Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 69

Thread: No Victorians in 2014 Oz Olympiad Team !

  1. | #1
    Junior Member -V-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9

    Default No Victorians in 2014 Oz Olympiad Team !





    This is all a bit weird. I obtained the teams a week ago from a number of sources, none of whom indicated that the results were embargoed (or provisional).

    Australian 2014 Olympic Team
    Open
    1.Smerdon(ACT)
    2.Ly(Q)
    3.Illingworth(N)
    4.Ikeda(ACT)
    5.Smirnov(N)

    Women
    1.Caoili(ACT)
    2.Berezina(N)
    3.Nguyen(SA)
    4.Guo(ACT)
    5.Dekic(N)


    ~ Ian_Rogers

  2. | #2
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Greetings,



    Disappointing. Cheng is 4, Johansen 6, Morris 11 and Goldenberg 14 on the current ACF list.

    Meanwhile, Illingworth is 2, Ly 3, Ikeda 22, and Smirnov 17.

    Worth noting is that Gary Lane is 7, John Paul Wallace is not on the active list, nor is David Smerdon.

    I have said it before and I will say it again, having selectors is a waste of time.

    cheers,
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  3. | #3
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Disappointing. Cheng is 4, Johansen 6, Morris 11 and Goldenberg 14 on the current ACF list.

    Meanwhile, Illingworth is 2, Ly 3, Ikeda 22, and Smirnov 17.

    Worth noting is that Gary Lane is 7, John Paul Wallace is not on the active list, nor is David Smerdon.
    Some small details that probably escaped your attention:

    * None of Cheng, Johansen, Goldenberg and Morris applied for selection. (Cheng at least would surely have been picked if he applied.)

    * Wallace and Smerdon are not on the ACF active list because they play overseas.

    * Lane failed to apply in time; he submitted a late application but it wasn't accepted.

    * The ACF rating list you are looking at dates from before Ikeda's consecutive IM norms in the Doeberl and SIO, both of which the selectors had available to them. His rating will go up plenty next list.

    I have said it before and I will say it again, commenting on selections without checking who applied, or considering the recent form of the applicants, is a waste of time.

    HTH.

  4. | #4
    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
    5,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    .............................

    HTH.
    HTH?

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

  5. | #5
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post

    * None of Cheng, Johansen, Goldenberg and Morris applied for selection. (Cheng at least would surely have been picked if he applied.)

    * Wallace and Smerdon are not on the ACF active list because they play overseas.

    * Lane failed to apply in time; he submitted a late application but it wasn't accepted.
    Why are you repeating everything that is already common knowledge?

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTed

    * The ACF rating list you are looking at dates from before Ikeda's consecutive IM norms in the Doeberl and SIO, both of which the selectors had available to them. His rating will go up plenty next list.

    I have said it before and I will say it again, commenting on selections without checking who applied, or considering the recent form of the applicants, is a waste of time.
    Nope
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  6. | #6
    Junior Member -V-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    9

    Default A Case For The Elegance Of Simplicity ?

    The top 5 highest ranked players in the latest rating list that apply for a place , are on the team .

    Simples .




    I know the counter arguments about inactivity , protecting rating , junior rating lag , team spirit etc but i think the current method is a case of over finessing where you end up in a worse position overall , including time consuming selections , appeals , debates , credibility issues etc . A net loss , after the swings and roundabouts .


    I would ask those involved to re-think the rationale of the current method of selection .

  7. | #7
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Why are you repeating everything that is already common knowledge?
    Because if you knew what I said and were not wilfully disregarding it there is no way you could have drawn the conclusion "having selectors is a waste of time." from the data you presented.

    And because if something is "common knowledge" the probability of someone who only follows this forum being aware of it without someone with a clue spelling it out, is about 0.001.

  8. | #8
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Because if you knew what I said and were not wilfully disregarding it there is no way you could have drawn the conclusion "having selectors is a waste of time." from the data you presented.

    And because if something is "common knowledge" the probability of someone who only follows this forum being aware of it without someone with a clue spelling it out, is about 0.001.
    Nope wrong again. Almost everyone in the Victorian chess community knows that Cheng is doing Year 12, whilst Morris has just started university.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  9. | #9
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Nope wrong again. Almost everyone in the Victorian chess community knows that Cheng is doing Year 12, whilst Morris has just started university.
    "Almost everyone in the Victorian chess community" does not equal "someone who only follows this forum", so please try to follow the birdie instead of falsely accusing others of being "wrong".

