A Swift Axe To Progress - OzChess

**ChessGuru** · 03-19-2011, 08:12 AM

Never in the history of the ACF have they acted to swiftly as when faced with the threat of progress.

The ACF Council sprung into action not 8 hours ago and censored any mention of Tornelo in the ACF Newsletter!

"Dear David,

The ACF has noted your failure to not only cease and desist from placing wording on your websites that infers a relationship between the ACF and your Tornelo website or system but to also immediately remove the words "Australian Chess Federation" and the corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com along with changing the heading "Australian Chess Ratings" that appears on auschess.tornelo.com as requested on 10th March 2001.

The ACF Council has therefore decided that nothing to do with you, your chess business or your Tornelo system is to appear in the ACF newsletter until you remove to the satisfaction of the ACF Council all references, inferences or implications that your Tornelo system is in any way related to the Australian Chess Federation or ACF ratings.

Regards,
Bill"

It's also been followed up by Councillor Garvin Gray's email about how he felt "thoroughly misled and deceived" (but he requested that his email not be published) by Tornelo's sponsorship of Ballarat.

What an effective use of the ACF's council time... progress is once again dragged through the mud.

**Iconohols** · 03-19-2011, 09:31 AM

With every year, the evidence accumulates. With every year my mantra of anti-ACF rhetoric gains credibility. I congratulate all people in the commercial chess industry for their continued resistance to the enemy of chess, the ACF.

Now is the time to gather your energy, alloy your ideas and create a plan. It is time to ignore the ACF and form an Australian chess entity to drain all financial support to the ACF and kill it.

Start with a ratings revolt. Finish a few years with a letter to FIDE showing the ACF to be functionally dead.

**Just2Good** · 03-19-2011, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

Never in the history of the ACF have they acted to swiftly as when faced with the threat of progress.

The ACF Council sprung into action not 8 hours ago and censored any mention of Tornelo in the ACF Newsletter!

"Dear David,

The ACF has noted your failure to not only cease and desist from placing wording on your websites that infers a relationship between the ACF and your Tornelo website or system but to also immediately remove the words "Australian Chess Federation" and the corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com along with changing the heading "Australian Chess Ratings" that appears on auschess.tornelo.com as requested on 10th March 2001.

The ACF Council has therefore decided that nothing to do with you, your chess business or your Tornelo system is to appear in the ACF newsletter until you remove to the satisfaction of the ACF Council all references, inferences or implications that your Tornelo system is in any way related to the Australian Chess Federation or ACF ratings.

Regards,
Bill"

It's also been followed up by Councillor Garvin Gray's email about how he felt "thoroughly misled and deceived" (but he requested that his email not be published) by Tornelo's sponsorship of Ballarat.

What an effective use of the ACF's council time... progress is once again dragged through the mud.

Firstly, let me point out that had you posted this on Chess Chat, the post would likely have been deleted by the administrators there (who also serve as ACF Vice Presidents).

Secondly, I say welcome to the club. They pulled this stunt once before and prevented any mention of the OzChess website in the ACF newsletter - and we hadn't even sought to use it as a form of advertising.

Basically, anything that undermines their power, for instance OzChess or Tornelo, regardless of whether it is beneficial to Australian chess as a whole, gets snubbed by the ACF.

But alas, the fault lies not with the ACF - rather it lies with ourselves. You see, we allow these monkeys to go unelected year after year, so the end result (however sordid it may be) is really not that surprising.

**Top Gun** · 03-19-2011, 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by ChessGuru

Never in the history of the ACF have they acted to swiftly as when faced with the threat of progress.

The ACF Council sprung into action not 8 hours ago and censored any mention of Tornelo in the ACF Newsletter!

"Dear David,

The ACF has noted your failure to not only cease and desist from placing wording on your websites that infers a relationship between the ACF and your Tornelo website or system but to also immediately remove the words "Australian Chess Federation" and the corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com along with changing the heading "Australian Chess Ratings" that appears on auschess.tornelo.com as requested on 10th March 2001.

