Friday, March 24, 2006

Careless Announcements

What in the world is wrong with Australian Chess Federation officials? It seems to me that they have either careless tongues or slippery fingers. In his President's Report earlier this year, the ACF head, Dennis Jessop, showed utter contempt for Aussie chess fans who inhabit the country's most popular chess forum by writing:

The most public matter has been the aftermath of the Australian Open and Junior Championships 2004/2005 held at Mt Buller, which has still to be fully dealt with. A lot of criticism has been made, especially on the Chess Chat Forum, of George Howard as a result of the events. Some of this has been justified but much of it, like much else that appears on that Forum, has been uninformed and irresponsible.

I happen to be a critic of the Mt Buller tournament and, no doubt, Mr Jessop had somone like yours truly in mind. But hey, who's laughing now Mr Jessop?

And a couple of days ago, ACF Selections Coordinator, Dr Kevin Bonham, was worthy of our praise for his wise decision to request an escape clause in what I think is an absolutely unjust piece of motion. Yet, on the matter pertaining to Mr Matthew Sweeney, who has been banned by his local state association for a period of 18 months, Dr Bonham said this:

The 18-month ban was warranted given that Matthew had not apologised at that stage. He still hasn't. Indeed a 5-year or even 10-year ban would have been legitimate in my view if the NSWCA had such power.

Yes, he said (and let me repeat so you won't miss it), "a 5-year or even 10-year ban".

We truly respect these officials for the time they volunteer to our game. But those with Ferdinand Marcos tendencies ought to be rooted out like a cancerous tooth. These guys are dangerous.


Anonymous said...


My comment was expressed as a private individual and not on behalf of the ACF - Chess Chat has clear policies that comments are made in a personal capacity unless stated otherwise.

I was actually very tempted to say a LIFE ban was warranted if Sweeney did not apologise (since Sweeney was totally out of line and there is no reason he should not apologise, nor any reason to let him back in until he does) but I do believe that even the most recalcitrant should be forgiven for their misdeeds eventually.

While on the subject of allegedly careless talk, since you recently referred to me as a "sick unit" simply because I treated a typical Chess Chat Sweeney beatup thread with the levity it deserved, you are totally unqualified to comment on the subject!

Anonymous said...

Kevin Bonham is a dick as is his mate Bill Gletsos. Chess in Australia would benefit enormously if the two of them took their bats and balls and pissed off out of chess administration altogether. Make way for some new blood who could seriously improve the state of chess in this country. Bonham's suggestion that he can post comments as an individual rather than in his administrator role is disingenuous considering the issues he comments on are, in the main, within the areas in which he administers.

Anonymous said...

Seems that some Aussie chess officials are losing the plot. To touch on two of the topics.

A 5 to 10 year ban for what Matt Seeney haas done is ridiculous. In fact his present 18 month ban is far too harsh. I would have thought that 3 to 6 months waold hae been more appropriate. the punishment should fit the crime.

As for that disastrous Mt Buller comp, has George Howard made any payments yet? Remember his promises in the ACF Newsletter a couple of months ago to pay in monthly instalments? Or was this just another of his false promises regarding Mt Bullcrap? My hunch is that he has not yet paid a cent!

Anonymous said...

anonymous #1's comment: "Bonham's suggestion that he can post comments as an individual rather than in his administrator role is disingenuous considering the issues he comments on are, in the main, within the areas in which he administers." is itself disingeneous and irrelevant, because in this case I was commenting on how long someone should have been banned for by the NSWCA. I have many chess hats but banning people on behalf of the NSWCA is certainly not one of them. So I suggest this line of junk be kept to those issues it actually applies to - which would be a small minority of my public comment on chess issues.

Anonymous #2 seems to have misunderstood my comment, which was about the range of sentences I would have considered legitimate, not about what punishment I would personally have imposed.

See the thread on chesschat for further comments on this beatup.