How Competitive Do You Want It To Be? - Page 3 - OzChess

**Virgil** · 01-10-2009, 07:33 AM

Code:

 1 Xie, George           2397 [6]      1:0    Wohl, Aleksander H      2342 [7]  
 2 Schon, Eugene         2115 [6.5]   .5:.5   Sales, Jesse Noel       2340 [6.5]
 3 Chapman, Mark         2402 [6]      1:0    Broekhuyse, Paul        2116 [6]  
 4 Morris, James         2089 [5.5]    0:1    Smirnov, Vladimir       2372 [5.5]
 5 Mandla, Blair         2116 [5.5]    1:0    Lyell, Mark             2287 [5.5]
 6 Davis, Tony J         1967 [5.5]    0:1    Illingworth, Max        2250 [5.5]
 7 Rej, Tomek            2330 [5]      1:0    Mortensen, Henrik       2022 [5]  
 8 Chan, Jason           2055 [5]      0:1    Stojic, Dusan           2219 [5]  
 9 Hu, Jason             2182 [5]      1:0    Lovejoy, David          2014 [5]  
10 Bolens, Johny         2180 [5]      1:0    Voon, Richard           1976 [5]  
11 Sheldrick, Kevin      2161 [5]      1:0    Rout, Ian C             1949 [5]  
12 Jakirlic, Nermin      2162 [4.5]    1:0    Van Der Wal, Fritz W    1944 [4.5]
13 Nilsson, Lars Kjoller 2030 [4.5]   .5:.5   Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija 2102 [4.5]
14 Furst, Andrew         2062 [4.5]   .5:.5   Svendsen, Peter         2007 [4.5]
15 Harp, Joel            2031 [4.5]   .5:.5   Mcgregor, Allan              [4.5]
16 Kong, Adrian               [4.5]    0:1    Ayvazyan, Armen         2232 [4]  
17 Ruan, Harry                [4]     .5:.5   Nowak, Miroslaw         2064 [4]  
18 Dunn, Michael Gl      1986 [4]      0:1    Abbott, Peter           1858 [4]  
19 Encel, Benjamin       1781 [4]      1:0    Fry, Peter              1925 [4]  
20 Caron, Damien         1914 [4]     .5:.5   Guo, Emma               1778 [4]  
21 Tan, Kevin                 [4]      0:1    Ruan, Jack              1908 [4]  
22 Redgrave, John        1882 [4]      0:1    Papp, Alexander              [4]  
23 Krstic, Slobodan      2064 [3.5]    1:0    Lilly, Richard          1915 [3.5]
24 Stojic, Svetozar      1972 [3.5]    1:0    Myers, Stephen P        1807 [3.5]
25 Russell, Luthien      1786 [3.5]    0:1    Ali, Mosaddeque         1943 [3.5]
26 Zoppi, Mario               [3.5]   .5:.5   Canfell, Mike J         1931 [3]  
27 Weller, Tony          1985 [3]     .5:.5   Pevzner, Moissei             [3]  
28 Wan, Dennis           1930 [3]      0:1    Stokes, Mark C               [3]  
29 Bleicher, Horst       1840 [3]      0:1    Buciu, Aurel-John            [3]  
30 Slidziunas, John           [3]      0:1    Glissan, Paul           1767 [3]  
31 Baterowicz, Mark      1727 [3]      0:1    Cuellar, Chris               [3]  
32 Cox, Barry                 [3]      0:1    Javor, Stephen               [3]  
33 Mejzini, Jack              [3]      1:0    Talum, Lito                  [2.5]
34 Press, Brian J             [2]      0:1    Wang, Oscar                  [2.5]
35 Schuetz, Fred              [2]     .5:.5   Tombak, Mikhail              [2]  
36 Anderson, Michael          [1]      1:0    Feduniw, Terry               [2]

**MOZ** · 01-10-2009, 09:09 PM

Code:

