2013 Championship

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Let's Get Ready to Checkmate

Last night the club voted on and approved a plan for the 2010 club championship. On a proposal by Johnny, it was decided that points earned in the twelve 2nd Tuesday tournaments during the year will be totalled to decide a champion. The monthly swiss tournaments will still offer both open and under-1400 sections when turnout allows. Only points earned in the open section will count towards the championship total. Any under-1400 wishing to play up and thereby earn qualifying points must notify the TD before the start of that tournament.  In the case of a a tie, the cumulative method for tie-breaks will be applied.* There's no need to sign up separately to participate, just attend monthly tournaments and win. Of course, it is always appreciated if you advance register with Johnny for each monthly tournament to ease the task of preparing the pairings. The 2nd Tuesday of the Month Tournaments are open to all USCF members and offer 3 rounds beginning at 7:00pm at a time control of G/30 with a 5 second delay. The traditional $1 entry fee applies.

* Edited to include tie-break method. 1/19/2010


Jerry said...

19 January meeting:

It was my understanding that the cumulative tie break will be used only if the tied players have not met head to head over the years play. (This is a possibility) If the tied players have played each other their individual results would be the deciding factor; using the cumulative method as the second tie break if necessary.

Johnny also announced that there would be a prize for the highest scoring under 1400 player. At this time Rudy is the only one eligible unless others "play up" and beat his total score at the end of the year. There was also talk of a "most improved" award if funds permit.

Bob Lenning said...

I have added the tie-break language according to this explanation from Johnny:

"There won't be a head-to-head match. The winner will be determined by head-to-head play throughout the year and if a winner is still not determined, then we'll use the cumlative tie-break method."

I had originally just omitted tie-break language here because my first draft of a head-to-head tie-break was incorrect and the cumulative method is a standard one by the rules. But since the question came up at tonight's meeting and considering that the cumulative method is in fact not the first tie-break choice under the default rules, I thought it best to include here. Considering scores between tied players is not one of the default methods under standard rules. (34E-34E3 and 34E5) (offered as my explanation of USCF rules and explaining my post, but not further reviewed by the tournament director), but perhaps that was intended even though I don't read the quoted explanation that way and do not recall a vote on a question to override the standard rules.

It was specifically decided at the discussion which you chose not to attend that there would be no prize for under-1400 because some players might move in and out of that section or eligibilty for that section and other reasons. Johnny specifically explained at the time that such a thing was not included in his proposal which was voted on. The idea of awarding an under-1400 prize only for those who play up was not discussed at the decision meeting, has never been voted on, would thereby not be properly 'announced', and is in my opinion obviously a thinly veiled and flawed idea designed only to coerce under-1400 players to 'play up' against their best interest and to perhaps even destroy the opportunity for an under-1400 section which so many players favor.

Rudy is of course the only player who was previously rated under 1400 who currently has accumulated points making him eligible for the club championship, as Johnny explained at tonight's meeting. There are no players currently rated under 1400 who have accumulated eligible points. There was talk about a most improved award for those of us who were involved in the discussion, but that possibility was not voted on and actually would be beyond the scope of just this tournament anyway. And I very much have the impression from the original deciding discussion that this year players wanted to use rules and arrangements that were discussed and decided in advance, rather than making things up as we go along.

As the tournament arrangement was already decided by vote, I believe that any discussion to change it now that it has begun other than by way of correcting an error or meeting an unforeseen situation would not be in order. For example, in addition to the above, the decision to follow the standard USCF rules for full point byes was already discussed and decided by vote. Any question on the rules and arrangements as decided by the vote might best be directed to the tournament director.

Jerry said...

All of this "back and forth could have been easily avoided if ALL the rules had been sent out in an e-mail following the meeting. If our Club President, who was present at the meeting, was not sure of the rules then we had a problem.

The so called "veiled and flawed" attempt to get people to "play up" can be best addressed by the person who affered the award.

While most of the experienced players agree that not playing up will only hurt a player in the long run; I have given up on that battle. I could care less how folks want to enjoy the royal game; some like speed chess, some like slow games, some like playing computers, some like correspondence, and some like problem solving. My own preference is playing rated games against higher rated opponents, over the board and playing over old master games.

That said I will personally sponsor an award to be presented to the "Under 1400" player who has the highest cummulative score at the end of the year. I wouldn't want anyone to feel "left out" or unwanted in our club.

Bob Lenning said...

All of this "back and forth could have been easily avoided" if you simply didn't do it. You were the club secretary at the time, so I fail to see why you are complaining that an email wasn't sent out. You made a big scene about not participating in the discussion and vote, and now seem to be the most vocal. The basic information was posted for all to see and was reviewed by the tournament director.

The club President was present at the meeting.

I suspect that Johnny will not appreciate being hung with the prize idea to get people to play up on the pretense that some under-1400 player was confused, but I'll let him speak for himself on that. In any case, what I said about such a prize per the decision discussion was accurate.

I have heard Steve speak in favor of an under 1400 section. And Johnny spoke favorably to me about it tonight. Other players feel the same. You are simply wrong when claiming that everyone agrees with you. In fact, Johnny and I specifically discussed tonight how tournaments began to pair by section because of concerns about the harms of the old way of doing things. To think that for an 800 player not to play a player rated 700 points or more over his head in a tournament will somehow 'hurt' him in the long run is simply ridiculous. And open pairing is now more rare precisely because it may produce a section winner who didn't even play anybody in the section he wins, along with other reasons.

