I think we might just use this thread, and see if (Egor in particular) can explain why NSWJCL dont seem to use the official ACF rapid-ratings system. Is this a vote of no-confidence in the official system?

I promised an answer, so hear it is.
NSWJCL simply sees it as more practical to maintane there own internal ratings system. Mainly because most of the players rated under the juniour system (largely school comps) will never play in tournaments outside of the system.

Second, it seems that the differential benefit (in the view of the NSWJCL) between their home-grown rating, and the official ACF rapid-rating system, is that the home-grown one is practical.
Egor, is practical a euphemism for cheaper? Can we understand practical. a bit more?

Hi Moz,
As far as I can see I explained what I meant by practical in the next sentence.
Anyway, I'd rather not be included in any more of the discussion on this thread. I'm sorry if this causes you any problems.
Egor.

...
The difference in administration views is stark
> NSWJCL can see the value of a rating system
>> XXX is saying that QLD see very limited value.

Second, it seems that the differential benefit (in the view of the NSWJCL) between their home-grown rating, and the official ACF rapid-rating system, is that the home-grown one is practical.
...

regards
MOZ

Yes I see Victoria have submitted quite a few events lately. I don't think the submissions were nearly as prevalent last year.

As for QLD this year, I believe the primary organiser of junior tournaments saw no reason to incur further cost when events could be submitted for junior rating rather than to a national system not supported by NSW (......).

The commercial operators are quite happy to lock onto ACF structures such as 'managed championships' and 'managed overseas selection procedures' and 'managed newsletters and 'managed national conferences', but seem to be unwilling to participate in the revenue stream activity that logically supports these national activities.

Hi,


A couple of points. For years MCC has been running its own internal rapid ratings. These games are not rated by ChessVictoria. We do this to keep our costs down.

We see no reason why we should have these type of events officially rated.

It should be noted that these tourneys are small between 5-20 people. They require an arbiter and its all done on Swiss Perfect. It appears to me that the benfiits for rating the games are outweighed by practical reality.

I suspect a similar argument is also capable of being made for private operators.

However there is a key difference. Private organisations who do not support the structures of Australian chess in ANY way, financially shouldn't be allowed to have there cake and eat it aswell.

I have argued consistently that there should be activity clauses with qualifying events for all premium ACF selections.

Should junior chessplayers be allowed to represent Australia and be subsidised by the ACF without competing nationally in ACF sanctioned events?

Should Private Organisers be allowed to run premium chess events with subsidies from the ACF without paying fees?

What about qualifyers?

Some private organisers are running junior tournaments, collecting fees and making such a profit that they are able to pay for entry fees and travel costs to ACF events. There are pros and cons to such activity. I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with this, but what it does show is that private organisers have cornered a considerable market. For years they have been developing these markets, often based on coaching advertising credentials established within the ACF/Fide structure.

It seems to me that the ACF levy problem is quite simple. The ACF/ State organisations simply have to be more committed to the grassroots development of chess. Instead of locking themselves into dependent relationships with Private organisers they need to set the agenda within the relationships.

They need to understand that there is no economic elite without support from the mass. They need to protect their market without destroying its development. How else can something like the NSWJCL be explainable? Its exactly the same thing in Victoria except there is no league, just private chess companies.

Will the ACF ever understand what its resources are? Don't hold your breath! You need to invest in them long term, as leaders, not beggers.

cheers Fg7

meanwhile I see where some other clown over there claims the NSWJCL does not rate the Girls Championship, that is just simply false, it is rated in the December rating period since it runs during that period

Late edit > The link supplied above is now inactive. A chesschat moderator exercised his power to delete the post on chesschat on the basis that it was off-topic on a 1 post thread.
The deleted post has not been re-established in another thread. I guess this being left to fg7.

Chesschat is running painfully slow for me tonight and has been for the last couple of nights especially.

If the NSWJCL has any games rated through the ACF, then yes the NSWJCL does contribute to the ACF revenue stream. The NSWJCL Girls Championship games/events are not rated by the ACF while the Main Championship is. (Girls must not matter.)

Nevertheless, the NSWJCL has a dude who does an excellent job rating the NSWJCL games independant of the ACF/Gletsos. (BTW, it is worth noting that he has a system that inflates ratings by about 50 points a year. It is the only way to ensure players do not take points with them when they leave chess. Because of his tweak, the average rating does not inflate of deflate. This shows that the David Richards cure for the ACF Glicko system has merrit. Those dispicables over at Chess Chat will not debate the NSWJCL case because they know that it demolishes 90% of their arguments against the "junior bonus."