Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: CAQ Bars Bullwinkle Players!

  1. | #1
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Thumbs down CAQ Bars Bullwinkle Players!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Casey
    Funny thing happened when I went to play a few games of chess today at the Qld Teams chess finals - what was meant to be an enjoyable bit of Sunday chess turned into a very unpleasant day indeed.

    Having arrived on time as I always do, ready to play for the team of which I am a Lifetime Member, I and all the other players were greeted with an hour and twenty minute delay in the start time, which occurred because the CAQ had to 'deliberate ' over whether certain members of Bullwinkle's team were eligible to play - many of the very same players who have been, according to the very same CAQ, quite eligible to play in the past.

    There apparently has been much behind-the-scenes lobbying to make certain Bullwinkle players (strangely, it's only the stronger ones) ineligible to play in this event, even though this team has been a permanent (and might I say, refreshing) feature of Queensland chess teams play for well over a decade. Apparently the eligibility that was good enough for last year and a great many years before that, is now (magically) no longer adequate.

    This isn't the World Championship. It's supposed to be a fun one-day tourney where people have an opportunity to play in a team environment, without, hopefully, the burden of being inflicted with time-consuming and unnecessary pedantic bureaucracy. Alas, it would seem not.

    So, by the time I and whoever else on Bullinkle were officially declared ineligible to play in the Premier division, a decision then had to be made by Bullwinkle - to play as an intact and complete team in a lesser Division, (so at least we could maintain our status as a team), or to all turn around and go home in disgust. So, instead of getting some competition at my level, I had no option (since I wouldn't let my team down and go home) but to sit down against players lopsidedly rated below me, who also had to play against players rated lopsidedly above them. Grossly unfair to them, mind-numbingly boring for me.

    I was never personally informed by the tournament director as to if or why I was ineligible. Of course, the delay in getting going meant the whole day was then overly long and drawn out, and not many players were afterwards in much shape to play the Qld Lightning, which finally got underway sometime during the summer sunset. The quality of chess in two tournaments therefore suffered, instead of just the one. Bravo.

    My issue with the CAQ on this sad day for Queensland chess goes beyond whether or not certain Bullwinkle players were eligible - it is why it took them well over an hour to sort it out. If they had known I and/or others were ineligible, why could they not they have informed those individuals beforehand? They could have saved me a drive. If they had not known, why not? If they made the rules, don't they know what they are?? If for some reason the rules had changed since last year, why wasn't I informed that I would be ineligible? What made this year different from last, aside from the pathetic whining and lobbying of those teams who can apparently only defeat Bullwinkle by having them permanently removed from the competition through bureaucracy? The CAQ seemed to want to 'make a point', but the only point they made today was that whatever unfairness (if any) may or may not have been in place in the Qld teams tourney, it could certainly be made ten times worse by excluding players from the Division they intended to play in, and had been playing happily (and according to the CAQ themselves, eligibly) in for years.

    Common sense took a real beating today, and my confidence in the CAQ is pretty much shot. Thanks for ruining what should have been a great day for me and for many other players. Your job is to encourage participation in chess and to promote the game in this state, not to decide that you and your bureaucracy are more important than the chess players themselves. If this is the best the CAQ can do, maybe I need to start playing in another state.

    Kevin Casey
    A post by Kevin Casey (also a member of this forum and author of Australian chess literature).
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  2. | #2
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Thumbs down Patrick Byroms's Response to Mr Casey

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom
    I am one of the CAQ people referred to above, and I would like to explain some of the background to what happened today at the QTC.

    Firstly, I'm disappointed that there was no mention of the hard work that the CAQ Council has done in organising the event. About 60 players played today in the QTC, and that requires a fair amount of setting up and putting away, not to mention all the other organising. There were also 20 players in the Qld Lightning, which is not a bad tournout.

    Yes, we did change the rules this year. We also spent a lot of time and effort informing everybody (including Bullwinkle) of this change, which was made about 6 months ago. The CAQ Newsletter of 11 September, which was emailed to all members (http://www.caq.org.au/CAQNewsletters...sletter_20.htm) contains all the entry requirements.