The ACF Council has therefore decided that nothing to do with you, your chess business or your Tornelo system is to appear in the ACF newsletter until you remove to the satisfaction of the ACF Council all references, inferences or implications that your Tornelo system is in any way related to the Australian Chess Federation or ACF ratings.

Regards,
Bill"

It's also been followed up by Councillor Garvin Gray's email about how he felt "thoroughly misled and deceived" (but he requested that his email not be published) by Tornelo's sponsorship of Ballarat.

What an effective use of the ACF's council time... progress is once again dragged through the mud.

Dear ACF rep's,
It is clear that you are stopping the development of chess in Australia.

Unfortunately, only business people like David himself and others can invest money to modernise chess in Australia, however you're trying to keep chess in 1950's

The Tornelo is a great project and you cannot stop it, Apple is astonishing
and everyone is admitting that it cannot be stopped, and you are going to swallow an apple very soon.

You are reading letters from Garvin Grey who didn't even know that he needs Internet connection for live games, who was also in charge of the DGT boards for Years but never successfully connected them.

David has spent lots of his time and efforts too modernise chess however the support he expected wasn't there.

He was proud to introduce something new...but what are you doing??? you are scared too live in a modern world, Shame on you!!!

Perhaps the world will accept the TORNELO if you do not!!!!!

**Thomas Bishop** · 03-19-2011, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Iconohols

With every year, the evidence accumulates. With every year my mantra of anti-ACF rhetoric gains credibility. I congratulate all people in the commercial chess industry for their continued resistance to the enemy of chess, the ACF.

Now is the time to gather your energy, alloy your ideas and create a plan. It is time to ignore the ACF and form an Australian chess entity to drain all financial support to the ACF and kill it.

Start with a ratings revolt. Finish a few years with a letter to FIDE showing the ACF to be functionally dead.

I do not understand what the ACF has accomplished here by writing a harassing letter to a great commercial chess business owner? Do they enjoy throwing their weight around? It also seems concerning that every few months the ACF is embroiled in a new dispute, (ie.) Vic Chess Association fees, ACTJCL - Libby dispute, not supporting our top female chess players (Arianne's recent blog entry).

**Kings of chess** · 03-19-2011, 06:49 PM

TORNELO is not a threat to the ACF ( on one stage David did guarantee it). TORNELO is going to
give us a brighter and smarter future partnered with its transparency.
Denying TORNELO because of its origin, (Australian innovation) and the fact that it is not being imported from another country, which is not the Aussie's way.

I think the problem here is that some people in the ACF think that David is not capable of resolving/improving minor problems with Tornelo. However, I believe that he can. We need to support David and co-operate to revolutionise TORNELO.

David did release the TORNELO nice and early. But sometimes it is needed to do such things knowing the software you have been working on may be copied and released by someone else.
In 2006, when I started to play chess with my kids, I didn't know who was who, and how everything worked in Australian Chess and how to avoid the traps in Queensland chess.
Today, my image of Australia's Chess is framed and I have found all my answers which I have been questioning myself about since 2006.

In simple words, the ACF is saying (cruel but true)-
Sorry David, but you are on a one way road by yourself.
However, many other drivers would like to change
the way the road is going!

**Scott Colliver** · 03-19-2011, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Kings of chess

TORNELO is not a threat to the ACF ( on one stage David did guarantee it). TORNELO is going to
give us a brighter and smarter future partnered with its transparency.
Denying TORNELO because of its origin, (Australian innovation) and the fact that it is not being imported from another country, which is not the Aussie's way.

I think the problem here is that some people in the ACF think that David is not capable of resolving/improving minor problems with Tornelo. However, I believe that he can. We need to support David and co-operate to revolutionise TORNELO.

David did release the TORNELO nice and early. But sometimes it is needed to do such things knowing the software you have been working on may be copied and released by someone else.
In 2006, when I started to play chess with my kids, I didn't know who was who, and how everything worked in Australian Chess and how to avoid the traps in Queensland chess.
Today, my image of Australia's Chess is framed and I have found all my answers which I have been questioning myself about since 2006.

In simple words, the ACF is saying (cruel but true)-
Sorry David, but you are on a one way road by yourself.
However, many other drivers would like to change
the way the road is going!

