DAA Rag #5
Newsletter of the Diplomacy Association of Australia
Issue #5
August 1997
Contents
Forum
The views expressed in Forum articles are not necessarily those held
by the DAA. It will be used to float various ideas on changes to various
aspects of the hobby, to see what the reaction is from members of
the DAA.
Some of the articles herein are reprints or summaries of discussions
occurring on the mail server set up by Bob Blanchett.
Email Tournaments
I know that there is a email tournament on the oz judge but what about
a DAA supported Australian Email Tournament, either through a judge
or run by a GM? Any number of rounds could be played with full press.
The games could be played over a month or so. With ftf tournaments
low on numbers due to travel or job restrictions this would be an
idea way of having a large "board rating". I'd expect the number of
people interested would exceed a ftf tournament. It would be a good
way of including people (like myself) who have budget restrictions
(ie. students) of playing in a Dip tournament with out the costs of
travel (ie From WA or NT to the eastern states tournaments). ONE of
these tournaments could be held each year. Thus having a National
PBEM Champion.
Could the DAA include this tournament as a DAA sactioned tournament
which awards Bismark Cup Points? With the advent of Email and
the number of people on it this surely should be considered.
If only one email tournament was held a year this would not
retract from the normal ftf tournaments. The Bismark cup champion
would still need to attend the majority of the ftf tournaments
as well.
If no one else is interested I would run this year's tournament
(with or without Bismark points).
Dave Brown
Bismark Cup
I have just revisited our last 3 exchanges. I now come to believe
that, in effect, there is not much difference between my views and
John's.
John wrote:
"I would argue that the DAA should affiliate:
- a purely Colonial Diplomacy tournament
- a mixed tournament, where players could choose whether to
play Diplomacy, Colonial or Machiavelli
- a tournament where six player games are allowed
- an "invitational" tournament.
I do not accept the notion that DAA Affiliation equals Bismark Cup
eligibility and vice versa. The normal goal of the DAA should be to
affiliate all tournaments (within reason) but this should NOT equate
to automatic Bismark Cup eligibility."
Clarification here John. I was talking about DIPLOMACY TOURNAMENTS,
I thought that was clear. None of your first 3 examples are straight/normal/standard
"Diplomacy" (nor is Gunboat) and the 4th is questionable as a
"tournament". So of course the DAA should & would affiliate all
those events (what does affiliation entail anyway?). But they
would not be affiliated as 'Diplomacy Tournmts'; a DAA Committee
responsible for ratings would therefore not count them into Bismark/Masterpts.
You & I arrive at the same result.
John wrote:
"Ratings and other such functions are as good and as respected
as the effort put into them by the person running them. Let us
say for example that Harry Kolotas started a new CTPRS (Current
Tournament Player Rating System). Would you argue that if CTPRS
became a success the DAA should take it over?"
No. But I think Harry should consider handing it over; and DAA
should consider accepting it. This is to do CTPRS a favour. But
Harry would still be the custodian! See below.
John wrote:
"Work, responsibility and power are better spread around, not
centralised where some power mad maniac can wreak havoc, or (more
likely) some apathetic future DAA Officers can allow it all to
slide into nothing."
Of course it is to be spread around. And maniacal presidents
can be fired at a gen mtg. And when I say the DAA, I am not talking
about the President. I am talking about other Officers plus the
members themselves. Aren't these the people who should have a
say, instead of my next door neighbour who now claims that he
is the Bismark custodian?
Another argument: Remember that Bismark & Masterpts are published
on the Official DAA website and in the DAA Rag. DAA is giving
those ratings the Quality Assurance 'ticks' so to speak. Is it
not logical then that the DAA should audit & control the standards
that Bismark/ Masterpts use?
In practice John, there are only small (but important) differences
between your 'Custodian Model' (ie having a custodian handing
over to another, who runs and regulates the ratings) and my 'DAA
Committee Model'.
If there is a DAA committee for ratings (incl. 1. The President,
2. the Custodian, 3. a third DAA member), the day-to-day running
of the Bismark/ Masterpts would still be in the hands of the Custodian.