1 Chapman, Mark           2402 [7]      1:0    Schon, Eugene         2115 [7]  
 2 Sales, Jesse Noel       2340 [7]      0:1    Xie, George           2397 [7]  
 3 Wohl, Aleksander H      2342 [7]      1:0    Mandla, Blair         2116 [6.5]
 4 Smirnov, Vladimir       2372 [6.5]   .5:.5   Illingworth, Max      2250 [6.5]
 5 Bolens, Johny           2180 [6]      0:1    Rej, Tomek            2330 [6]  
 6 Stojic, Dusan           2219 [6]      1:0    Sheldrick, Kevin      2161 [6]  
 7 Broekhuyse, Paul        2116 [6]      0:1    Hu, Jason             2182 [6]  
 8 Lyell, Mark             2287 [5.5]    1:0    Davis, Tony J         1967 [5.5]
 9 Morris, James           2089 [5.5]   .5:.5   Jakirlic, Nermin      2162 [5.5]
10 Ayvazyan, Armen         2232 [5]      1:0    Svendsen, Peter       2007 [5]  
11 Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija 2102 [5]      1:0    Voon, Richard         1976 [5]  
12 Ruan, Jack              1908 [5]      0:1    Furst, Andrew         2062 [5]  
13 Abbott, Peter           1858 [5]      1:0    Chan, Jason           2055 [5]  
14 Harp, Joel              2031 [5]      0:1    Rout, Ian C           1949 [5]  
15 Papp, Alexander              [5]      0:1    Nilsson, Lars Kjoller 2030 [5]  
16 Mortensen, Henrik       2022 [5]     .5:.5   Mcgregor, Allan            [5]  
17 Lovejoy, David          2014 [5]      1:0    Encel, Benjamin       1781 [5]  
18 Ali, Mosaddeque         1943 [4.5]    1:0    Krstic, Slobodan      2064 [4.5]
19 Nowak, Miroslaw         2064 [4.5]    0:1    Caron, Damien         1914 [4.5]
20 Guo, Emma               1778 [4.5]    0:1    Stojic, Svetozar      1972 [4.5]
21 Van Der Wal, Fritz W    1944 [4.5]    0:1    Kong, Adrian               [4.5]
22 Fry, Peter              1925 [4]     .5:.5   Ruan, Harry                [4.5]
23 Buciu, Aurel-John            [4]     .5:.5   Dunn, Michael Gl      1986 [4]  
24 Cuellar, Chris               [4]      1:0    Redgrave, John        1882 [4]  
25 Glissan, Paul           1767 [4]      0:1    Tan, Kevin                 [4]  
26 Stokes, Mark C               [4]     .5:.5   Zoppi, Mario               [4]  
27 Javor, Stephen               [4]      1:0    Mejzini, Jack              [4]  
28 Myers, Stephen P        1807 [3.5]    0:1    Weller, Tony          1985 [3.5]
29 Canfell, Mike J         1931 [3.5]   .5:.5   Russell, Luthien      1786 [3.5]
30 Lilly, Richard          1915 [3.5]    1:0    Pevzner, Moissei           [3.5]
31 Rachmadi, Herman        1840 [3.5]    0:1    Wang, Oscar                [3.5]
32 Baterowicz, Mark        1727 [3]     .5:.5   Wan, Dennis           1930 [3]  
33 Cox, Barry                   [3]      1:0    Bleicher, Horst       1840 [3]  
34 Tombak, Mikhail              [2.5]    1:0    Slidziunas, John           [3]  
35 Talum, Lito                  [2.5]    -:+    Vogelmann, Arno            [2.5]
36 Schuetz, Fred                [2.5]    1:0    Anderson, Michael          [2]  
37 Feduniw, Terry               [2]      1:0    Press, Brian J             [2]

**MOZ** · 01-11-2009, 09:49 PM

Code:

1 Xie, George           2397 [8]      1:0    Chapman, Mark           2402 [8]  
 2 Illingworth, Max      2250 [7]      0:1    Wohl, Aleksander H      2342 [8]  
 3 Smirnov, Vladimir     2372 [7]     .5:.5   Stojic, Dusan           2219 [7]  
 4 Hu, Jason             2182 [7]      1:0    Sales, Jesse Noel       2340 [7] 
 
 5 \/ Schon, Eugene         2115 [7]      1:0    Rej, Tomek              2330 [7]
 
