Talk:Doeberl Cup

Chess Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Doeberl Cup is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

2005 - sole winner or joint winners?[edit]

Although the Doeberl Cup history page lists Ian Rogers as sole winner for 2005, there is a longstanding view that Ian Rogers and Aleksander Wohl were in fact declared joint winners by the organisers, notwithstanding statements about tiebreak procedures in the event entry form. See http://chesschat.org/showthread.php?p=273793 where there are various statements from Denis Jessop (one of the organising committee) to the effect that the title was shared, http://www.flickr.com/photos/closetgrandmaster/130709700/in/set-72057594110303179/ for a photo of the perpetual trophy with both names engraved. Peter Parr's articles in SMH at the time, the article by arbiter Shaun Press in May/June 2005 Australian Chess, and the article by Press in the ACF newsletter (http://www.auschess.org.au/bulletins/acfb312.htm) all refer to Wohl and Rogers as equal first without mention of countback. Is it reasonable that competing claims about this situation are at least acknowledged in the article (on the publicly available evidence it seems the Doeberl page is simply incorrect), or is there some hitherto unknown source that resolves the situation definitively and establishes that Rogers was sole winner after all? Therealsleepycat (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the chief arbiter for the year in question, here is a potted history of part of what transpired. Since 1970 the Doeberl Cup had always been awarded to a single winner, determined by tie-break. This had been accepted practice, especially as there had been a number of ties for first over the years, and the 2005 tournament brochure even stated that the trophy would be awarded based on a countback. At the end of the tournament Ian Rogers and Aleks Wohl finished in a tie for first. Normally it is the arbiters responsibility to determine the prize distribution (shared prizes etc) and who receives the trophy on countback. When the arbiters team provided a list of prizes to the chief organiser, Roger McCart, I told him that Rogers won the trophy on countback. At this point I was informed that Aleks Wohl had asked if his name would be on the trophy as well, and that Roger and ACTCA President Dennis Jessop had decided it would. This decision was both contrary to previous (and subsequent) practice, as evidenced by the listing of a single name against each year (with the exception of 1970). However, having made the decision (which he conceded to me was an incorrect one), Roger McCart did not reverse it. So for the purposes of engraving the trophy, 2 names appear for 2005. It is important to note that the objections by myself as chief arbiter over the decision weren't due to any dispute about whose authority it was to make the decision, but that Roger McCart had failed to consult with the people (myself and others) who had had a long experience with the running of the event, and who knew how the tournament procedures functioned. My position on this matter has always been that while it was clearly the wrong decision, it was made by the organiser of the tournament and should stand. As for the quoted article in the ACF new letter, the reference to Wohl and Rogers as equal first is simply a result of them finishing on the same score. Certainly no further inferences can be drawn on matters that were not mentioned in the article. Shaunpress (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. The primary issue should be one of factual accuracy as to who actually were the official winners. Whether the organisers' decision to declare Wohl and Rogers joint winners was in fact correct or not, and even if it was plainly incorrect, it nonetheless appears to be what actually happened based on published sources. (I acknowledge that some of those are silent either way on the awarding of the title for the reasons pointed out.) The Doeberl Cup page has now been updated to reflect the joint winners following discussion and examination of the trophy (http://www.doeberlcup.com.au/pops/previouswinners.html). Is there therefore any reason why the page should not be edited to show the two official winners? If none is advanced I shall do so. Therealsleepycat (talk) 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]