Amir, I don't think that the problem is the problems Tornelo has but that they do not trust the owner.
Scott

**Iconoclast** · 03-19-2011, 08:15 PM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I don't think that the problem is the problems Tornelo has but that [ACF] do not trust the owner.

Assuming that is true, the hypocrisy of the ACF is breath taking.
Recall:

Needleman
Netloggics take over
Mt Buller fiasco
Glicko 1, 2, and ?!
MCC fees
Schools fees
Banned player vendetta
OzChess freeze
et al.

Secrecy ad infinitum to cover incompetence

Is there anyone willing to defend the ACF? Personally, I have never met a chesser who says the ACF is competent. It is universally ridiculed as hopeless.

The Peter Principle:
The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle". There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans.
In an organizational structure, the Peter Principle's practical application allows assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion based on performance in the current job; i.e., members of a hierarchical organization eventually are promoted to their highest level of competence, after which further promotion raises them to incompetence. That level is the employee's "level of incompetence" where the employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career's ceiling in an organization.
The employee's incompetence is not necessarily a result of the higher-ranking position being more difficult — simply, that job may be crucially different from the job in which the employee previously excelled, and thus requires different work skills, which the employee may not possess. For example, a [chess administrator's] excellence in their [state] can earn them promotion to [ACF], at which point the skills that earned them their [new position] no longer apply to their [ACF] job. Thus, work is only accomplished by those [chess administrators] who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.

(From Wikipedia)

**Scott Colliver** · 03-19-2011, 08:55 PM

Originally Posted by Iconoclast

Assuming that is true, the hypocrisy of the ACF is breath taking.
Recall:

Needleman

Netloggics take over

Mt Buller fiasco

Glicko 1, 2, and ?!

MCC fees

Schools fees

Banned player vendetta

OzChess freeze

et al.

Secrecy ad infinitum to cover incompetence

Is there anyone willing to defend the ACF? Personally, I have never met a chesser who says the ACF is competent. It is universally ridiculed as hopeless.

The Peter Principle:
The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle". There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans.
In an organizational structure, the Peter Principle's practical application allows assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion based on performance in the current job; i.e., members of a hierarchical organization eventually are promoted to their highest level of competence, after which further promotion raises them to incompetence. That level is the employee's "level of incompetence" where the employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career's ceiling in an organization.
The employee's incompetence is not necessarily a result of the higher-ranking position being more difficult — simply, that job may be crucially different from the job in which the employee previously excelled, and thus requires different work skills, which the employee may not possess. For example, a [chess administrator's] excellence in their [state] can earn them promotion to [ACF], at which point the skills that earned them their [new position] no longer apply to their [ACF] job. Thus, work is only accomplished by those [chess administrators] who have not yet reached their level of incompetence.

(From Wikipedia)

I think the rating officers (Bill and Graham Saint) are doing a very good job with the ratings. They are always done on time and I personally think that the ratings system is good.
I think Kevin does a good job with the selections and I have no problem with him at all. As far as the rest of the ACF executive, Gary Wastell, Norm Greenwood and Tom Accola I have not had enough dealings with them to really judge.
As far as non executive office holders I think Paul Dunn, Ian Rout, Greg Canfell, Brian Jones and Ian Murray do a good job and I have never heard anything against Phil Viner.
Anyway we are getting off the topic.
Scott

**ChessGuru** · 03-19-2011, 09:17 PM

Yes, sadly a similar post on chess chat was removed. They don't even have enough confidence in their decisions to allow open debate about them. Talk about head-in-the-sand!

**Iconoclast** · 03-20-2011, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I think the rating officers (Bill and Graham Saint) are doing a very good job with the ratings. They are always done on time and I personally think that the ratings system is good.
I think Kevin does a good job with the selections and I have no problem with him at all. As far as the rest of the ACF executive, Gary Wastell, Norm Greenwood and Tom Accola I have not had enough dealings with them to really judge.
As far as non executive office holders I think Paul Dunn, Ian Rout, Greg Canfell, Brian Jones and Ian Murray do a good job and I have never heard anything against Phil Viner.
Anyway we are getting off the topic.
Scott

Gletsos is a dinosaur in the ratings game
Wastell What has he done lately?
Bonham runs ChessChat gulag
Norm, a trusted treasurer
Tom sends letters saying "no"
Dunn keeps good records
Rout provides a standard newsletter
Canfell emails a file to FIDE
Jones runs a points system
Murray I. begs money from poor chessers for poor chessers
Viner warms a FIDE seat
Jessop does nothing of consequence
Murray R. has no shame for the ACF web site
The Delegates all vote no.