    All clubs were sent a specific reminder several weeks ago to inform us of the players who might be playing for them. They didn't need to have definite names, only players who might play in the QTC. We received nothing from Bullwinkle until about a week before the event.

    We then considered the list of names. Most were accepted for the Premier Division, but some weren't. I'm not going into detail about the selection process, but if you had asked me today, I would have explained it.

    So we weren't deliberating over whether certain members of Bullwinkle were ineligible to play - we had already decided that, and informed Bullwinkle. What I don't understand is why Bullwinkle didn't inform you.

    When Bullwinkle entered these players anyway, and informed us that they might withdraw from the Premier Division if they weren't accepted, naturally we spent a lot of time deciding if we should stick to our original decision, which did cause an unfortunate delay. Bullwinkle could have avoided this by entering a team of qualified players in the Premier Division, as the other clubs did.

    Do you have evidence for this statement:
    There apparently has been much behind-the-scenes lobbying to make certain Bullwinkle players (strangely, it's only the stronger ones) ineligible to play
    Check the rules: If you or the other rejected player had played for Bullwinkle in the Interclub, you would have both qualified easily, so our rules can't be that strict.

    My final comment is this. If you play in a CAQ competition, you play by the CAQ's rules. If you don't like them, we are a democracy - you can discuss them with the CAQ Council and try to change them. Or you can do the hard work yourself and organise your own interclub event, with your own rules. But complaining here isn't going to achieve anything.
    Patrick Byroms's Response to Mr Casey
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  3. | #3
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Default Jacob Edwards Response to Patrick Byrom

    Quote Originally Posted by Jacob Edwards
    OK, since Patrick seems to want to dump the blame for this onto Bullwinkle, let’s put the whole, sordid story on record.

    The eligibility rules for the QCTC were changed for this year’s competition. As Patrick and Garvin say, plenty of notice of this was given.

    On Monday 6 December Garvin sent out what can only be described as a shirty e-mail reminding those clubs who were yet to enter that this was the closing date for team nominations.

    I was rather put off by the tone of this e-mail, since I had the date on the calendar and was fully intending to nominate our teams on time. I had sent messages to our club members and was waiting for the responses to come in. From the information to hand on the Monday I determined that we could field one Premier Division team of 6 players and probably 4 or 5 players in Second Division.

    I communicated this information to Garvin. Now, this seems to have been an on-going sore point with him -- our supposed ‘lateness’ in entering. Mark Stokes (who has recently returned to the CAQ council) was even told that we entered ‘late’. Now, if by ‘late’ it is meant that we entered on the last day permissible, then yes, I suppose we were ‘late’. If the Council wished entries to have been received earlier, perhaps they should have considered making the closing date earlier?

    Anyway, having stated our intention to field 2 teams, I began discussions with Garvin as to player eligibility. Again, this was done within the timeframe required. It might have been later than the Council would have liked, but I thought (logically, but perhaps erroneously) that they would prefer to consider players that might actually be a chance of playing rather than everyone who’s ever played chess for our club and who might call in at the last minute wishing to join the team. That is: we specifically waited until the last day so that we would have the clearest idea of who was likely to be available.

    Now, to the eligibility rules.

    This stems back, I suspect, to the Kings of Chess and their meteoric involvement in 2007. The Kings of Chess assembled a superstar team that swept the field in both of the CAQ’s official interclub competitions. They were an official club but didn’t really ‘feel’ like one.

    Now, Bullwinkle’s attitude was, firstly: “Hey, this is great. Really strong opposition. We hope these guys stick around.” And secondly: “Hmmm, if they keep thrashing us like this then we’ll have to lift our game.”

    Sadly, the Kings of Chess seem to have disappeared from the scene, but they seem to have left behind (in some circles) a lingering suspicion as to the legitimacy of any strong team that enters the interclub.

    Fast-forward to last year’s QCTC. Having yet again put a team together, Bullwinkle was hit by two withdrawals the night before the event. Keen not to let everyone else down (our players and opposition players alike) by pulling out, we frantically rang around to scrape up two replacements. The only available players turned out to be Brian Thomas and Moulthun Ly.