 6 Lyell, Mark           2287 [6.5]    1:0    Bolens, Johny           2180 [6]  
 7 Mandla, Blair         2116 [6.5]    1:0    Broekhuyse, Paul        2116 [6]  
 8 Furst, Andrew         2062 [6]      0:1    Ayvazyan, Armen         2232 [6]  
 9 Jakirlic, Nermin      2162 [6]      0:1    Lovejoy, David          2014 [6]  
10 Sheldrick, Kevin      2161 [6]      1:0    Abbott, Peter           1858 [6]  
11 Rout, Ian C           1949 [6]      0:1    Dizdarevic, Mehmedalija 2102 [6]  
12 Nilsson, Lars Kjoller 2030 [6]      1:0    Morris, James           2089 [6]  
13 Kong, Adrian               [5.5]    0:1    Mortensen, Henrik       2022 [5.5]
14 Stojic, Svetozar      1972 [5.5]    0:1    Ali, Mosaddeque         1943 [5.5]
15 Caron, Damien         1914 [5.5]    1:0    Davis, Tony J           1967 [5.5]
16 Mcgregor, Allan            [5.5]    1:0    Chan, Jason             2055 [5]  
17 Ruan, Harry                [5]      +:-    Harp, Joel              2031 [5]  
18 Svendsen, Peter       2007 [5]      0:1    Javor, Stephen               [5]  
19 Voon, Richard         1976 [5]      1:0    Cuellar, Chris               [5]  
20 Encel, Benjamin       1781 [5]      1:0    Ruan, Jack              1908 [5]  
21 Tan, Kevin                 [5]      1:0    Papp, Alexander              [5]  
22 Krstic, Slobodan      2064 [4.5]   .5:.5   Guo, Emma               1778 [4.5]
23 Wang, Oscar                [4.5]    1:0    Nowak, Miroslaw         2064 [4.5]
24 Dunn, Michael Gl      1986 [4.5]   .5:.5   Lilly, Richard          1915 [4.5]
25 Weller, Tony          1985 [4.5]   .5:.5   Stokes, Mark C               [4.5]
26 Zoppi, Mario               [4.5]    1:0    Van Der Wal, Fritz W    1944 [4.5]
27 Fry, Peter            1925 [4.5]    1:0    Buciu, Aurel-John            [4.5]
28 Mejzini, Jack              [4]      1:0    Canfell, Mike J         1931 [4]  
29 Redgrave, John        1882 [4]      0:1    Glissan, Paul           1767 [4]  
30 Russell, Luthien      1786 [4]      1:0    Cox, Barry                   [4]  
31 Wan, Dennis           1930 [3.5]    1:0    Tombak, Mikhail              [3.5]
32 Rachmadi, Herman      1840 [3.5]    1:0    Schuetz, Fred                [3.5]
33 Pevzner, Moissei           [3.5]   .5:.5   Myers, Stephen P        1807 [3.5]
34 Vogelmann, Arno            [3.5]    0:1    Baterowicz, Mark        1727 [3.5]
35 Bleicher, Horst       1840 [3]      0:1    Feduniw, Terry               [3]  
36 Talum, Lito                [2.5]    -:+    Slidziunas, John             [3]  
37 Press, Brian J             [2]      0:1    Anderson, Michael            [2]

**Just2Good** · 01-12-2009, 05:51 PM

What does the red check mark mean?

**MOZ** · 06-09-2009, 11:07 AM

2009 Victorian OPEN June 6th to 8th

Round 1 Competitive index was 722.9 in a non-accelerated SWISS with 94 entrants.

Full results were
Round 1, C.I. = 722.9
Round 2, C.I. = 468.7
Round 3, C.I. = 405.7
Round 4, C.I. = 410.1
Round 5, C.I. = 337.0
Round 6, C.I. = 310.2
Round 7, C.I. = 325.6

**Z&MLoh** · 06-09-2009, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

2009 Victorian OPEN June 6th to 8th

Round 1 Competitive index was 722.9 in a non-accelerated SWISS with 94 entrants.

Full results were
Round 1, C.I. = 722.9
Round 2, C.I. = 468.7
Round 3, C.I. = 405.7
Round 4, C.I. = 410.1
Round 5, C.I. = 337.0
Round 6, C.I. = 310.2
Round 7, C.I. = 325.6

Ever thought about taking the average of all the opponents for a player and dividing that by his/her rating? Then comparing the final score achieved, you get a sense of how hard the player had to "work" to get those points?

