Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 69

Thread: No Victorians in 2014 Oz Olympiad Team !

  1. | #16
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    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.
    Selecting purely based on ratings is an example of an approach that is simple, elegant and dumb. For at least three reasons. Firstly, ratings are designed to predict performance, but only as an average, and across the full range of main-list time controls. If there is a player who is ACF 2420 with a space after their rating and a player who is ACF 2415!! then in most cases you would pick the 2415!! because you have more information on which to be confident that they will play strongly. Ratings squash a lot of relevant information into a single figure and while they do a good job of it there are always more things that can be taken into account. For instance if a player has a very strong record in long time-control games including Olympiads but has had their rating deflated by playing in weekenders that might be considered. Or a player might have a poor track record in Olympiads. None of these things can be captured in a single number when you are trying to predict performance for a specific kind of event.

    Secondly Olympiad selections often place us in the position of picking between players who mainly play on the ACF system and players who mainly play overseas outside it. So there are some players whose ACF rating has very little data. If we just used FIDE ratings instead then the problem is that that system is not responsive enough to rapid improvement and is predictively inferior.

    Thirdly if you select purely based on ratings you create an incentive for players to attempt to manipulate their ratings - eg by cherrypicking the events they play in, by only playing at time controls they know suit them the most, by stopping playing when they think their rating's gone as high as it can go (etc).

    As for there being no Victorians I don't really think the ACF is responsible for the educational decisions of young players and nor the semi-retirement decisions of some older ones.
    Last edited by HydraTED; 24-05-14 at 02:35 PM.

  2. | #17
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -V- View Post
    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 .
    There is not a "credibility issue" if the people complaining have nothing better to offer as an alternative than purely ratings-based selection.

    Also "a worse position overall" - for who? The aim is to perform as well as possible in the Olympiad. If this involves a lengthy process with more work for the ACF as opposed to a short one then so what, so long as it is not affecting team performance or the quality of applicants.

    The USCF used to select purely on ratings. It worked so badly and they found so many holes in it that now their ratings-based system is extensively augmented with bonuses and fiddles.

  3. | #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Your reply does not meet his argument. V is saying the rating list should be used for Olympic selections, presumably the ACF list.
    So you would select an Olympiad team completely disregarding international performances, even for those living overseas? Thanks, I think I'll take what we have now.

  4. | #19
    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
    Selecting purely based on ratings is an example of an approach that is simple, elegant and dumb.
    Agreed. That is why competent organisations have qualifying tournaments mixed with rating selection that seed players into important tournaments.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    As for there being no Victorians I don't really think the ACF is responsible for the educational decisions of young players and nor the semi-retirement decisions of some older ones.
    Nope
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  5. | #20
    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
    So you would select an Olympiad team completely disregarding international performances, even for those living overseas? Thanks, I think I'll take what we have now.
    Clearly I did not say any such thing, as I was simply quoting -V-s position on the matter.

    But on the other hand, I believe Australian chess should do away with selections. It simply cannot be that difficult for the ACF to organise a process that is fairer then subjective selection. You may like subjective selection, but I do not like selective selection and simply believe there are fairer processes available.

    As I side note I asked IM Mark Chapman why he didn't apply for the Olympiad. He claimed "..what is the point of applying only to be rejected by the selectors". This sort of cynicism is prevalent amongst Australian chess players, (a strange excuse considering he is number 9 in Australia), who seem to have to justify in their own minds why they should be applying for selection. In my humble opinion, this idea of pandering to official selectors does nothing for Australian chess. The ACF should organise high quality candidate tournaments, such as what Fide does for the World title, to ensure a better more transparent and marketable product. Selection is an insult to the meritocracy of chess.