Who is the LEADER with vision and energy? There isn't one.

My question is: Are the bulk of these people promoting and growing chess or doing just enough to keep the wormy hulk from sinking? I say scuttle it. Build a new ship with a paid crew.

**Just2Good** · 03-20-2011, 02:04 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I think the rating officers (Bill and Graham Saint) are doing a very good job with the ratings. They are always done on time and I personally think that the ratings system is good.

Hi Scott,

The anti-spam software snared one of your posts and placed it in the mod queue. I have fixed this and bumped up your post count so the spam filter won't do that to you again.

As for Graham Saint, I was unaware he was assisting Bill in doing the ratings.

Yes, the ratings are put out regularly once a quarter. Let's compare this to the Chess Federation of Canada where the new ratings are put out twice a month.

Also, there is no evidence that releasing RD's would diminish chess participation among players, in fact the opposite is possibly true. I am not convinced there is a need to keep RD's confidential. The CAQ Ratings Officer once said the same thing.

**Scott Colliver** · 03-20-2011, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Just2Good

Hi Scott,

The anti-spam software snared one of your posts and placed it in the mod queue. I have fixed this and bumped up your post count so the spam filter won't do that to you again.

As for Graham Saint, I was unaware he was assisting Bill in doing the ratings.

Yes, the ratings are put out regularly once a quarter. Let's compare this to the Chess Federation of Canada where the new ratings are put out twice a month.

Also, there is no evidence that releasing RD's would diminish chess participation among players, in fact the opposite is possibly true. I am not convinced there is a need to keep RD's confidential. The CAQ Ratings Officer once said the same thing.

As far as RD's go I would like them released but I think it is only minor issue. As far as time goes between releases of ratings, Prof. Mark Glickman in his paper on Glicko-2, example, says

Originally Posted by Prof. Mark Glickman

The Glicko-2 system works best when the number of games in a rating period is moderate to large, say an average of at least 10-15 games per player in a rating period. The length of time for a rating period is at the discretion of the administrator.

I think having ratings released twice a month would put the average number of games well under the 10-15 minimum Glickman says here. I have never calculated what it is now, it might be only just above that at the moment. I know my average games per rating list since I started playing would be under 5 and quite possibly a lot lower than that.
Scott

**ChessGuru** · 03-20-2011, 09:05 AM

Sure, The ACF is doing a good job. But the standard by which they measure "good" is the same as it was back in 1983. The problem is that they are not open to change, in fact they are resistant to doing anytng new. What was a good job of ratings 10 years ago is old hat today...you wouldn't accept the same service from your phone company, computer, Internet provider, supermarket, car, airlines, doctors etc etc as they were providing 20-30 years ago. Why accept the same service and behavior from the ACF? Things change. Pull out some old chess world magazines, or chess in Aus mags...things are frighteningly similar today.

**ChessGuru** · 03-20-2011, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Scott Colliver

I think having ratings released twice a month would put the average number of games well under the 10-15 minimum Glickman says here. I have never calculated what it is now, it might be only just above that at the moment. I know my average games per rating list since I started playing would be under 5 and quite possibly a lot lower than that.
Scott

so perhaps the Glicko system isn't the system which best achieves our objectives? Use the tool to suit the job at hand... Don't change the job.

ICC would never publish a rating list monthly, they need game by game rating changes...so they use a tool to achieve that. I think the days where players are willing to wait 3 months for new rating gone.

