If you are interested in this subject take a close look at my ACF rating.
Start from 1999 and follow its course to 2011. I will flat out make the claim that the ACF rating system has been manipulated by certain rating officers for personal motivation.

If I see two kindergarten boys arguing in the sand pit about who's teddy bear is bigger or has more pink in it, I wouldn't interfere either.

If you guys think the petty infighting between forums admins is of interest to anyone, you are deluding yourself.

It is not impossible, but extremely difficult for me to do the research and find out win/loss/draw ratios as well as calculating your rating and comparing it with the one given by ACF.
On the other hand, coming form a strong active player with sound involvement in Club level administration this is not just a claim but a very serious allegation.
As such, I strongly suggest that there should be a thorough investigation of this case by the appropriate authorities.

I haven't made any claim or allegation, just raised a certain speculation among chess circles. The fact of the matter is that there is no compelling reason why RD's need to be kept secret.

As for your suggestion about a thorough investigation, would that not be Caesar judging Caesar?

[Today 11:46 AM] Kevin Bonham: but i will point out that option three is incoherent - how can a post ruin a shoutbox?
[Today 11:45 AM] Kevin Bonham: AC i can't vote in polls as my account does not have two posts
[Today 11:37 AM] antichrist: I am waiting for mate KB to post here http://www.ozchess.com.au/non-chess-...bish-poll.html have you voted yet?

If you guys think the petty infighting between forums admins is of interest to anyone, you are deluding yourself.

Shoutbox Notice:
[Today 06:33 PM] fatty owls: A/C. proof that irony still isn't dead.
[Today 05:56 PM] Kevin Bonham: and how do you know that "some of them were cc posters"?
[Today 05:55 PM] Kevin Bonham: AC if you did a head-to-head poll between you and sprouty on CC as to who is more annoying there would be far more votes for you
[Today 05:48 PM] antichrist: sometimes they are discuusing chess then 15 posts of pure shit from sprouty turn up and you think that iti s great
[Today 05:47 PM] antichrist: both boards think that sporutyis all crap, he gives out shoutouts over there and everyone ignores him
[Today 05:47 PM] Iconoclast: Oi Bonham. piss off.
[Today 05:47 PM] antichrist: but some of them were cc posters
[Today 05:46 PM] Kevin Bonham: it is a court though - a kangaroo court
[Today 05:46 PM] antichrist: but that is only a minor point, you are always wayover the top in being exact that is completely uncalled for, you must realise that, it is not a court of law
[Today 05:46 PM] Kevin Bonham: anyway only four people have voted so who cares
[Today 05:44 PM] Kevin Bonham: well the way you have set up the poll rigs it against him as with many of your polls
[Today 05:40 PM] antichrist: sprouty cant get one vote over here
[Today 05:40 PM] antichrist: its bloody boring over since i left, i feel sorry for them not myself
[Today 05:39 PM] antichrist: my Lib cousin has all of Gough's books it would be there somewhere, he reckons all the Lib pms are too boring, he loves goughs humour
[Today 05:37 PM] antichrist: i may have original in a newspaper cutting in a box but am not going looking
[Today 05:36 PM] Kevin Bonham: actually there are various versions of the quote; it is hard to tell which one is authentic
[Today 05:34 PM] Kevin Bonham: i've found the full quote but i can't find when it was made
[Today 05:33 PM] antichrist: obviously before th e by election,in Barnard's time
[Today 05:33 PM] Kevin Bonham: was that before or after the bass by-election?
[Today 05:33 PM] antichrist: howard would probably think you are talking about ice cream cones
[Today 05:32 PM] antichrist: u asked for it
[Today 05:32 PM] antichrist: on the plane with journalists on way to Tassie gough said it is the only place where you double headed fellatio
[Today 05:31 PM] antichrist: KB i have to make my nonsense somewhere, you made me an outcast over there so I have no choice - and everyone here reakons that sprouty's posts are shiite
[Today 05:30 PM] Kevin Bonham: what did gough say about Tasmanians?
[Today 05:29 PM] antichrist: KB, if what Icon says is correct you could make true of what Chairman Gough said about Tasmanians - ha ha
[Today 05:25 PM] Kevin Bonham: but of course if it was you you wouldn't admit to that
[Today 05:24 PM] Kevin Bonham: since you are one of the few here able to verify that it isn't me
[Today 05:24 PM] Kevin Bonham: i haven't and you should not be saying that i have
[Today 05:18 PM] Just2Good: Also, why have you created an account to cut and paste the nonsense you shout in the Shoutbox?
[Today 05:17 PM] Just2Good: How do we know AC is the one trying to start fights?
[Today 05:11 PM] Kevin Bonham: AC i couldn't be bothered. stop trying to start silly fights

[Today 12:17 PM] antichrist: http://www.ozchess.com.au/non-chess-...html#post35371 alex you got a few mentions here
[Today 12:10 PM] antichrist: Sotto Voce: Hey k.b. i didnt reallise you had communist siblings. Thats pretty cool !! AC, I always thought that KB would have skeltons in the cupboard or under the bed
[Today 12:08 PM] antichrist: Asper.... syndrome - This sounds like something Kevin probably has. Icon: Nope. He does not have two heads - but he does have two penises. After all nobody ends up as stupid as him from playing with only one. this posted here purely so that KB my mate can refute it

I would agree with you that many/most posters could not give a tinker's cuss about CC Vs OZC. However, that fact does not mean the matter is unimportant. Unfortunately, many/most posters are blithely ignorant of the cost of not taking an interest in CC Vs OZC.

Without OZC you have exactly no voice in Australian chess.

This is the pirate radio station of online free speech here.

Lose us at your peril. If you had a sense of self preservation, you would weaken CC by abandoning it, and strengthen OZC by recommending it to everyone.

Unfortunately for some of us here, it is our spilled blood that ensures that you have a safe place to speak your mind.

Chess life in Australia is a bit more then ChessChat and OzChess combined.


Speak for yourself.


No, it's normal process of community organisation splitting due to irreconcilable differences between some groups within. That happens very often in a free society.



You might be thinking you are fighting for the cause, but you are making a common mistake of confusing your personal grievance with societal injustice.
I see nothing more but a personal bickering between some personalities on ChessChat and OzChess.

I see nothing more but a personal bickering between some personalities on ChessChat and OzChess.

A number of impartial people have said this, and there is an element of truth to it. Chess Chat, however, has nothing to attract new members. It is an old website with few features.

They are unwilling to grow or improve, and instead seek to retain their place in the Australian chess world by trying to tear us down.

We try to take the dignified path and not respond to their crap, but the mud sticks, and at the end of the day both forums end up looking soiled. You want to know who is primarily responsible for this?

Three past or present ACF officers, and a few past or present CAQ officials.

I don't think it's an impartial view.
However, I don't want to discuss people on the forum where they (for various reasons) cannot respond, which means I prefer not to discuss:
1. on ChessChat - people that for various reasons cannot or decided not to post on ChessChat.
2. on OzChess - people that for various reasons cannot or decided not to post on OzChess.