    It is a disgrace that no Victorian is in the Olympic squad.It should be remembered that if a Victorian player does not make the effort to play in the essentially Sydney centric Australian events like SIO and The Australian Open or the Doeberl Cup in Canberra, they virtually seal their fate in regard to Australian Olympic selection. At the moment, as Australian chess stands, the only players who have any chance of being selected are those who have deep enough pockets economically to afford both the financial burden and the considerable investment in time needed to travel interstate. Selection relies less on chess playing ability at the board, instead choosing to focus on interpretation of results that are biased towards players who can afford to play in Sydney and Canberra every year.
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  6. | #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corytopia
    Posts
    184

    Default

    i think selective selections is a tremendous idea.

    i applaud the concept fully.

  7. | #22
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Agreed. That is why competent organisations have qualifying tournaments mixed with rating selection that seed players into important tournaments.
    Since you maintain that competent organisations do this, name some leading chess federations that conduct their Olympiad selections by this method.

    As I side note I asked IM Mark Chapman why he didn't apply for the Olympiad. He claimed "..what is the point of applying only to be rejected by the selectors".
    Whether or not he actually said that, he was a selector himself in 2002.

    It is a disgrace that no Victorian is in the Olympic squad.It should be remembered that if a Victorian player does not make the effort to play in the essentially Sydney centric Australian events like SIO and The Australian Open or the Doeberl Cup in Canberra, they virtually seal their fate in regard to Australian Olympic selection.
    This is ludicrous to the point of self-parody. The Australian Championships is generally more influential on selectors than any other single event - not only because of its status but because it is always held closer to the Olympiad than the Open - and this year it was held in Victoria, as it also was in 2012.

    That said if a player can't be bothered venturing over the border of their home state once in a while to play chess, why should they be picked for an event on the other side of the world? And that said, it's irrelevant, eg Cheng, Morris, Johansen all played Doeberl but have other reasons for not applying for selection.

    You also forget that player travel costs are extensively (though usually not entirely) subsidised through the ACF Olympiad Appeal.

  8. | #23
    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
    Since you maintain that competent organisations do this, name some leading chess federations that conduct their Olympiad selections by this method.
    Chess ought to learn from successful organisations like Tennis, Champions League Soccer or Video Gaming (Valve), not follow muppets like ICC or Chessbase.


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Whether or not he actually said that, he was a selector himself in 2002.
    Yes it was quite funny how the selections went.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham

    This is ludicrous to the point of self-parody. The Australian Championships is generally more influential on selectors than any other single event - not only because of its status but because it is always held closer to the Olympiad than the Open - and this year it was held in Victoria, as it also was in 2012.
    Unlike others events the Australian Championship is not restricted to a specific geographical area. It is alleged that The Australian Open is in the same boat, but I would be willing to bet that in the last 20 years, between 70-80% Australian Opens have been held in Sydney. SIO is an exclusive Sydney event. Doeberl Cup is an exclusive Canberra event.

    At some point selectors have to compare results and I am absolutely certain that these 4 events weigh in more heavily then other events. I am even more certain that good performances overseas would also heavily influence decisions. This is a shame because Australia has produced some fantastic players who have never really been able to show the world stage how good they are because they most likely cannot afford to play chess at the professional level, both in this country and overseas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    That said if a player can't be bothered venturing over the border of their home state once in a while to play chess, why should they be picked for an event on the other side of the world? And that said, it's irrelevant, eg Cheng, Morris, Johansen all played Doeberl but have other reasons for not applying for selection.
    "Talent" is the word you are looking for...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonham
    You also forget that player travel costs are extensively (though usually not entirely) subsidised through the ACF Olympiad Appeal.
    Ridiculous
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  9. | #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corytopia
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Cordial greetings firegoat7, are you related to "capablanca fan" ? Maybe you were separated at birth ?

    Using your bereft logic my dear fellow, if people from Victoria are so badly impacted on by a lack of tournaments to participate in to achieve their goals (even though, as mentioned, the Australian Open is staged in your state regularly), how then do Queenslanders find themselves in the squad regularly ? Which tournaments are these crafty Queenslanders partaking in that Victorians are less likely to be able to compete it ?