03-19-2011, 08:12 AM	#1 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	A Swift Axe To Progress Never in the history of the ACF have they acted to swiftly as when faced with the threat of progress. The ACF Council sprung into action not 8 hours ago and censored any mention of Tornelo in the ACF Newsletter! "Dear David, The ACF has noted your failure to not only cease and desist from placing wording on your websites that infers a relationship between the ACF and your Tornelo website or system but to also immediately remove the words "Australian Chess Federation" and the corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com along with changing the heading "Australian Chess Ratings" that appears on auschess.tornelo.com as requested on 10th March 2001. The ACF Council has therefore decided that nothing to do with you, your chess business or your Tornelo system is to appear in the ACF newsletter until you remove to the satisfaction of the ACF Council all references, inferences or implications that your Tornelo system is in any way related to the Australian Chess Federation or ACF ratings. Regards, Bill" It's also been followed up by Councillor Garvin Gray's email about how he felt "thoroughly misled and deceived" (but he requested that his email not be published) by Tornelo's sponsorship of Ballarat. What an effective use of the ACF's council time... progress is once again dragged through the mud.

03-19-2011, 12:36 PM	#3 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Snubbed by the ACF Originally Posted by ChessGuru Never in the history of the ACF have they acted to swiftly as when faced with the threat of progress. The ACF Council sprung into action not 8 hours ago and censored any mention of Tornelo in the ACF Newsletter! "Dear David, The ACF has noted your failure to not only cease and desist from placing wording on your websites that infers a relationship between the ACF and your Tornelo website or system but to also immediately remove the words "Australian Chess Federation" and the corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com along with changing the heading "Australian Chess Ratings" that appears on auschess.tornelo.com as requested on 10th March 2001. The ACF Council has therefore decided that nothing to do with you, your chess business or your Tornelo system is to appear in the ACF newsletter until you remove to the satisfaction of the ACF Council all references, inferences or implications that your Tornelo system is in any way related to the Australian Chess Federation or ACF ratings. Regards, Bill" It's also been followed up by Councillor Garvin Gray's email about how he felt "thoroughly misled and deceived" (but he requested that his email not be published) by Tornelo's sponsorship of Ballarat. What an effective use of the ACF's council time... progress is once again dragged through the mud. Firstly, let me point out that had you posted this on Chess Chat, the post would likely have been deleted by the administrators there (who also serve as ACF Vice Presidents). Secondly, I say welcome to the club. They pulled this stunt once before and prevented any mention of the OzChess website in the ACF newsletter - and we hadn't even sought to use it as a form of advertising. Basically, anything that undermines their power, for instance OzChess or Tornelo, regardless of whether it is beneficial to Australian chess as a whole, gets snubbed by the ACF. But alas, the fault lies not with the ACF - rather it lies with ourselves. You see, we allow these monkeys to go unelected year after year, so the end result (however sordid it may be) is really not that surprising. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-19-2011, 01:06 PM	#4 (permalink)
Top Gun Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 31	Originally Posted by ChessGuru Never in the history of the ACF have they acted to swiftly as when faced with the threat of progress. The ACF Council sprung into action not 8 hours ago and censored any mention of Tornelo in the ACF Newsletter! "Dear David, The ACF has noted your failure to not only cease and desist from placing wording on your websites that infers a relationship between the ACF and your Tornelo website or system but to also immediately remove the words "Australian Chess Federation" and the corresponding link to auschess.tornelo.com along with changing the heading "Australian Chess Ratings" that appears on auschess.tornelo.com as requested on 10th March 2001. The ACF Council has therefore decided that nothing to do with you, your chess business or your Tornelo system is to appear in the ACF newsletter until you remove to the satisfaction of the ACF Council all references, inferences or implications that your Tornelo system is in any way related to the Australian Chess Federation or ACF ratings. Regards, Bill" It's also been followed up by Councillor Garvin Gray's email about how he felt "thoroughly misled and deceived" (but he requested that his email not be published) by Tornelo's sponsorship of Ballarat. What an effective use of the ACF's council time... progress is once again dragged through the mud. Dear ACF rep's, It is clear that you are stopping the development of chess in Australia. Unfortunately, only business people like David himself and others can invest money to modernise chess in Australia, however you're trying to keep chess in 1950's The Tornelo is a great project and you cannot stop it, Apple is astonishing and everyone is admitting that it cannot be stopped, and you are going to swallow an apple very soon. You are reading letters from Garvin Grey who didn't even know that he needs Internet connection for live games, who was also in charge of the DGT boards for Years but never successfully connected them. David has spent lots of his time and efforts too modernise chess however the support he expected wasn't there. He was proud to introduce something new...but what are you doing??? you are scared too live in a modern world, Shame on you!!! Perhaps the world will accept the TORNELO if you do not!!!!! __________________ Bye Bye Baby!