    Now, assuming that you actually knew these players were unavailable, why did you quote their ACF ratings immediately after describing the outcome as "Disappointing" and go on to describe having selectors as a waste of time?

    Obviously and by your own belated admission the absence of these players has nothing to do with the selection system.

  10. | #10
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    "Almost everyone in the Victorian chess community" does not equal "someone who only follows this forum", so please try to follow the birdie instead of falsely accusing others of being "wrong".
    Illogical

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Now, assuming that you actually knew these players were unavailable, why did you quote their ACF ratings immediately after describing the outcome as "Disappointing" and go on to describe having selectors as a waste of time?
    Selections ARE a waste of time

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Obviously and by your own belated admission the absence of these players has nothing to do with the selection system.
    Nope wrong again

    1.Selections are a waste of time
    2.The ACF rating system is meaningless
    Take a pick....any pick
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  11. | #11
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,117

    Lightbulb Players Should Pay Their Own Way

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post

    1.Selections are a waste of time
    2.The ACF rating system is meaningless
    Take a pick....any pick
    I don't know if selections are a waste of time. However, I think the notion that choosing Australia's best chess players to represent Australia is untenable in light of the fact that the Australian government does not fund (or provide significant funding if it does) the Olympiad team, and the ACF funding is inadequate. As such it is left to average Australian chess players to pick up the slack left by the ACF shortfall.

    A better model would be to call for candidates who are entirely willing to fund their own way to the Olympiad and then choose from that pool of players. That way the ACF and the average chess players who usually pledge money don't have to meet that expense. True, it might mean that Australia ends up sending a few 1700 rated players instead of IM's and GM's. But that is not a major issue when you consider that Australia is only a middling chess nation anyway. Does it really matter if Australia finishes in 50th place or 100th?
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  12. | #12
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Nope wrong again
    You keep saying this but you provide no evidence. If you believe the absence of those players is caused by the selection system then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. As it is you have disproven it in two of the four cases yourself.

    Repeating your position without advancing fresh evidence may be a useful way for you to inflate your postcount, engage in pointless conflict and pretend to tread water while your position drowns but even readers here will mostly not be fooled.

    [EDIT added 19/5: As the post below contains nothing but unsubstantiated empty denial, firegoat has now forfeited the debate as well as losing it and replying to the post below would be pointless.]
    Last edited by HydraTED; 19-05-14 at 10:11 PM.

  13. | #13
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    You keep saying this but you provide no evidence.
    Nope

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    If you believe the absence of those players is caused by the selection system then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it.
    Wrong again

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    As it is you have disproven it in two of the four cases yourself.
    Don't let the truth get in the way of your story.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Repeating your position without advancing fresh evidence may be a useful way for you to inflate your postcount, engage in pointless conflict and pretend to tread water while your position drowns but even readers here will mostly not be fooled.
    Wrong again
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  14. | #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -V- View Post
    The top 5 highest ranked players in the latest rating list that apply for a place , are on the team .
    Which rating list? JPW has played 31 FIDE rated games in the past six and a half years: I think the selectors have a pretty good reason to be somewhat concerned about that. Four of the five applicants were unquestionably the strongest four applications of the players available, and the fifth was a line ball decision between perhaps two or three players, one of whom is the most promising Australian prospect perhaps ever.

  15. | #15
    Senior Member Firegoat7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Currently playing online chess at different locations.
    Posts
    3,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pax View Post
    Which rating list? JPW has played 31 FIDE rated games in the past six and a half years: I think the selectors have a pretty good reason to be somewhat concerned about that. Four of the five applicants were unquestionably the strongest four applications of the players available, and the fifth was a line ball decision between perhaps two or three players, one of whom is the most promising Australian prospect perhaps ever.
    Your reply does not meet his argument. V is saying the rating list should be used for Olympic selections, presumably the ACF list. Having selections is a waste of time for all parties. The simple fact is that the Australian team will not be the best 5 players in the country, not even the best 10. It is demeaning to force the elite players of this country to apply for selection and ,quite frankly, insulting that the ACF does not even use its own lists for judging the strength of candidates. This whole selection process thing is another example of the ACF holding back chess to the detriment of Australian players. It is disgraceful that no Victorian is in the Olympic team, regardless of whether they applied or not. In the end, the application and process of selection is simply a trumped up subjective popularity contest.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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