Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Complaint Against Box Hill CC

We've just received this comment and we thought it worthy to give it it's own post.

I think the Canterbury Box Hill chess club should put in a bid for one of these events and put their notoriously nobbled semi open swiss concept on the world stage; that's right, the one where the lower half aren't allowed to win, yet can be expected to play upper half entrants. And yes it nobbles improving juniors, too, especially those just under the divisional splicing point.

Daily bulletins would wax lyrical about the sacred "competitive index" and the mystical "metric". An open swiss should mean "open to all" meaning that even the lowest entrant can win, albeit statistically improbable. Also, if the FIDE requirements for a norm in a nine round swiss allow for 2 unrated games then why at club level, in this instance, is the excuse about avoiding junk rounds bandied about so that higher rated players can be wrapped in cotton wool?

So you didn't get a "competitive game" tonight? I can't control my tears boo hoo sob.

Not that anybody in the ACF or CV would ever get off their arse and ban the practice.

(BTW I boycotted the Canterbury Box Hill chess club due to the factors above).

Now where is that Box Hill spokesman and noisy apostle of the so-called competitive index Mr Trevor Stanning?

35 comments:

Matthew Sweeney said...

I support the basic idea of an excellerated Swiss pairing. (I was against it in the past.) The details of how such a process should be opperate can be debated.

The Box Hill method can be found here:
chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=4315&postcount=1

Debate will start here:
ezboard.com/faustralianchessclubfrm18
The thread is "Many players prefer competitive games"

[Ameil, if you can, can you please put a name to this unhappy customer. ]

The Closet Grandmaster said...

Well, no I can't because they submitted the comment as anon. In any case, I respect people's anonymity.

- TCG

ggrayggray said...

i just laugh at this gutless troll who once again expects that acf or a state organisation to ban something because they dont like it.

But if the acf was to ban something they did agree with, they would be complaining, probably on a blog like this :P

Libby said...

I would have thought that most tournament types are acceptable as long as tournament conditions are advertised in advance and are clear to all competitors.

The competitor then has the freedom to compete or not ... and the market decides.

If your format is complete bollocks then players will not turn up in numbers for the event to be viable and/or successful.

The choice of an individual to "boycott" is exactly that - their choice. I don't think it is controversial at all to run an event under this (or any other)format unless players are somehow deceived by the advertising & promotion so that they don't understand what they are entering into.

What do we prefer? Oh (silly me) this is chess - just keep doing what you've always done - it's working ...

Anonymous said...

to matt sweeney:

it is NOT an acclerated swiss

to garvin gray:

please don't call me a "gutless troll" when amiel's board permits anonymous posts

to libby smith:

i doubt whether juniors especially are fully conversant with the ramifications of the box hill "system" ... that being said i believe that to designate the event as an "open" is PATENTLY FALSE ADVERTISING which were a similar thing to be done in the corporate world be dealt with severely.

to amiel rosario:

thank you for your comment that you respect a person's right to anonymity.

___________________________________

tonight i emailed a formal complaint to the canterbury branch of the bendigo bank concerning their sponsorship of this event

if the concept of commerical confidentiality is meaningless then my cover will be blown i guess

:)

ggrayggray said...

Open generally means that anyone can play in the event or similar. It does not have anything to do with acceleration.

Box Hill have been running their tournaments using permanent acceleration for a long time now. If it was regarded as a dud format by those that play there regularly, it would have been tossed long ago.

Quite simply, you have many clubs to choose from and so does everyone else. BHCC is one of the biggest clubs in Melbourne, maybe that is because of the format they use. Maybe it is helping to increase numbers, not reduce them.

You really do come across as someone who has a general axe to grind against BHCC or people who associate there.

Matthew Sweeney said...

ANON#1; tonight i emailed a formal complaint to the canterbury branch of the bendigo bank concerning their sponsorship of this event

MS: Not helpful at all. Not good. This can only damage. It cannot build, mend, or improve. Most unfortunate.

MexicanOZ said...

Probably the better place to debate this is on the ACCF bulletin board at this link.
http://p067.ezboard.com/faustralianchessclubfrm18.showMessage?topicID=18.topic

Or, if you wish to remain anon. then I suggest you post your BLOGGED item at chesschat. Although I suspect that the chesschat guys may recognise your IP address.