Your own preference isn't at issue here. You are playing in exactly the section you have chosen, even though I thought you had clearly indicated that you would not play in the championship this year. Perhaps I remember that wrong. The issue is whether or not other players should be allowed to play in the section they want to and to be able to to do so without meddling or coersion by others who don't belong in that section, or be forced to 'play up' when not enough players are left to form an under-1400 section.

I will oppose any efforts to meddle with under-1400 players against their own best interests. If you don't want under 1400 players to feel left out or unwanted, then do not attempt to prevent them from playing in the section that fits their rating. Players rated under 1400 have asked for a separate section and I see no reason to deny them exactly what you demand for yourself.

Jerry said...

Bob, I hope you feel better now that you've got all that off your chest. I feel that you have tried to twist the facts to make me out to be the "monster who stole your under 1400 kingdom".

You always want to quote rules, then fault me for inquiring as to what they are. I had resigned as Club Secretary because of the constant bickering and lack of rule inforcement.

Dave and I are the oldest adult members of the club and you can ask him if we have ever had these problems before.

Due to my present circumstances I can not play rated chess outside the club. I had no idea that playing in the monthly rated tournament would be the format for this years championship.

I used to look forward to coming to meetings, but not anymore. You seem to want to be the only one allowed to express an opinion. I have bent over backwards to avoid confrontations for the sake of the club; to include NOT giving advice to those you are mentoring because it might be in opposition to yours. I will make every attempt to avoid conflict with you but I won't let something I have put a lot of effort in over the last 4 years be "highjacked" by you or anyone else. I don't think I'm the only one who feels the fun being drained out of our chess club.

I feel that I have always been upfront with you and I would have told you if I was trying to instigate something. I simply had a conversation with Ernie and now it has been blown all out of perportion.

Feel free to respond. I'll give you the last word and my promise not to respond. You have donated a lot of talent to the club and your Blog and Library are much appreciated; there should be room for both of us at the club even if we don't always see eye to eye. Both of us are probably expending too much ammo on insignificant fire fights.

ninest123 said...

ninest123 16.03
nike free, ray ban sunglasses, christian louboutin outlet, tory burch outlet, prada outlet, longchamp outlet, burberry, ugg boots, replica watches, cheap oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, burberry outlet online, michael kors outlet, ugg boots, louboutin outlet, replica watches, michael kors outlet, ray ban sunglasses, nike outlet, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, gucci outlet, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton outlet, longchamp outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, oakley sunglasses, longchamp, polo ralph lauren outlet, michael kors outlet, michael kors, nike air max, tiffany jewelry, jordan shoes, louis vuitton, nike air max, chanel handbags, ray ban sunglasses, prada handbags, ugg boots, louis vuitton, ugg boots, tiffany and co, louboutin shoes, louboutin, oakley sunglasses, uggs on sale, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton

ninest123 said...

hollister, hollister pas cher, nike roshe, coach outlet, north face, lululemon, hermes, replica handbags, vans pas cher, true religion jeans, air max, michael kors, oakley pas cher, michael kors, ralph lauren pas cher, coach purses, nike blazer, nike roshe run, burberry, michael kors, abercrombie and fitch, longchamp pas cher, mulberry, michael kors, sac guess, true religion jeans, true religion outlet, tn pas cher, air force, nike free, nike free run uk, lacoste pas cher, new balance pas cher, ray ban pas cher, converse pas cher, coach outlet, true religion jeans, hogan, louboutin pas cher, kate spade outlet, north face, timberland, ray ban uk, air jordan pas cher, nike air max, vanessa bruno, ralph lauren uk, nike air max, nike air max, sac longchamp, kate spade handbags

ninest123 said...

timberland boots, nike air max, abercrombie and fitch, nike huarache, longchamp, ipad cases, instyler, ferragamo shoes, new balance, reebok shoes, iphone 6s plus cases, vans shoes, p90x workout, iphone 6 cases, north face outlet, giuseppe zanotti, north face outlet, nfl jerseys, chi flat iron, iphone 5s cases, nike air max, asics running shoes, valentino shoes, soccer shoes, mcm handbags, s5 cases, soccer jerseys, hollister, celine handbags, iphone 6s cases, bottega veneta, babyliss, baseball bats, wedding dresses, louboutin, hollister, lululemon, herve leger, beats by dre, hollister, mont blanc, nike trainers, iphone cases, nike roshe, mac cosmetics, iphone 6 plus cases, insanity workout, ralph lauren, jimmy choo shoes, birkin bag, oakley, ghd

ninest123 said...

moncler outlet, louis vuitton, coach outlet, canada goose, thomas sabo, juicy couture outlet, louis vuitton, moncler, ray ban, pandora charms, moncler, canada goose outlet, barbour, ugg boots uk, sac louis vuitton pas cher, juicy couture outlet, replica watches, louis vuitton, links of london, canada goose uk, ugg,uggs,uggs canada, canada goose, marc jacobs, gucci, swarovski, barbour jackets, ugg pas cher, doudoune canada goose, moncler, canada goose, wedding dresses, pandora charms, swarovski crystal, karen millen, ugg,ugg australia,ugg italia, converse, supra shoes, canada goose, canada goose outlet, moncler, louis vuitton, hollister, lancel, pandora jewelry, moncler, bottes ugg, moncler, moncler, montre pas cher, toms shoes, converse outlet, vans, pandora jewelry
ninest123 16.03

dalia alaa said...