For example, in the Vic Open just completed, Zachary Loh had the following crosstable:

R1: Win against 1778
R2: Loss against 1886
R3: Win against 1699
R4: Loss against 1838
R5: Loss against 1669
R6: Win against 1524
R7: Loss against 1637
Average rating of competitors is 1719

Compared to Zach's rating of 1068, "difficulty factor" = 1719/1068 = 1.61 for a score of 3 out of 7.

What do you think?

**MOZ** · 06-09-2009, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Z&MLoh

Ever thought about taking the average of all the opponents for a player and dividing that by his/her rating? Then comparing the final score achieved, you get a sense of how hard the player had to "work" to get those points?

For example, in the Vic Open just completed, Zachary Loh had the following crosstable:

R1: Win against 1778
R2: Loss against 1886
R3: Win against 1699
R4: Loss against 1838
R5: Loss against 1669
R6: Win against 1524
R7: Loss against 1637
Average rating of competitors is 1719

Compared to Zach's rating of 1068, "difficulty factor" = 1719/1068 = 1.61 for a score of 3 out of 7.

What do you think?

I think your analysis is measuring something different from the C.I.

The 'difficulty factor' for Zach, and those in his RG, would always be greater than 1 (well, nearly always).
Zach got his up to 1.61 by having some good early wins, and this was commendable.
But, whatever the composition of the field, and the acceleration/divisionalisation/non-acceleration of the tourney structure, a good start would give a player a good 'difficulty metric'.

It is quite feasible some players enter a tournament with the objective of facing a high 'difficulty metric'. For example, there were players who entered the last week-end's NSW OPEN top division with ratings of 891, 1457 and 1498. Given that that there was a comcomitant event U1600 that they did not enter then clearly these players were chasing 'difficulty', not 'competitiveness'.
On the other side of the coin, in the same NSW event there were plenty in the U1600 who were not chasing the 'difficulty factor, and chose some other objective thus entering the U1600 instead of the OPEN.

The NSW events are better structured in my view to give competitiveness than the VIC events. That is, divisions are a better structure if most players want competitiveness.

Well done to Zach under tough opponents btw.

**Z&MLoh** · 06-09-2009, 01:02 PM

Thanks for the complement for Zach. I agree with your point regarding the NSW tournament. Not sure about NSW event being more competitive than Vic event. Might have to give that more thought with my Excel tool.

For a 7-round competition, there is definitely a case to be made for losing the first 2 rounds (or lose first round then draw second round), then show the "fist in the velvet glove"! Before the "Swiss system catches up", you would have caught up in the middle rounds. It depends on the competition and if there is an exceptional performer in the midst. Not that I'm condoning that sort of behaviour - that would not be ethical!

**darkhorschessers** · 06-09-2009, 07:01 PM

I think its incredibly exciting to play someone rated a lot higher than you!

Lets look it at this way;

If i was to play a person rated 1900+, i have a 2 in 3 chance of obtaining a good result (Win/Draw) and I get a good experience from playing such a person!

And besides, if one is to achieve a rating of 1900, the quickest way to get there is to score draws and wins against people rated much higher than you!

It's only logic

**Just2Good** · 06-09-2009, 07:06 PM

Originally Posted by darkhorschessers

I think its incredibly exciting to play someone rated a lot higher than you!

Agreed! Its also a great opportunity!

**Move-Maker** · 06-09-2009, 07:55 PM

Originally Posted by darkhorschessers

And besides, if one is to achieve a rating of 1900, the quickest way to get there is to score draws and wins against people rated much higher than you!

It's only logic

Isn't beating them (winning) the fastest way to get there?

**darkhorschessers** · 06-09-2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Move-Maker

Isn't beating them (winning) the fastest way to get there?

Yes it is, maybe i could've worded it differently but i was generally speaking in the context of achieving a positive result against a higher rated opponent (Win or draw).

No need to get so specific either, i was just conveying a very logical point

**Just2Good** · 06-10-2009, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by darkhorschessers

Yes it is, maybe i could've worded it differently but i was generally speaking in the context of achieving a positive result against a higher rated opponent (Win or draw).