When I see your material in either of those two more appropriate places I will debate in detail with you.

Until then, keep Happy, Friend.

regards

Anonymous said...

thanks so very very much tcg for helping me bypass accf's absurd anon registration boycott by posting there on my behalf!!

:)

Anonymous said...

to steve3140 from "over there":

so why isn't the prevention of players in division B from winning prizes in division A considered a "restraint of trade" ?

Anonymous said...

of interest too that the event's main sponsor the canterbury junior chess club asked for a waiver of vistors fees for its members; now really if they were really looking after the the interests of its members wouldn't they be insisting that there be no divisions and the the major prizes be winnable by any of its members especially when one takes into account the way juniors rapidly improve?

hello!!!!!!!!!!

Libby said...

ANON#1; tonight i emailed a formal complaint to the canterbury branch of the bendigo bank concerning their sponsorship of this event

Phew! Thank goodness there is a really civic-minded, caring (if anonymous) individual in our midst.

And your desired outcome from this letter is ....? To save those Bendigo Bank people from having their name dragged down by this shameful event? Think of the adverse publicity you could be saving them from? The scandal they could find themselves embroiled in?

Or maybe it's just to undermine a group of people who have worked hard to secure sponsorship for an event that happens to be run under a set of playing conditions you do not prefer? It is interesting that you have such courage in your convictions that you would write such a letter but choose to remain anonymous here. You obviously won't agree with my position but at least I'm prepared to own up to it.

Anonymous said...

The plot thickens....has Happyfriend ever played a tournament at Boxhill?

Anonymous said...

That's great mate!!!

Don't like something, so complain to the sponsor...

Chess has problems attracting sponsors without people like you writing letters to them and pissing them off.. Do you think they care about your pissy complaint?

Get a life, mate... if you don't like the tournament, the club or the organisers, don't play there... Its your choice... but why stuff things up with sponsors for everyone else... (your act was both childish and selfish!)

Anonymous said...

exactly! i don't play there! but next week there will be up to 120 who will all of whom ought to be able to win first prize!

the nerve of you to call me selfish! yet the corralling of the top prizes as spoils for the upper rated echelon only is not ???

ps and yes, i do have a life!!

ggrayggray said...

to happyfriend,

you sir are a dangerous creature. You have attacked mcc on many occasions previously and now are turning your attentions to Box Hill. Who is next?

Anonymous said...

From Matthew Sweeney in one of the above posts: "Not helpful at all. Not good. This can only damage. It cannot build, mend, or improve. Most unfortunate".

Matthew, what about the damage you cause to Aussie chess with your continual unrelenting abuse of the ACF, NSWCA and various hard working conscientous chess officials? No wonder it is so hard to get people involved in chess administration when they see your vicious abuse. Why would anyone bother to become a chess administrator when all they get for their efforts are mountains of abuse from the likes of you?

Matthew Sweeney said...

Gutless ANON: Matthew, what about the damage you cause to Aussie chess with your continual unrelenting abuse of the ACF, NSWCA and various hard working conscientous chess officials?

MS: What damage? I don't see any damage to Australian Chess. How about you give some specifics, or self-immolate in their honour.

The ACF is a dud. The people who think it is not, must be duds too. The NSWCA needs a tree surgeon, a plan for their $80k and a new President.

As for them being hard working officials, who cares. I could work hard shovelling sand from one pile to another and back again. It wouldn't mean I was being smart about how I expend my energy.

Both the ACF and the NSWCA work too hard for too little out put. One needs a new constitution, the other needs a new President.

Anonymous said...

The ACF definitely needs reconstructing.

As for chessplayers criticism causing the ACF damage,what a load of nonsense!

As tournament players we contribute money to to the ACF every time we enter a tournament.
And what do we get in return besides our games rated?

Absolutely nothing!

The ACF doesnt even consider us members,only state associations are members.

What kind of national organisation doesnt list its competitors as members?

An unrepresentative and dogmatic one!

Anonymous said...