03-19-2011, 04:37 PM	#5 (permalink)
Thomas Bishop Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 253	Originally Posted by Iconohols With every year, the evidence accumulates. With every year my mantra of anti-ACF rhetoric gains credibility. I congratulate all people in the commercial chess industry for their continued resistance to the enemy of chess, the ACF. Now is the time to gather your energy, alloy your ideas and create a plan. It is time to ignore the ACF and form an Australian chess entity to drain all financial support to the ACF and kill it. Start with a ratings revolt. Finish a few years with a letter to FIDE showing the ACF to be functionally dead. I do not understand what the ACF has accomplished here by writing a harassing letter to a great commercial chess business owner? Do they enjoy throwing their weight around? It also seems concerning that every few months the ACF is embroiled in a new dispute, (ie.) Vic Chess Association fees, ACTJCL - Libby dispute, not supporting our top female chess players (Arianne's recent blog entry).

03-19-2011, 06:49 PM	#6 (permalink)
Kings of chess Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Gold Coast Posts: 393	TORNELO is not a threat to the ACF ( on one stage David did guarantee it). TORNELO is going to give us a brighter and smarter future partnered with its transparency. Denying TORNELO because of its origin, (Australian innovation) and the fact that it is not being imported from another country, which is not the Aussie's way. I think the problem here is that some people in the ACF think that David is not capable of resolving/improving minor problems with Tornelo. However, I believe that he can. We need to support David and co-operate to revolutionise TORNELO. David did release the TORNELO nice and early. But sometimes it is needed to do such things knowing the software you have been working on may be copied and released by someone else. In 2006, when I started to play chess with my kids, I didn't know who was who, and how everything worked in Australian Chess and how to avoid the traps in Queensland chess. Today, my image of Australia's Chess is framed and I have found all my answers which I have been questioning myself about since 2006. In simple words, the ACF is saying (cruel but true)- Sorry David, but you are on a one way road by yourself. However, many other drivers would like to change the way the road is going! __________________ www.kingsofchess.biz

03-19-2011, 09:31 AM	#2 (permalink)
Iconohols Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 60	With every year, the evidence accumulates. With every year my mantra of anti-ACF rhetoric gains credibility. I congratulate all people in the commercial chess industry for their continued resistance to the enemy of chess, the ACF. Now is the time to gather your energy, alloy your ideas and create a plan. It is time to ignore the ACF and form an Australian chess entity to drain all financial support to the ACF and kill it. Start with a ratings revolt. Finish a few years with a letter to FIDE showing the ACF to be functionally dead.

03-19-2011, 07:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
Scott Colliver Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Kings of chess TORNELO is not a threat to the ACF ( on one stage David did guarantee it). TORNELO is going to give us a brighter and smarter future partnered with its transparency. Denying TORNELO because of its origin, (Australian innovation) and the fact that it is not being imported from another country, which is not the Aussie's way. I think the problem here is that some people in the ACF think that David is not capable of resolving/improving minor problems with Tornelo. However, I believe that he can. We need to support David and co-operate to revolutionise TORNELO. David did release the TORNELO nice and early. But sometimes it is needed to do such things knowing the software you have been working on may be copied and released by someone else. In 2006, when I started to play chess with my kids, I didn't know who was who, and how everything worked in Australian Chess and how to avoid the traps in Queensland chess. Today, my image of Australia's Chess is framed and I have found all my answers which I have been questioning myself about since 2006. In simple words, the ACF is saying (cruel but true)- Sorry David, but you are on a one way road by yourself. However, many other drivers would like to change the way the road is going! Amir, I don't think that the problem is the problems Tornelo has but that they do not trust the owner. Scott