No need to get so specific either, i was just conveying a very logical point

Win or Draw, just don't lose!

**MOZ** · 06-10-2009, 05:04 PM

There is a thread of the same title on chesschat.
It has been restored to active by this post.

I think I answered most issues raised in this new chesschat post, when I posted above, in this thread,
"The NSW events are better structured in my view to give competitiveness than the VIC events. That is, divisions are a better structure if most players want competitiveness."
\/

The triple negative in the post
viz "If so does he disagree with the decision, reportedly of IA Bekker, to have no acceleration provision for a field size not more than 100?"
probably contains a useful question, but desperately requires a reword for the benefit of readers who cannot handle the Taswegian's word-gymnastics.

X

**Just2Good** · 06-10-2009, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by MOZ

The triple negative in the post viz "If so does he disagree with the decision, reportedly of IA Bekker, to have no acceleration provision for a field size not more than 100?" probably contains a useful question, but desperately requires a reword for the benefit of readers who cannot handle the Taswegian's word-gymnastics.

X

No, no - we mustn't associate Bonbot with the good people of Norway, that would be very unfair to them considering they have given us the most gifted young Grandmaster in decades.

01-12-2009, 05:51 PM	#34 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	What does the red check mark mean? __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

06-09-2009, 11:07 AM	#35 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Aficiondos' special 2009 Victorian OPEN June 6th to 8th Round 1 Competitive index was 722.9 in a non-accelerated SWISS with 94 entrants. Full results were Round 1, C.I. = 722.9 Round 2, C.I. = 468.7 Round 3, C.I. = 405.7 Round 4, C.I. = 410.1 Round 5, C.I. = 337.0 Round 6, C.I. = 310.2 Round 7, C.I. = 325.6 __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-09-2009, 12:23 PM	#36 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 279	Originally Posted by MOZ 2009 Victorian OPEN June 6th to 8th Round 1 Competitive index was 722.9 in a non-accelerated SWISS with 94 entrants. Full results were Round 1, C.I. = 722.9 Round 2, C.I. = 468.7 Round 3, C.I. = 405.7 Round 4, C.I. = 410.1 Round 5, C.I. = 337.0 Round 6, C.I. = 310.2 Round 7, C.I. = 325.6 Ever thought about taking the average of all the opponents for a player and dividing that by his/her rating? Then comparing the final score achieved, you get a sense of how hard the player had to "work" to get those points? For example, in the Vic Open just completed, Zachary Loh had the following crosstable: R1: Win against 1778 R2: Loss against 1886 R3: Win against 1699 R4: Loss against 1838 R5: Loss against 1669 R6: Win against 1524 R7: Loss against 1637 Average rating of competitors is 1719 Compared to Zach's rating of 1068, "difficulty factor" = 1719/1068 = 1.61 for a score of 3 out of 7. What do you think?

06-09-2009, 12:46 PM	#37 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	Originally Posted by Z&MLoh Ever thought about taking the average of all the opponents for a player and dividing that by his/her rating? Then comparing the final score achieved, you get a sense of how hard the player had to "work" to get those points? For example, in the Vic Open just completed, Zachary Loh had the following crosstable: R1: Win against 1778 R2: Loss against 1886 R3: Win against 1699 R4: Loss against 1838 R5: Loss against 1669 R6: Win against 1524 R7: Loss against 1637 Average rating of competitors is 1719 Compared to Zach's rating of 1068, "difficulty factor" = 1719/1068 = 1.61 for a score of 3 out of 7. What do you think? I think your analysis is measuring something different from the C.I. The 'difficulty factor' for Zach, and those in his RG, would always be greater than 1 (well, nearly always). Zach got his up to 1.61 by having some good early wins, and this was commendable. But, whatever the composition of the field, and the acceleration/divisionalisation/non-acceleration of the tourney structure, a good start would give a player a good 'difficulty metric'. It is quite feasible some players enter a tournament with the objective of facing a high 'difficulty metric'. For example, there were players who entered the last week-end's NSW OPEN top division with ratings of 891, 1457 and 1498. Given that that there was a comcomitant event U1600 that they did not enter then clearly these players were chasing 'difficulty', not 'competitiveness'. On the other side of the coin, in the same NSW event there were plenty in the U1600 who were not chasing the 'difficulty factor, and chose some other objective thus entering the U1600 instead of the OPEN. The NSW events are better structured in my view to give competitiveness than the VIC events. That is, divisions are a better structure if most players want competitiveness. Well done to Zach under tough opponents btw. __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-09-2009, 07:01 PM	#39 (permalink)
darkhorschessers Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 142	Difficulty over Competetiveness! I think its incredibly exciting to play someone rated a lot higher than you! Lets look it at this way; If i was to play a person rated 1900+, i have a 2 in 3 chance of obtaining a good result (Win/Draw) and I get a good experience from playing such a person! And besides, if one is to achieve a rating of 1900, the quickest way to get there is to score draws and wins against people rated much higher than you! It's only logic __________________ Everyone knows cricket is the best sport/game/pastime in the world! Why the heck are we playing chess??!!