    Now, Brian is a Redcliffe player. We were very happy to have him along, and will be happy for him to play for Bullwinkle in any future match that doesn’t involve Redcliffe. The reason he played for us in the 2009 QCTC was that Redcliffe were unable to field a team.

    Moulthun had previously represented the Kings of Chess, and had never played for Bullwinkle. However, he was already strongly connected to the club. (Firstly through Kieron Olm-Milligan from his junior days at the Carindale club, then through David Smerdon and Roland Schmaltz. Last, but not least, there was the UQ connection. Club Bullwinkle was founded in the mid-nineties by myself and Konrad Uebel back in our UQ days and over the years has drawn together many, many UQ students. Moulthun was the latest.) People may have seen Moulthun as a ‘ring-in’, but he wasn’t, and isn’t. He has represented the club since the QCTC last year and will continue to do so. He has no allegiance to any other club. (And indeed was recognised under this year’s rules as being eligible for Bullwinkle.)

    But yes, the rules were changed to ensure that all players representing a club were ‘genuine’ representatives.

    The criteria to be fulfilled (any player needing to meet 2 out of 4 of these):

    1. to be a financial member of the club
    2. to be a life member of the club
    3. to have played in this year’s CAQ Interclub Championship
    4. to have played X number of games (what was it? 6?) at a club tournament this year

    For those who don’t know, Club Bullwinkle exists for three main purposes: to play interclub chess; to play transfer and blitz chess; to socialise.

    Hence, meeting criterion (4) was difficult for most of our players. We don’t have club tournaments every year (although we do play a lot of transfer!) and not many of our players are active at other clubs. We exist, indeed, partly to provide an avenue whereby players who don’t like to attend a weekly club can still play a bit and keep in touch with the chess world.

    As to criterion (3): a number of our players participated in the Interclub Championship earlier this year. In fact, Bullwinkle fielded 2 of the 4 teams that entered.

    Criterion (2): constitutionally, all our players are life members. The CAQ did not like this. It was, they felt, against the ‘spirit’ of life membership. To their credit, though, they recognised its validity.

    Criterion (1): financial membership. Yes, a bit of a sticking point, and more on this later. Having forgotten about the token membership system that Nik Stawski inaugurated some years ago, I thought that it would be necessary to apply for ‘special consideration’ for some of our players.

    SPECIAL CONSIDERATION. Yes. The rules for the QCTC stated that, should players not be able to meet 2 out of the 4 criteria, they could apply to the Council for ‘Special Consideration’, the aim of which was to establish that these players were, indeed, genuine representatives of the club. THERE WAS NOTHING WRITTEN AS TO HOW THE COUNCIL WOULD MAKE THIS DETERMINATION.

    Not even knowing who was on the CAQ Council (it’s not well-advertised on the website), I conducted a lengthy exchange of e-mails with Garvin. In particular, we were seeking to determine the eligibility (under ‘special consideration’) of Peter Evans, Kieron Olm-Milligan and Kevin Casey, all of whom had expressed their desire to play.

    In presenting a case for these players, I detailed their history of playing interclub matches for Bullwinkle. For those who are interested:

    Kevin Casey played for us in the 2009 and 2008 QCTC events, having been introduced to the club through his protégé and blitz sparring partner, David Smerdon. Kevin is in no way associated with any other club.

    Peter Evans played for Bullwinkle on 7 separate occasions from 1999-2005, having been introduced to the club via his brother David and club stalwart Andrew Meldrum. Peter is in no way associated with any other club.

    Kieron Olm-Milligan played 36 games for Bullwinkle between 2003 and 2009, having been introduced to the club through coach Nik Stawski. Kieron is in no way associated with any other club.

    Garvin, after initial discussions with the mysterious and unnamed Council, suggested to me that Peter’s association with the club was questionable, since he had played ‘only’ 7 games, none of them very recently. I replied that Peter hadn’t played any chess recently and that any chess he had played was with us. Though asking the Council to consider him, I did indicate that Peter would probably play in the Second Division anyway. (I was rather assuming at this point that Kieron and Kevin would be deemed eligible.)