03-19-2011, 08:15 PM	#8 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I don't think that the problem is the problems Tornelo has but that [ACF] do not trust the owner. Assuming that is true, the hypocrisy of the ACF is breath taking. Recall: Needleman Netloggics take over Mt Buller fiasco Glicko 1, 2, and ?! MCC fees Schools fees Banned player vendetta OzChess freeze et al. Secrecy ad infinitum to cover incompetence Is there anyone willing to defend the ACF? Personally, I have never met a chesser who says the ACF is competent. It is universally ridiculed as hopeless. The Peter Principle: The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle". There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans. In an organizational structure, the Peter Principle's practical application allows assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion based on performance in the current job; i.e., members of a hierarchical organization eventually are promoted to their highest level of competence, after which further promotion raises them to incompetence. That level is the employee's "level of incompetence" where the employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career's ceiling in an organization. The employee's incompetence is not necessarily a result of the higher-ranking position being more difficult — simply, that job may be crucially different from the job in which the employee previously excelled, and thus requires different work skills, which the employee may not possess. For example, a [chess administrator's] excellence in their [state] can earn them promotion to [ACF], at which point the skills that earned them their [new position] no longer apply to their [ACF] job. Thus, work is only accomplished by those [chess administrators] who have not yet reached their level of incompetence. (From Wikipedia) __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-19-2011, 08:55 PM	#9 (permalink)
Scott Colliver Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Iconoclast Assuming that is true, the hypocrisy of the ACF is breath taking. Recall: Needleman Netloggics take over Mt Buller fiasco Glicko 1, 2, and ?! MCC fees Schools fees Banned player vendetta OzChess freeze et al. Secrecy ad infinitum to cover incompetence Is there anyone willing to defend the ACF? Personally, I have never met a chesser who says the ACF is competent. It is universally ridiculed as hopeless. The Peter Principle: The Peter Principle is a special case of a ubiquitous observation: anything that works will be used in progressively more challenging applications until it fails. This is "The Generalized Peter Principle". There is much temptation to use what has worked before, even when it may exceed its effective scope. Dr. Peter observed this about humans. In an organizational structure, the Peter Principle's practical application allows assessment of the potential of an employee for a promotion based on performance in the current job; i.e., members of a hierarchical organization eventually are promoted to their highest level of competence, after which further promotion raises them to incompetence. That level is the employee's "level of incompetence" where the employee has no chance of further promotion, thus reaching their career's ceiling in an organization. The employee's incompetence is not necessarily a result of the higher-ranking position being more difficult — simply, that job may be crucially different from the job in which the employee previously excelled, and thus requires different work skills, which the employee may not possess. For example, a [chess administrator's] excellence in their [state] can earn them promotion to [ACF], at which point the skills that earned them their [new position] no longer apply to their [ACF] job. Thus, work is only accomplished by those [chess administrators] who have not yet reached their level of incompetence. (From Wikipedia) I think the rating officers (Bill and Graham Saint) are doing a very good job with the ratings. They are always done on time and I personally think that the ratings system is good. I think Kevin does a good job with the selections and I have no problem with him at all. As far as the rest of the ACF executive, Gary Wastell, Norm Greenwood and Tom Accola I have not had enough dealings with them to really judge. As far as non executive office holders I think Paul Dunn, Ian Rout, Greg Canfell, Brian Jones and Ian Murray do a good job and I have never heard anything against Phil Viner. Anyway we are getting off the topic. Scott

03-19-2011, 09:17 PM	#10 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	Yes, sadly a similar post on chess chat was removed. They don't even have enough confidence in their decisions to allow open debate about them. Talk about head-in-the-sand!