Sweeney, it is very sad for Australian chess that you cannot see the damage your actions cause. If you were "in the loop" like I am, you would know that many chess officials have been overworked for many years and would like to quit but can't, because there is no one else to do the job, so they stay out of a sense of duty. It does not take much to push someone like that over the edge and quit.

Who are you to criticise and tell others what to do when you can only get a pathetic 8 players to a chess tournament you organise and then change the first prize to $100 when you had GUARANTEED $500 for first prize. Do you know what guaranteed means?

You did NOTHING when you were on NSWCA Council, especially in regard to getting a Chess Centre established. You are full of talk but do nothing constructive; on the contrary you are destructive, because you turn people away from chess, and you know it.

Anonymous said...

Turn people away from chess?

Are you serious? lol

Most chess players in Australia wouldnt have a clue who Matt Sweeney is.

You TOTALLY exaggerate his impact on australian chess.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Gutless anon: If you were "in the loop" like I am,

MS: So you say. But a gutles anonumours turd can say anything.

Gutless anon: ... you would know that many chess officials have been overworked for many years and would like to quit

MS: As if I am not "overworked." My duties do not stop at junior andclub chess, but continue into other voluteer positions in sports a nd community, *to the tune of > 8 hrs/week* Frankly, turd, I find your holyer than thou spray a bit teadious. I do my arty and necer bitch about it. How about you do the same.

Gutless anon. ... but can't, because there is no one else to do the job, so they stay out of a sense of duty.

MS: They can quit, just as I could quit. I don't, because I *feel* that I have a duty. So STFU.

Gutless anon: It does not take much to push someone like that over the edge and quit.

MS: So? Let them FO. The cemetry is full of indespensible men.

Gutless anon: Who are you to criticise and tell others what to do ...

MS: I am Matthew Sweeney. Who the fuck are you?

Gutless anon: ...when you can only get a pathetic 8 players to a chess tournament you organise

MS: might have been more if the NSWCA had sent out the emial invites earlier than the the day before the event. Suck that.

Gutless anon: ...and then change the first prize to $100 when you had GUARANTEED $500 for first prize. Do you know what guaranteed means?

MS: Every, that is *every* person at that event, was 110% happy with the structure and prizes of new one-day rapid event that replaced the orginal two day event. If *anyone* had been in the least bit unhappy with the new event, it would have been kept as orginal event would have been run.

You, are a sinking bag of shit who has no sense what so ever. Is you name Bill Gletsos?

Gutless anon: You did NOTHING when you were on NSWCA Council, especially in regard to getting a Chess Centre established.

MS: I was sacked before I submitted the work that I had already done. The NSWCA prestident made sure that I was sacked, by ensuring that my absence from consecutive meetings was used to oust me. He, Bill Gletsos, did not even ring to find out what I was up to. He is *filth* and so are you.

Gutless anon: You are full of talk but do nothing constructive.

MS: You know sweel FA. Get cancer.

Gutless anon: ... on the contrary you are destructive, because you turn people away from chess, and you know it.

MS: I don't know it. There are about about 120 clubs, assoiations and organisations in Australia. That would make about 400 executive officials. NAME 1% OF THEM WHO WILL POINT AT ME AS THE FINAL STRAW FOR QUITTING.

Cannot do it? Then piss off you gutless anonyous turd.

Anonymous said...

http://www.chesschat.org/showpost.php?p=121341&postcount=23

another reason why i detest this system ... is there a preset rating cut off which determines who is in division "a" or division "b" or is a last minute decision of the organisers depending on who rolls up on the opening night?

i'd be quite cheesed off were i a middle of the field player expecting to play in division "a" then told sorry mate it's division "b" for you

and another point

ok there are minor prizes for division "b" but is it fair that those at the top of division "b" should have to play division "a" players when a prize is at stake?
ie division "b" players can't win division "a" prizes but division "a" players are allowed to determine the division "b" prize outcomes

a bit rich isn't it?

ps if garvin gray is so interested in the canterbury/box hill/quasi_pseudo_open he should include what division the entrants are expected to be in as part of the starting list

MOZ said...

1500

ggrayggray said...

I dont think it should be declared beforehand at all. The reason being is that some players will say- I dont want to play because I dont want to play in that division.