    Garvin, having discussed the matter further with Council, suggested that ‘friendly’ interclub matches shouldn’t have any bearing on a player’s association with their club, and asked me to provide information as to the players’ involvement with CAQ-approved events. I told him that this information would be very time-consuming to dig out, and furthermore that the Council’s stance was quite peculiar. We were, after all, trying to establish how involved people were WITH OUR CLUB, not WITH THE CAQ.

    Garvin also indicated to me the Council’s feeling that it was ‘an unfair advantage’ to Bullwinkle to consider players based on the number of interclub games they’d played, because other clubs didn’t play as much as Bullwinkle.

    I replied: (1) that other clubs could play as much interclub chess as they wanted; (2), that excluding interclub participation from the criteria seemed odd, given that we were trying to field teams for an interclub competition; and (3) that we were, in any case, applying for ‘special consideration’ over and above a set of rules that seemed specifically tailored for clubs that met weekly. The fact that we needed to do this, ipso facto, meant that we had no ‘unfair advantage’.

    Our discussions having reached a standstill, Garvin and the rest of the Council retired to reach a verdict.

    On Friday afternoon at about 4 o’clock (note the delay of several days), Garvin sent an e-mail informing me of the Council’s decision. Our players that met Criteria 2 and 3 were eligible. Two other players (Kieran Lyons and Jonathan Humphrey, who we can only assume met Criteria 2 and 4), were also eligible. But as to the players for whom we had asked ‘special consideration’...

    It was the Council’s decision that they ‘would not consider’ players who were not CAQ members at the time of application.

    Would not consider.

    Now, this seems to have been a point of some misunderstanding. Taking this purely on a literal level, it seemed to me that the Council had, over the course of 3 or 4 days, come to the decision that they would not hear our case SOLELY BECAUSE THE PLAYERS IN QUESTION WERE YET TO JOIN THE CAQ.

    Yes, you have to be a member of the CAQ to play in the QCTC. Everyone who was not a member would join up on the day. Common practice. But, to be a member EVEN TO BE CONSIDERED? This seemed like madness.

    I pointed this out to Garvin. He wrote back and told me I was mis-stating the Council’s position. He then re-stated it in exactly the same words as he had previously.

    On Sunday morning we learnt the nature of the misunderstanding. When the Council said they ‘would not consider’ players who hadn’t joined the CAQ prior to making the application, what they meant was that they HAD CONSIDERED BUT HAD RULED THE PLAYERS INELIGIBLE -- on the grounds that they weren’t CAQ members at the time of making the application.

    So it seems I mis-inferred the intent of Garvin’s words; and I must admit that it never even occurred to me that the question of whether a player was a LEGITIMATE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR CLUB could be in any way influenced by whether or not they were CAQ members as of Monday 6 December.

    But perhaps this wasn’t the real issue. During discussions on Sunday, it was agreed that the Council had ruled against our 3 players, not for this reason alone, but for different reasons. That is, certain members of the Council had each had their own, particular reason to dismiss the application. Only one reason had been stated prior to Sunday (and I believe I’m right in saying that it was Garvin’s) but there were other reasons that the Council kept to themselves. We learned these on Sunday morning.

    So, who made the decision? Who was on the Council?

    The CAQ Council is: Garvin Gray; Patrick Byrom; Gail Young; Jim Rogers; Mark Stokes.

    Jim Rogers was, we are led to believe, beyond contact throughout, and played no part in discussions.

    Mark Stokes has only recently rejoined the Council, and, it would seem, was only brought into the debate quite late in the piece.

    Gail Young was involved via e-mail, and via phone on Sunday.

    And why were we there on Sunday? Either Garvin or Patrick (I would have to re-read their posts) has suggested that the Council had already made its decision regarding Kevin Casey and that we should have told him before he turned up.

    This is interesting. Let’s explore that.

    Having been, shall we say, gobsmacked, by the Council’s belated ruling on Friday afternoon, I discussed the matter in some depth at Bullwinkle’s AGM that night. Nik Stawski volunteered to make a few calls, and reminded me of the token membership system that he had implemented some years previously.

    Nik phoned Garvin on Saturday and made him aware of this. (That is, that all Bullwinkle members are actually financial, and pay a token amount each year, which the club promptly waives.) Garvin thanked him for this information and said he would discuss it with the rest of Council.