03-20-2011, 01:31 AM	#11 (permalink)
Iconoclast Immoderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wollongong NSW Posts: 2,302	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I think the rating officers (Bill and Graham Saint) are doing a very good job with the ratings. They are always done on time and I personally think that the ratings system is good. I think Kevin does a good job with the selections and I have no problem with him at all. As far as the rest of the ACF executive, Gary Wastell, Norm Greenwood and Tom Accola I have not had enough dealings with them to really judge. As far as non executive office holders I think Paul Dunn, Ian Rout, Greg Canfell, Brian Jones and Ian Murray do a good job and I have never heard anything against Phil Viner. Anyway we are getting off the topic. Scott Gletsos is a dinosaur in the ratings game Wastell What has he done lately? Bonham runs ChessChat gulag Norm, a trusted treasurer Tom sends letters saying "no" Dunn keeps good records Rout provides a standard newsletter Canfell emails a file to FIDE Jones runs a points system Murray I. begs money from poor chessers for poor chessers Viner warms a FIDE seat Jessop does nothing of consequence Murray R. has no shame for the ACF web site The Delegates all vote no. Who is the LEADER with vision and energy? There isn't one. My question is: Are the bulk of these people promoting and growing chess or doing just enough to keep the wormy hulk from sinking? I say scuttle it. Build a new ship with a paid crew. __________________ The individual is hopeless without the group. The group is hopeless without its individuals.

03-20-2011, 02:04 AM	#12 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,233 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I think the rating officers (Bill and Graham Saint) are doing a very good job with the ratings. They are always done on time and I personally think that the ratings system is good. Hi Scott, The anti-spam software snared one of your posts and placed it in the mod queue. I have fixed this and bumped up your post count so the spam filter won't do that to you again. As for Graham Saint, I was unaware he was assisting Bill in doing the ratings. Yes, the ratings are put out regularly once a quarter. Let's compare this to the Chess Federation of Canada where the new ratings are put out twice a month. Also, there is no evidence that releasing RD's would diminish chess participation among players, in fact the opposite is possibly true. I am not convinced there is a need to keep RD's confidential. The CAQ Ratings Officer once said the same thing. __________________ . "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." ~ Isaiah Berlin ~

03-20-2011, 03:31 AM	#13 (permalink)
Scott Colliver Member Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 88	Originally Posted by Just2Good Hi Scott, The anti-spam software snared one of your posts and placed it in the mod queue. I have fixed this and bumped up your post count so the spam filter won't do that to you again. As for Graham Saint, I was unaware he was assisting Bill in doing the ratings. Yes, the ratings are put out regularly once a quarter. Let's compare this to the Chess Federation of Canada where the new ratings are put out twice a month. Also, there is no evidence that releasing RD's would diminish chess participation among players, in fact the opposite is possibly true. I am not convinced there is a need to keep RD's confidential. The CAQ Ratings Officer once said the same thing. As far as RD's go I would like them released but I think it is only minor issue. As far as time goes between releases of ratings, Prof. Mark Glickman in his paper on Glicko-2, example, says Originally Posted by Prof. Mark Glickman The Glicko-2 system works best when the number of games in a rating period is moderate to large, say an average of at least 10-15 games per player in a rating period. The length of time for a rating period is at the discretion of the administrator. I think having ratings released twice a month would put the average number of games well under the 10-15 minimum Glickman says here. I have never calculated what it is now, it might be only just above that at the moment. I know my average games per rating list since I started playing would be under 5 and quite possibly a lot lower than that. Scott

03-20-2011, 09:05 AM	#14 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	Sure, The ACF is doing a good job. But the standard by which they measure "good" is the same as it was back in 1983. The problem is that they are not open to change, in fact they are resistant to doing anytng new. What was a good job of ratings 10 years ago is old hat today...you wouldn't accept the same service from your phone company, computer, Internet provider, supermarket, car, airlines, doctors etc etc as they were providing 20-30 years ago. Why accept the same service and behavior from the ACF? Things change. Pull out some old chess world magazines, or chess in Aus mags...things are frighteningly similar today.

03-20-2011, 09:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
ChessGuru Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Melbourne Posts: 232	Originally Posted by Scott Colliver I think having ratings released twice a month would put the average number of games well under the 10-15 minimum Glickman says here. I have never calculated what it is now, it might be only just above that at the moment. I know my average games per rating list since I started playing would be under 5 and quite possibly a lot lower than that. Scott so perhaps the Glicko system isn't the system which best achieves our objectives? Use the tool to suit the job at hand... Don't change the job. ICC would never publish a rating list monthly, they need game by game rating changes...so they use a tool to achieve that. I think the days where players are willing to wait 3 months for new rating gone.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread: