduct so far is fine.

People who want to engage in flamewars like Mr Bonham should stick to chesschat.

(Dr) Kevin Bonham said...

The author of reply 10 hasn't been paying much attention. While the civility between posters on Matt's board is still more or less intact despite a few signs of tension, the civility level towards outsiders is questionable. For instance a poster (PhilD707) has accused Bill Gletsos of being a serial verbal abuser and insisted that everyone agrees with him, although a poll started by PhilD707 himself on chesschat thus far indicates more or less the opposite.

If Matt wants to maintain an absence of flamewars on his board he will need to police uncivil comments towards outsiders as well as between members. Otherwise it is only a matter of time before offence taken by someone at an intemperate comment about an outsider erupts into a flamewar.

What is heartening to see is that some of those on ACCF, such as Matthew Sweeney and PhilD707, who are using ACCF to perpetuate chesschat-derived grudges, are being rebuked for their bias and factual inaccuracies by some other ACCF posters.

I wish to make it clear again that no comment I make on this blog is ever made in my role as an ACF official, except where I explicitly indicate I am posting in such role. My declaration to this effect is permanent. I'd appreciate it if AR would not mention my ACF position in relation to matters unrelated to it, but there is nothing I can do about it when he does.

Kevin Bonham said...

I notice Matthew has finally responded to my question. He writes, on the previous open thread: "I am not answerable to you about ACCForum because you are not even a member." This means that Matthew will not answer questions about membership conditions from non-members - how are non-members therefore to know if the conditions are such as to make them want to join?

Matthew indicates that "the declaration is something we push strongly." I see no evidence of this. Although those joining are advised they "should" make the CoC declaration as their first post, four members have not done so and one has done so in a significantly altered form. Has any pressure being applied to those who have not signed it to do so? If so it clearly hasn't worked. If it is not enforced then it is clearly optional.

Matthew also refers to "FOFW" as a typical Chess Chat comment. This is a typical unfactual slur as most instances of "FOFW" have been moderated. Only five uses of FOFW as an insult have survived moderation. Three were by Belthasar, one was by bergil in response to Belthasar's use of it, and one was by ... Matthew Sweeney.

Anonymous said...

how much bad behaviour can there be on a place that's comatosE?

ggrayggray said...

SIO- there is also a chance that Brian could add in a tournament for the lower rated players if it does become apparent that they arent supporting the tournament and he wants to add 'more' to the event.

Since it is one big swiss, having a lot of low rated players in the field decreases the chances of getting norms etc. (of course pax would already be aware of this).

ggrayggray said...

would be nice if ppl could use real names on here so we know who is commenting, instead of speculation, which can be incorrect.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Bugger me! Howard Duggan has had an avatar of doctored photo to produce an ugly kid with a non-descript but appalling syndrome.

1. He has had it for weeks.

2. That EXACT SAME photo, one metre high, is stuck on buses all though my home town.

3. He copped a 24 hour ban for that avatar.

Chess Chat is increasingly looking like a site run by the progeny of nincompoops.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Bonham says, “… Matthew will not answer questions about membership conditions from non-members - how are non-members therefore to know if the conditions are such as to make them want to join?”

Easy. Try to join and find out.

Bonham says, “Matthew indicates that "the declaration is something we push strongly." I see no evidence of this.”

That would be because, 1. You are not a member and 2. I do not contact you as I contact all members.

Bonham says, “Although those joining are advised they "should" make the CoC declaration as their first post, four members have not done so and one has done so in a significantly altered form. Has any pressure being applied to those who have not signed it to do so?”

You are not a member of ACCForum, so all of this is none of your business. If you want to join, get someone to nominate you. Then I will engage. (I assume that nobody has invited you, I wonder why LOL.)

Until then, you can thrash about like a pig in mud at Chess Chat. You, continuing to use your real name, and as an office holder in the Tasmanian Chess Association and the Australian Chess Federation, can abuse, denigrate, and bully people at Chess Chat. You can stay there and bring Australian chess officials generally, into disrepute. You can pretend to be rational while attempting a fallacious debunking of your reputation for being a “Serial Verbal Abuser.” (SVA.) Yes mate, you can do all that at Chess Chat, but you will never do it at ACCForum.

PS You personally, would not have to make a CoC declaration, because we know you already are.

PPS And you can tell that other SVA mate of yours that I could whip up a DoG declarartion for him if he can bully somebody into nominating him for ACCForum.

ggrayggray said...