    Nik contacted Garvin later in the day to see if a decision had been reached. Were our players eligible under Criteria 1 and 2?

    Garvin told him that it was ‘all too much trouble’ and that WE SHOULD TURN UP ON SUNDAY MORNING AND DISCUSS IT THEN.

    Now, turning up to discuss it WITHOUT OUR PLAYERS (such as Kevin Casey) would make little sense. If we turned up to discuss it and had our players ruled eligible then we would then have to forfeit, not having our team present. Obviously, when turning up, as requested, we would bring our team with us.

    Naturally, we told our players of the stance the Council had taken, and also of the possibility that we might all have to play in Second Division. (On Friday, and again on Saturday, we raised this possibility with Council.) Kevin, like everyone else not on Council, made the mistake of assuming that a reasonable decision would be made.

    OK, to Sunday morning.

    We arrived for registration on Sunday morning and were told that the Council did not recognise our financial membership system. This was an entirely arbitrary decision on their part. Our financial membership system is legal. Yes, it is token. Yes, it goes against what the Council wanted. But it is legitimate and should have been recognised. Our club does not have a venue per se. (We meet at each other’s houses or at the Three Monkeys Cafe.) There seems no need to charge people a large amount of money to join each year.

    Why did the Council reject our financial membership system? They just did. There was no discussion of this (although it is what we were told would be discussed) and there was no reason given.

    So, why didn’t we just turn around and go home? That would have allowed the tournament to start on time, after all.

    Well, we didn’t do that because we felt it was a bit unjust. It felt as if the Council wanted to exclude us from the competition and was finding a reason to do so.

    Now, full credit here to Mark Stokes. Mark is a very reasonable man and does an enormous amount of work for the Redcliffe Chess Club and for Queensland Chess in general. Mark wanted us to play and did everything in his power to convince the rest of the Council that we should be allowed to do so. Mark was, it would seem, out-voted.

    Since we were there, we asked the Council to clear up the matter of the ‘Special Consideration’ appeal. This was when it emerged that CAQ membership (or lack thereof) was Garvin’s objection. Patrick’s objection was something else entirely. [We do not know what Gail Young’s objection was. Jim, remember, wasn’t involved, and Mark had no objection.]

    Patrick’s objection focussed on Kieron Olm-Milligan. We did not even get around to debating Peter Evans or Kevin Casey. (That, Kevin, is why they didn’t tell you.) The entire, drawn-out saga was about whether or not Kieron is legitimately a Bullwinkle player.

    36 interclub games over 7 years. That speaks for itself, surely?

    But no. Patrick’s position was that Kieron had not been active within the club RECENTLY. (2009 not being considered ‘recent’, it would seem.) The QCTC, Patrick maintained, was only for players who were CURRENTLY active within their club.

    “So what are you saying?” I asked. “If John Alkin wanted to play for Brisbane Club, you would have told him that he wasn’t a proper Brisbane Club player?”

    “That’s right,” Patrick confirmed. (And it was re-iterated that Leo Wilkinson wasn’t deemed eligible to play for Redcliffe.)

    “That’s utter madness.” I said.

    Then Patrick said: “Look, I don’t like the rules, but we have to abide by them.”

    Again, interesting. ‘Special consideration’ is not a rule. It’s an interpretation and the entry form lists no guidelines by which the Council make it. The question of eligibility under the ‘special consideration’ exemption is not a rule at all. It is nothing more or less than THE WHIM OF THE COUNCIL.

    I suggested as much to Patrick, and he agreed.

    So, we had the situation where Patrick, although not ‘liking’ the rules (ie. whim of the council) felt himself bound to abide by them. That is, abide by his own whim.

    All of Bullwinkle was stunned; not least, Kieron when he was told that Council didn’t consider him a legitimate representative of his own club.

    “That’s our ruling,” the Council told us. “We’re not going to change it, so Bullwinkle has to decide what it’s going to do.”

    We were invited to field two lowly-rated but technically eligible players in Premier Division and to play Kevin Casey and Kieron Olm-Milligan in Second Division.

    Bullwinkle convened its own discussion. This lasted approximately 1 minute.

    Our decision was this:

    (1) That it would be unfair to our Second Division players to drag them into Premier Division based solely on the whim of the Council. NOT ON THE RULES OF THE COMPETITION, LET IT BE NOTED. We fielded legitimate entries under the rules. The Council chose not to recognise them.

    (2) That it would be unfair on those who had made the effort to attend (having been promised a ‘discussion’ and the ‘sorting out’ of our entries) to just send them home without playing.

    (3) That the CAQ had no right to determine any player’s eligibility for the ‘special consideration’ exemption based solely on Patrick Byrom’s ideas of what constitutes an active club player.

    [And a quick aside here: Why was Patrick Byrom eligible to play for Brisbane Club? He is, presumably a life member. He is, presumably, a financial member. He played in the Interclub Championship earlier this year -- 1 game for Bullwinkle, the Brisbane Club being unable to field a team -- but does not play weekly tournaments at all. Hence, his right to play for the Brisbane Club has nothing to do with ‘activity’; merely with life membership and financial membership, under which categories our 3 players were ruled ineligible.]

    (4) That if Kieron (and by extension, Peter and Kevin) were not considered genuine club representatives by the Council, then none of us were, and that it would therefore be against the intent of the Council’s rulings for ANY OF US to play in Premier Division.

    As such, we all played in Second Division (for which there are no Club requirements at all).

    Except for Craig Stewart, who went home in disgust; and Kieron, who was too inscrutable to openly express any contempt he might be feeling.

    As an interesting aside, Ben Lazarus (another player for whom we’d requested a ruling from Council) turned up looking to play for Bullwinkle. Under Council policy he also was ineligible, despite having played for us in the Interclub Championship last year, and despite his connection through David Smerdon and UQ. Ben ultimately played for The Gap in Second Division -- because this was the only way he could play AGAINST the Bullwinkle players (Kevin Casey, Moulthun Ly, Bruce Williams) and so have a decent game. There were, of course, plenty of players in Premier Division who would have liked to play against Ben (or Moulthun or Kevin or Bruce), but they weren’t given the chance.

    Or a say.

    Bullwinkle has fielded interclub teams in all but 1 CAQ-organised interclub competition since 1994. If there have been multiple divisions, we have usually fielded a team in each. Sometimes we have fielded more than 1 team in a division. During the years that the CAQ hasn’t organised any interclub competitions, we have organised our own. Additionally, we have organised many friendly interclub matches against other clubs.

    Since 1994 Bullwinkle has played 127 long matches and 62 rapid matches (not including yesterday’s debacle). We have fully supported interclub chess in and around Brisbane.

    What happened yesterday was ridiculous. Nobody questions that. But let it not be said that it was of our making. This was the CAQ’s mess (as Kevin Casey so eloquently wrote in his post) and the CAQ has done nothing throughout but enhance its reputation for officiousness and pointless, illogical bloody-mindedness.

    As of yesterday afternoon we were all hoping to put the matter behind us. Some of us even thought that Council might recognise that it had erred and perhaps even offer some sort of apology -- if not to us then at least to the Brisbane, Redcliffe and Gold Coast players who were denied the opportunity to play in the 2 evenly matched divisions that were assembled and ready to play on Sunday morning.

    (Premier Division was ultimately run as a 3-team double round robin with 1 team having a bye each round. Second Division was dominated -- both numerically and in terms of ratings -- by the large, top-heavy Bullwinkle team. Redcliffe finished first in Premier Division but would have liked not only to play 2 more matches but also to fully test their strength. Bullwinkle finished first in Second Division by a considerable margin. So skewed were the results, indeed, that Ben Lazarus, playing by himself as ‘The Gap’, finished third.)

    But no. Garvin and Patrick have already displayed their belief that they did no wrong, and that this is all somehow Bullwinkle’s fault. [Again, it should be noted that the extent of Gail Young’s involvement is unclear; that Jim Rogers was not involved; and that Mark Stokes was at all times positive and reasonable.]

    Hopefully, this posting (if anyone has had the fortitude to slog their way through it) has set the record straight, or at least stated the Bullwinkle position.

    We are a strong, thriving, legitimate club dedicated to interclub chess (as well as blitz and transfer). We will continue to play friendly matches (we already have one pencilled in versus Redcliffe -- Thanks, Mark!) but have become supremely disillusioned with the CAQ Council and the events they run.

    Yes, Patrick and Garvin, thank you for the time and effort you put into organising things. I notice, though, in asking for that recognition, that you made no corresponding recognition of OUR EFFORT in putting teams together, or of that of the other clubs.

    The CAQ did not ask any of the clubs what THEY thought was reasonable.

    The CAQ and its Council should act in the interests and according to the wishes of its members, not stick small-mindedly (nay, pettily) to its own, somewhat hard to fathom interpretation of ‘how things should be’.

    I could be wrong, but I seem to have noticed an ever-dwindling participation of clubs in the CAQ-run interclub events. There is a reason for that and it is not, I believe, anything to do with the clubs themselves.

    Jacob Edwards (on behalf of the Bullwinkle Chess Club)
    Jacob Edwards Response to Patrick Byrom
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  4. | #4
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,119

    Thumbs down My View of the Matter

    Sadly, it seems that the nastiness in Queensland chess circles is still alive and well - as are the power pushing little people who do everything in their power to snuff out any enjoyment others may have had in playing the game.

    Bravo CAQ!
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  5. | #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    74

    Default That is Garven

    A small man with a big chip loves to use the big stick.
    Qld voted him in as no one else would take the job. He was schooled under HD. They do not understand that if you make chess a happy place more people will play the game, Qld chess players have voted with their feet.
    20 in a lightning Tournament for a State is a very poor effort.

  6. | #6
    Immoderator Iconoclast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Wollongong NSW
    Posts
    2,266

    Default

    I do not usually comment on other State's dirty laundry but ...

    The chess administrators in Australia are mostly INCOMPETENT. There are only a few sensible administrators, the rest have nothing better to do than pretend that being petty is worlds-best-practice in management.
    The individual is hopeless without the group.
    The group is hopeless without its individuals.

  7. | #7
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18

    Default

    iS iT TRuE THAt ThE TalL GuY goT BAnNED AGAiN? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

  8. | #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post
    I do not usually comment on other State's dirty laundry but ...

    The chess administrators in Australia are mostly INCOMPETENT. There are only a few sensible administrators, the rest have nothing better to do than pretend that being petty is worlds-best-practice in management.
    Gtfo.

  9. | #9
    Member Little Black Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    94

    Default

    ^^ No posts on this thread for 4.5 years until you came along, and you didn't add anything to it...
    Even a blind chook, pecking at the ground at random, will eventually find food!

  10. | #10
    Senior Member antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Byron Bay, NSW
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex View Post
    A small man with a big chip loves to use the big stick.
    Qld voted him in as no one else would take the job. He was schooled under HD. They do not understand that if you make chess a happy place more people will play the game, Qld chess players have voted with their feet.
    20 in a lightning Tournament for a State is a very poor effort.
    Well how has the recent tourneys being?

  11. | #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Posts
    10

    Default

    To cross the Bridge of Death (sponsored by the CAQ) you must answer these questions three, there the other side ye see.

  12. | #12
    Senior Member antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Byron Bay, NSW
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Miserable Bloody Romans View Post
    To cross the Bridge of Death (sponsored by the CAQ) you must answer these questions three, there the other side ye see.
    That is Garven
    A small man with a big chip loves to use the big stick.
    Qld voted him in as no one else would take the job. He was schooled under HD. They do not understand that if you make chess a happy place more people will play the game, Qld chess players have voted with their feet.
    20 in a lightning Tournament for a State is a very poor effort.

    AC: you did not mention this guy when comparing Qld with NSW and Vic. Why I wonder?

  13. | #13
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    5

    Default

    Who the bloody hell is Garven? He's not one of Axiom's friends is he?

    I know a Garvin who cried at an election once.

  14. | #14
    Senior Member antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Byron Bay, NSW
    Posts
    4,729

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ladyboy View Post
    Who the bloody hell is Garven? He's not one of Axiom's friends is he?

    I know a Garvin who cried at an election once.
    Is that when he lost badly - didn't they like him?

Posting Permissions

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