    Im sure it must be hard for you having the Australian Open in Victoria, what with all those prohibitive costs involved for you to participate in it. (A tram fare perhaps ?)
    Just remember Firegoat7, a return plane trip from west oz to victoria is a little bit more expensive than a tram fare.

    I wonder if it is some kind of elaborate sorcery or just a grievous mistake on behalf of the insidious manipulators at the ACF to overlook Victorians, or are you simply a overly excitable clot prone to self combusting over foolish pursuits ?
    This appears to be the greatest of mysteries.

    This is an important debate and one I can only hope continues ad infinitum.........................

    Kind regards,
    His Majesty.

  10. | #25
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firegoat7 View Post
    Chess ought to learn from successful organisations like Tennis, Champions League Soccer or Video Gaming (Valve), not follow muppets like ICC or Chessbase.
    I realise this has broken your attention span but the question was about national chess federations, not "ICC or Chessbase". If the methods you suggest were good methods for picking Chess Olympiad teams then it is likely elite chess nations would do so. Do you have examples of many chess nations much stronger than ours that follow your proposal?

    Unlike others events the Australian Championship is not restricted to a specific geographical area. It is alleged that The Australian Open is in the same boat, but I would be willing to bet that in the last 20 years, between 70-80% Australian Opens have been held in Sydney.
    That's interesting. How much would you be willing to bet?

    Ridiculous
    What, ridiculous that Australian chess players and the ACF financially support our teams? Of course you would argue that.

  11. | #26
    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
    I realise this has broken your attention span but the question was about national chess federations, not "ICC or Chessbase". If the methods you suggest were good methods for picking Chess Olympiad teams then it is likely elite chess nations would do so. Do you have examples of many chess nations much stronger than ours that follow your proposal?
    Wrong again Sheep


    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    That's interesting. How much would you be willing to bet?
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post



    What, ridiculous that Australian chess players and the ACF financially support our teams? Of course you would argue that.
    Cool story Bro
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  12. | #27
    Senior Membaaaaaa HydraTED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,019

    Default

    Hello firemouse. I see you have resorted to your usual practice of mindless abuse and emoticons when you have lost the argument.

    Once you were very keen to have a bet with me on something that was so impractical to arrange as to render the bet not worth having.

    Now there is something that you said you wanted to bet on, and I would like to take you up on the offer.

    Only it seems you've lost interest, but lack the courage to admit that you were all bark and no bite. So in future when you say "I would be willing to bet" this can be parsed as "I really haven't got a clue and am much too wimpy to bet, but like to sound cocky anyway."

    [Update: As firegoat's post below repeats his usual argument-losing tactics, it just further confirms that firegoat has lost the argument.]
    Last edited by HydraTED; 28-05-14 at 02:16 AM.

  13. | #28
    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
    Hello firemouse. I see you have resorted to your usual practice of mindless abuse and emoticons when you have lost the argument.
    Wrong again.... as usual.
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Once you were very keen to have a bet with me on something that was so impractical to arrange as to render the bet not worth having.
    Obviously false
    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Now there is something that you said you wanted to bet on, and I would like to take you up on the offer.

    Quote Originally Posted by HydraTED View Post
    Only it seems you've lost interest, but lack the courage to admit that you were all bark and no bite. So in future when you say "I would be willing to bet" this can be parsed as "I really haven't got a clue and am much too wimpy to bet, but like to sound cocky anyway."
    High Drama
    AC: 20-6-20-> ...I did tell them how chess improves people in many aspects. I had better start buying their paper.



  14. | #29
    Tin Cup Champ 2004 Just2Good's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Cairns
    Posts
    7,117

    Question

    Quote Originally Posted by cory feldman View Post
    Which tournaments are these crafty Queenslanders partaking in that Victorians are less likely to be able to compete it ?
    The Gold Coast Open?
    .
    "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing."

    ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

  15. | #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Corytopia
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Just2Good View Post
    The Gold Coast Open?
    You guys get all the GM norm tournaments. It's far too unfair for the likes of our good friend dire-bloat7.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... 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
  •