Rincewind has since clarified the situation that HD wasnt tossed for the avatar that Matt refers too.

Pax said...

Actually 'anonymous', most European tournaments are run in many divisions. So there are, in fact plenty of prizes for the lower rated players.

Can you think of a single major European tournament which is run as a single division Open swiss with no rating prizes? I sure can't.

As for sponsors, according to the website, at the moment there is a venue sponsor, and two minor sponsors. As such, the advertised prize pool must be generated almost entirely from entry fees.

Pax said...

Norms are only a theoretical possibility unless the tournament becomes divisionalised.

Anonymous said...

would howard have been banned for a week if the offending avatar had also included erniE? ;);)

Matthew Sweeney said...

12-08-2006, 02:44 PM
Boris: Was the avatar he was banned for the pony-tailed, bad-teethed thing or a new one?

12-08-2006, 03:44 PM
Bill Gletsos: Yes

12-08-2006 at 06:27 PM
Bill Gletsos: [EDIT]No. It was a new one.{/EDIT]


That's right folks, Gletsos gave the absolutely uncompromising unambiguous and authoritive answer, "Yes" without any idea about what was going on. This most abusive dogbot, who calls everyone who misses by 1% a fool, moron, evidence fee zone, clueless, cretin et cetera, did not even bother to say "Oops, sorry for being wrong." Why? LOL LOL LOL We all know why :-) He is Bill Gletsos, the worst state President to ever dog his way into office.

Anonymous said...

Pax,whith the kind of money on offer for the Sydney international open I would imagine there will be plenty of IM's and maybe as many as 5 GM's...which doesnt make norms so impossible to achieve.

Why are you such a negative person?

Anonymous said...

why not turn the doeberl into an open next year adding an extra day to it to enable 9 rounds and have brian jones's sio follow on from it? ... and the word from sesame street is ... co ... op ... er ... atE :)

Kevin Bonham said...

Matthew shows contempt for prospective members of his forum (not that I am one at this stage) by ignoring the fact that joining his forum is a very substantial effort compared to most forums. On that basis a prospective member should at least know what the rules actually are rather than finding them out later ... maybe ... oh, that's right, they're still hopelessly vague.

Matt's point about no-one inviting me to join ACCF is moot since (i) he has no idea whether anyone has contacted me privately about this or not (ii) in any case I have expressed no interest in joining. As previously stated Matthew Sweeney must apologise for posting and failing to moderate irrelevant and false slurs about my personal life on UCJ before he can be considered competent enough as a site admin for his site to be worth considering joining.

The rest of Matt's dribble (essentially mudslinging about mudslinging, how quaint) is just another hysterical rant.

Pax said...

With respect, anonymous, I am only being realistic.

To achieve a norm in a nine round event, five opponents must be titled, including at least three IMs (for an IM norm) or three GMs (for a GM norm). Furthermore, no more than two opponents can be (FIDE) unrated, and at least [b]three[/b] opponents must be from other federations. Not to mention the minimum average rating requirements.

Like I say, it is theoretically possible, but I would be astonished if any player was to meet these conditions in an Open Swiss (with no parallel divisions) in Australia.

Anonymous said...

Can the anonymous with the raised E confirm whether they are Eclectic from chesschat?

Anonymous said...

would you also like my full name address and telephone numbEr?

Libby said...

Hi Kevin

Why does anyone care why I left Chess Chat? Having attempted to depart without a public dummy spit or any of the "drama queen" scenario that Howard has attributed to me since, I really don't get it?

My position on the behaviour of some posters - with official capacities - is well known. I don't think public slanging does their "official" status or activities any favours. In persisting at Chess Chat I saw no sign that I could expect anything but that kind of behaviour - including from myself.

Sure, I could have created a locked thread for event announcements etc but that wouldn't prevent me (or others) engaging in the same sort of unedifying discussions as we have in the past. What's more there are numerous more appropriate opportunities for me to promote the events to the principal stakeholders. I am easily contactable via both the event and ACTJCL websites, contact through the ACF Bulletin etc. Those airing their concerns so vocally on Chess Chat have never contacted me directly but at least the suspension of my account leaves no-one expecting a response from me in that Forum. If my account remained active there may well be just that expectation.

And given I did wear a level of "flack" over aspects of the ACTJCL bid it is worth noting that all the proposals were put to the ACF with the option for them to decline any changes. In relation to the Aus Schools, we indicated a preference for the December dates but gave the option of retaining our November arrangement. Although, given recent communications over the FIDE rating of the Open Under 18 events at the Aus Juniors I am not sure if the content of the documents sent to the ACF is completely familiar to those who voted on it.

Libby

Anonymous said...

Not interested in your contact details "Raised E",just wondering if you are the poster known to all as "Eclectic"....lol

Kevin Bonham said...

Libby, people care why anyone leaves chesschat because there has been some debate about whether there has been something of an upsurge in departures for any specific reason recently, or whether a range of people have just left for a range of reasons, most of them unrelated to site moderation. Those sorts of discussions are usually started by those criticising the mods and intending to lay blame on us for supposedly driving off Libby, Jenni or (whoever else). I prefer to respond to them in as informed a manner as I can and that is why I am keen to establish why people leave when they do.

Anonymous said...

"would be nice if ppl could use real names on here so we know who is commenting, instead of speculation, which can be incorrect."_ggraygray

why speculate on the "who"?

why not simply critiquE the "what"?

Matthew Sweeney said...

Bonham said:

“Matt's point about no-one inviting me to join ACCF is moot since (i) he has no idea whether anyone has contacted me privately about this or not (ii) in any case I have expressed no interest in joining. “

I have a link for you:

http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Aesop/Aesops_Fables/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.html

Libby said...

Kavin - "I prefer to respond to them in as informed a manner as I can and that is why I am keen to establish why people leave when they do."

Which must have been why you bothered to ask me???? Given all the so-called "speculation."

You may also choose - or not to - to read between the lines of my comments about the way people who hold dual & official capacities are representing our sport on Chess Chat.

Frosty said...

Hi Kevin,

You wrote:
> ... or whether a range of people
> have just left for a range of
> reasons, most of them unrelated
> to site moderation

The reason I left was because of moderation rules. But it wasn't the only factor. In order of priority from my perspective, the reasons that I departed were:

1/ Moderation rules
2/ Dissatisfaction with the level of abuse going backwards and forwards

I did hear, after my departure, that you (?) had posted some qualifying comments about my concerns over the moderation rules. Perhaps this would have answered my questions/objections ... but since I had already left Chess Chat by that stage, I shall probably never know (apparently the comments were posted in the Coffee Lounge, and of course, once having left I had no access to that area).

I have no personal objections to, or problems with, any of the moderators, the administrator, or the site owner. But from my perspective, its ancient history now and I don't even really read the Chess Chat board much nowadays and have no desire to post there again.

Kevin Bonham said...

Libby, I'm not interested in reading anything into your comments because I just flatly disagree with that aspect of them. Chess admin is something I do as a volunteer. If the agencies that I am doing it for are not happy with me flaming people who clearly deserve to be flamed while posting in an unofficial capacity (hence not representing anything), then they can tell me that and I will consider my response at that time - which will probably be along the lines of "and precisely how is this actually any of your business?". If they don't want someone who likes to go goose-hunting in his spare time, they should elect someone else!

Aside from those agencies, I am just not interested in anyone else's opinion, particularly not opinions of the simplistic "all flaming is bad" variety. I regard such views as no more valid than the views of those who think that chess itself is pointless.

I have better things to do than hound posters who have left with "Why did you leave?" questions that they might find intrusive, clueless or annoying. However while others have seen fit to comment on why a certain poster left, I don't believe I have done so except where they have made it reasonably clear. Libby, if I have made an incorrect statement about your reasons anywhere please show me as I will be happy to correct it.

Thank you for the link, Matt, was there any one in particular you wanted me to read for more vivid insights into your homespun tryhard psychoanalysis?

Frosty - what I found strange was that you cited a particular rule in leaving, but that was a rule that would have been applied anyway in any really contentious case (as such we had not changed anything), and was something that virtually never comes up on the site (quoting from private conversations). As such I don't see why you saw that rule as an issue. We weren't about to go deleting cases where someone quoted something uncontentious. The aim was to make it clear that the kind of nonsense where A says that B said exactly C in private (and then B denies it, and nothing is ever proven) is out. If you can see merit in a person being allowed to quote from a private convo in such circumstances, please explain it to me.

Libby said...