06-09-2009, 01:02 PM	#38 (permalink)
Z&MLoh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 279	Thanks for the complement for Zach. I agree with your point regarding the NSW tournament. Not sure about NSW event being more competitive than Vic event. Might have to give that more thought with my Excel tool. For a 7-round competition, there is definitely a case to be made for losing the first 2 rounds (or lose first round then draw second round), then show the "fist in the velvet glove"! Before the "Swiss system catches up", you would have caught up in the middle rounds. It depends on the competition and if there is an exceptional performer in the midst. Not that I'm condoning that sort of behaviour - that would not be ethical!

06-09-2009, 07:06 PM	#40 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by darkhorschessers I think its incredibly exciting to play someone rated a lot higher than you! Agreed! Its also a great opportunity! __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

06-09-2009, 07:55 PM	#41 (permalink)
Move-Maker Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 32	Originally Posted by darkhorschessers And besides, if one is to achieve a rating of 1900, the quickest way to get there is to score draws and wins against people rated much higher than you! It's only logic Isn't beating them (winning) the fastest way to get there?

06-09-2009, 08:48 PM	#42 (permalink)
darkhorschessers Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 142	Originally Posted by Move-Maker Isn't beating them (winning) the fastest way to get there? Yes it is, maybe i could've worded it differently but i was generally speaking in the context of achieving a positive result against a higher rated opponent (Win or draw). No need to get so specific either, i was just conveying a very logical point __________________ Everyone knows cricket is the best sport/game/pastime in the world! Why the heck are we playing chess??!!

06-10-2009, 02:25 PM	#43 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by darkhorschessers Yes it is, maybe i could've worded it differently but i was generally speaking in the context of achieving a positive result against a higher rated opponent (Win or draw). No need to get so specific either, i was just conveying a very logical point Win or Draw, just don't lose! __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

06-10-2009, 05:04 PM	#44 (permalink)
MOZ Volunteer Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Ozchess is the marginalised cyber-spot where cc-Mods choose to engage with cc-banned posters. Posts: 3,495	You old Necromancer you. There is a thread of the same title on chesschat. It has been restored to active by this post. I think I answered most issues raised in this new chesschat post, when I posted above, in this thread, "The NSW events are better structured in my view to give competitiveness than the VIC events. That is, divisions are a better structure if most players want competitiveness." \/ The triple negative in the post viz "If so does he disagree with the decision, reportedly of IA Bekker, to have no acceleration provision for a field size not more than 100?" probably contains a useful question, but desperately requires a reword for the benefit of readers who cannot handle the Taswegian's word-gymnastics. X __________________ FReedom though Fischer-Random chess to enjoy the whole game.

06-10-2009, 06:52 PM	#45 (permalink)
Just2Good Tin Cup Champ 2004 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Cairns Posts: 6,056 ICC Handle: Advantage FICS Handle: Advantage	Originally Posted by MOZ The triple negative in the post viz "If so does he disagree with the decision, reportedly of IA Bekker, to have no acceleration provision for a field size not more than 100?" probably contains a useful question, but desperately requires a reword for the benefit of readers who cannot handle the Taswegian's word-gymnastics. X No, no - we mustn't associate Bonbot with the good people of Norway, that would be very unfair to them considering they have given us the most gifted young Grandmaster in decades. __________________ . "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete." ~ Buckminster Fuller ~

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