Also by not declaring the division split beforehand and just leaving it to who turns up, it takes the pressure off the committee to keep changing the split number every few tournaments and then having to justify the number change to all and sundry who might want to have a whinge.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Forget the "natural" cut-offs at round numbers.The absolute fairest method is to split the field at the close of entries, into 3, 4, or 5 divisions of equal size (remaindered players added to the divisions from the bottom up.)

MOZ said...

MS said "Forget the "natural" cut-offs at round numbers.The absolute fairest method is to split the field at the close of entries, into 3, 4, or 5 divisions of equal size (remaindered players added to the divisions from the bottom up.)"

There are other factors that come into it. If the 5 players < xxxx (near 1500) are 'old and not-so-bold', then their obvious preference is to play in B. (Homework for you as a side issue...work out why).
Therefore the good design of the tournament is to 'draw the line' so that they all fall in B, not A.

Experience counts.

Matthew Sweeney said...

MOZ: There are other factors that come into it. If the 5 players < xxxx (near 1500) are 'old and not-so-bold', then their obvious preference is to play in B.

MS: Yes, quite true, and a good organier will/must take that into account when determining the ranges in a *club event.* Sorry, I did not make it clear that I was refering only to *open* events

Anonymous said...

Matthew Sweeney: As if I am not "overworked." My duties do not stop at junior andclub chess, but continue into other voluteer positions in sports a nd community, *to the tune of > 8 hrs/week* Frankly, turd, I find your holyer than thou spray a bit teadious. I do my arty and necer bitch about it. How about you do the same.

"Gutless Anon" responds: Even if Sweeney did voluntary work for chess 24 hours a day for 7 days a week, it would not be enough to repair the damage he has done to chess in NSW and Australia.

MS: They can quit, just as I could quit. I don't, because I *feel* that I have a duty. So STFU.

"Gutless Anon" responds: The only sense of duty you seem to have is to try and destroy the NSWCA and ACF.

MS: So? Let them FO. The cemetry is full of indespensible men.
MS: I am Matthew Sweeney. Who the fuck are you?

"Gutless Anon" responds: Your foul language is evidence that you have not changed at all from your days at UCJ. The NSWCA should have banned you for longer than end of 2007. I will recommend to NSWCA Council that your ban be extended.

MS: might have been more if the NSWCA had sent out the emial invites earlier than the the day before the event. Suck that.

"Gutless Anon" responds: Blame the NSWCA for your shortcomings! What a cop out! You should be grateful that the NSWCA promoted your event at all, considering your disgusting abuse of us. Unlike you, the NSWCA looks at the bigger picture of chess, which is why we promoted your crappy Wollongong Tournament.

MS: Every, that is *every* person at that event, was 110% happy with the structure and prizes of new one-day rapid event that replaced the orginal two day event. If *anyone* had been in the least bit unhappy with the new event, it would have been kept as orginal event would have been run.

"Gutless Anon" responds: As per posts on Chess Chat, Barry Cox turned up and left in protest after you changed the comp from 2 day normal rated to 1 day rapid and so did not play. So much for your claim of "If *anyone* had been in the least bit unhappy with the new event, it would have been kept as orginal event would have been run"!

MS: I was sacked before I submitted the work that I had already done. The NSWCA prestident made sure that I was sacked, by ensuring that my absence from consecutive meetings was used to oust me.

"Gutless Anon" responds: That is not true, and you know it!

MS: You know sweel FA. Get cancer.

"Gutless Anon" responds: You are the cancerous one! You are a cancer to Australian chess and NSW chess in particular! Everyone knows it, except for you!

MS: I don't know it. There are about about 120 clubs, assoiations and organisations in Australia. That would make about 400 executive officials. NAME 1% OF THEM WHO WILL POINT AT ME AS THE FINAL STRAW FOR QUITTING.

"Gutless Anon" responds: Several people have told me that the find your endless bashing of NSWCA and ACF a factor in either leaqning towards quitting or not wanting to get involved in chess admin. I am not going to tell you who they are, because it would only encourage your destructive behaviour.

MS: Cannot do it? Then piss off you gutless anonyous turd.

"Gutless Anon" responds: If you were to leave Aussie Chess that would be much appreciated and would be of great benmefit to chess in this country, and NSW chess in particular.

MOZ said...

I met with our sponsor this morning to progress the Bendigo sponsorship of the Canterbury/ Box Hill OPEN due to start on the 22 Sept 2006.
The sponsorship will proceed, but only after I survived a 'please explain' from the bank manager who had received a direct e-mail complaint from the ANON who posted in your BLOG Amiel. As we know, ANON's only point of disagreeance is the pairings method used for this event. Hardly seems to be justification for jeopardising sponsorship funds.
I expect that your ANON. will now follow his complaint to its logical conclusion and not attend our event.

Matthew Sweeney said...

Gutless Anon Turd (GAT): The only sense of duty you seem to have is to try to destroy the NSWCA and ACF.

MS: Nearly right. Destroy the steady-as-she-goes mentality. If that means some officials are offended, so be it. As I said “The cemetery is full of indispensable men.” You must be one of them.

GAT: Your foul language is evidence that you have not changed at all from your days at UCJ.

MS: “Fuck” is not foul language. What *IS* foul is your craven attacks from the shadows of anonymity.

GAT: The NSWCA should have banned you for longer than end of 2007. I will recommend to NSWCA Council that your ban be extended.

MS: You do that. Then we will know who you are.

GAT: You should be grateful that the NSWCA promoted your event at all, considering your disgusting abuse of us.

MS: Good on ya. That’s the way to run NSW chess. Some NSW councilors are great, some are oxygen thieves. One of either of these might be a GAT.

GAT: Unlike you, the NSWCA looks at the bigger picture of chess,

MS: Like how it can avoid having ANY plan whatsoever for the $80k gathering dust for years.

GAT: As per posts on Chess Chat, Barry Cox turned up and left in protest after you changed the comp from 2 day normal rated to 1 day rapid and so did not play. So much for your claim of "If *anyone* had been in the least bit unhappy with the new event, it would have been kept as original event would have been run"!

MS: Barry Cox, said nothing to me. He simply disappeared as an *unapproved withdrawal*, then rang from home during the second round. So, there you have it. Your whole mud sling flushed away like a turd.

MS: You are the cancerous one! You are a cancer to Australian chess and NSW chess in particular! Everyone knows it, except for you!

GAT: Spoken like a true paragon on virtue. You fancy yourself as the personification of cis-platin. OK, so you are a peculiar little molecule, but you are not cis-platin – you’re more like KCN.

GAT: I am not going to tell you who they are, because it would only encourage your destructive behavior.

MS: Bullshit, you only know three, none of them human – a dog, a maggot and a snake.

GAT: If you were to leave Aussie Chess that would be much appreciated and would be of great benefit to chess in this country, and NSW chess in particular.

MS: Yep, sponsors would be lining up to out bid each other for naming rights to the 2007 NSW Champs. And we would have booming chess clubs all over the country. There would be a chessboard in every home and the Dept. Eduction would have chess in every curriculum. Yeah mate, that would all happen if I left chess. Next time I need advice from a swing seat sniffer I will be sure to look you up. V..

Anonymous said...

we know one thing at least ...

the complaint survived an immediate shift + delete

it will be interesting to see if the complainant gets a response

:)

442 said...

Glad to see the rants of one aggrieved player who doesnt like the prize structure hasnt damaged your sponsorship deal Trevor.

If players dont like a prize structure, then simply dont play.

There will be other tournaments that will suit your preferred prize structure... so go play in them.

Anonymous said...

excuse me! i'm not aggrieved about the prize structure at all! i'm aggrieved that the top prizes are deliberately put out of reach of the bottom half of the field. they pay their entry fee too!

oh and yes ... any chance that the minutes of the chess victoria meeting which approved this practice might come to light ... or are affiliated clubs allowed carte blanche with respect to how they structure their tournaments?

wait a minute! minutes of chess victoria meetings? don't make me laugh! they don't even have an office!

Malejewicz said...

For what it's worth I have never played in a tournament at Box Hill (apart from the Vic Open) and this is the first comment I am posting regarding this topic.