Kevin, I expected no email from you over my departure from Chess Chat. I'm sure you do have much to do other than follow such things up. I just wondered after this comment - "I prefer to respond to them in as informed a manner as I can and that is why I am keen to establish why people leave when they do." - why you didn't ask? It was your keeness expressed - not any concern of my own - that led me to pose the question of why you just didn't ask me yourself? The whole topic came up only after my departure seemed to continue to draw comment that I was certainly not soliciting.

As for the rest. I am allowed (I think) to feel differently to yourself on the issue of how the conduct of chess officials on Chess Chat may colour the perception of readers. (I knew nothing until recently of QLD - I now know a little of some of the people involved - that's been an interesting example) I'm not disputing your right to comment there in any way you choose. I am allowed to have my own opinion of how that refelects on our organisation. If my feeling is not widely held then it really doesn't matter does it?

Matthew Sweeney said...

KB:
"Thank you for the link, Matt, was there any one in particular you wanted me to read..."

Something when wrong with the cut/paste and the link was truncated. I hope this helps - but I doubt that you have the maturity for self examination.

http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/Aesop/Aesops_Fables/The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.html

Kevin Bonham said...

Libby, I'm keen to discuss what can be determined about people's reasons for leaving based on whatever info is already on the public record. If it's not on the public record I'm not interested in asking (when I have no idea if it will be welcome or not) but I will point out when the speculations of others appear to be unfounded. Hope that clarifies it.

That you are allowed to have a view has never been in dispute. I question, however, whether melodramatic and conflict-averse views about the impact of certain actions on the game at large, are in any way empirically well-founded. That hotheads spouting trash can lead to a loss of volunteer goodwill is, in my view, clearcut. Whether people flaming the hotheads has any deleterious impact is a different matter.

Matthew Sweeney said...

The blog software is truncating long web addresses.

To read about Kevin Bonham and his opinion of ACCForum:

http://www.pagebypagebooks.com/

and then add

Aesop/Aesops_Fables/

and then add

The_Fox_and_the_Grapes_p1.html

Matthew Sweeney said...

Bonham:
"If the agencies that I am doing it for are not happy with me flaming people who clearly deserve to be flamed while posting in an unofficial capacity (hence not representing anything), then they can tell me that and I will consider my response at that time ..."

You, Gletsos and Duggan *ARE* the agencies.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

frosty said...

Hi Kevin,

You wrote:
>> The aim was to make it clear that the kind of nonsense where A says that B said exactly C in private (and then B denies it, and nothing is ever proven) is out. If you can see merit in a person being allowed to quote from a private convo in such circumstances

The problem I had was precisely this:

- most conversations I have about chess matters are private, whether it be with members of my own club, or administrators at another club, or coaches, etc

- the ban was on posting details of private conversations (no additional information was provided at that time)

Either I would post details of private conversations and in contravention of moderation rules, or I would have very little to post.

Hence my departure.

Kevin Bonham said...

Frosty - there was never a ban on *posting* material from private conversations. The ban was on *quoting* which is not the same thing. In general one is still free to summarise one's impression of what another person said, but one can't give an exact alleged quote in a case where there is an expectation of confidentiality. Furthermore if you've heard something from another person you are free to report what you've heard without using the form "X said [insert quote here]" I get the impression that you simply didn't understand the new rule as it applied to private conversations, and thought it stretched much further than it did.

Matt, it has long been established (especially since UCJ) that the idea of you giving maturity lessons to anyone is ridiculous.

Your use of that fable has two glaring flaws. Firstly most of my criticisms of ACCF have been not of the discussions on the site itself but of your cumbersome membership procedure and your lack of clarity concerning it. Second I could have posted on UCJ any time I liked but I thought UCJ was a considerably worse forum than ACCF has been to date. And no, Bill and I are not "the agencies" - the agencies in the context I used are the ACF, the TCA , the site owner of chesschat and all other chess-related groups or people I do stuff for.

Matthew Sweeney said...

I am sick to death with Bonham's persitantly arguing the toss with EVERYONE. Time for me to walk away form the toxic rot of Kevbot.

If he wants to turn this GOOD blog into another anus built for his product. I will not help him by replying here, to him.

Matthew Sweeney said...

I am sick to death with Bonham's persitantly arguing the toss with EVERYONE. Time for me to walk away form the toxic rot of Kevbot.

If he wants to turn this GOOD blog into another anus built for his product. I will not help him by replying here, to him.

Anonymous said...

yEah!

Kevin Bonham said...

Great stuff Matthew! Good to see your attitude to losing debates is as gracious as ever.