However with the following checks:
- the custodian himself will need to be a DAA member;
- the custodian cannot change the rules without going through
the DAA;
- the committee of 3, not the custodian alone, will decide what
ARE 'Diplomacy Tournaments' for the purpose of these ratings.
- the choice of who shall be the next custodian will have to
be made by DAA members.
All very reasonable don't you think?
Consider this: Say a zine editor like Andrew Goff declared as
the custodian; then start to bend the rules as he likes; then
calculate the ratings, publish them and distribute them as the
correct ratings. In my system, we can stand up and say that his
ratings are bulldust and here are the official DAA ratings. In
your model, it would just be a yelling match.
(Tournament affiliation is a separate issue.)
I know this is a little boring for many people. But this now
requires at least a comment from Bill, Stephen and Ian. Not asking
people to take sides; tell me I'm crazy if you want.
Tristan Lee
Well, It's me again. The newbie. I'm gonna bug the crap out
of you all and stick my nose in. Brandon seems to be pushing something
that I agree with. A combined ratings system for ftf and pbem.
Not necessarily the Bismark cup or Master points system, but maybe
something completely different. From what little I've seen of
ozdip and PBEM, I'd like the following:
- A PBEM independent FTF points system (Bismark Cup sounds perfect)
- A FTF independent PBEM rating system (could be very hard to
administer, but would be worth it IMO)
- A combined rating system, for those who play both or can only
play one to try and compare themselves to other hobbyists. Now
I realise that they are very different forms of the hobby, but
they are still the same game, still have basically the same
rules, and they have things like decathlons an athletics, so
why not do something similar in Diplomacy?
I'd love to play FTF, but like I said before, it's nigh on impossible
for me to attend a tournament due to several factors (I'm also getting
married in Jan, so I've got lots to organise there as well). This
means I can watch as some of you guys play and score well in ratings
systems, but can't join in myself. I'm playing my first EM dip game
at the moment, and I love the game, but it would be that much better
if I new that my result in this game would count towards some kind
of championship. Basically, I WANT A PBEM RATING SYSTEM IN AUST/NZ!!!
NOW!!! (oops, sorry, looks like I've learnt to throw tantrums from
my 4 year old sister...) - anyway, remember, I'm an inexperienced
player, or newbie. I'm the type of person you veterans are supposed
to be getting into the game, so the hobby grows, and so you've got
more people to rip to shreds in PBEM & FTF... :-) good luck.
Micha Wotton
Please don't think this is DAA bashing or anything like it, "the
DAA" could just as easily be substituted with anything else, such
as the AFL, Andrew Geraghty, Ken's wife Kathy etc.
Bismark and Masterpoints exist separately from the DAA, they
came into existence and have been excepted by Diplomacy players
without the input, direction or control of the DAA. They will
continue to be in existence and to be accepted whatever the DAA
"decides" or even whether the DAA continues to exist or not.
Tasks like the Bismark and Masterpoints are done because people
want to do them. It doesn't take the DAA to bring them into existence,
nor to make them happen, the people who do things will continue
to do them no matter what the DAA says or does.
John, Mat Gibson, Mike Gibson(?) begat the original Bismark
Cup. John and Harry begat the Bismark Cup system as it stands.
Ken begat the Masterpoints system. They are now accepted by interested
players as good systems. Players give the systems importance by
playing to win/improve their standings in the systems. It is because
they are accepted systems that the DAA now accepts them as part
of a hobby "organisation" and "affiliation" system.
It was never a case of "the DAA" stating: lets come up with
a "Tournament Ranking system" or a "Whole Career Measuring system"
and people went out and made them. If in the theoretical case
of Harry's CTPRS, if Harry wants to run it, let him do it, give
him every encouragement and if he wants to hand it over to any
person interested in doing the work he will. The running of the
systems will always be up to interested people, the DAA can't
make people run them.
What the DAA can do is be a central conduit if ever the systems
come under a "cloud" or if they need to be handed over to another
party if the person running them dropped out. Then the DAA could
fulfill its role by addressing the "cloud" or by being a contact
point for hobby members and helping to find a new "custodian".
As "custodian" of the systems at the moment, my main concern
is to make sure that the systems are run as fair, open and accountable
as possible. I will address any concern, correwct any mistake
and field any query that people have. When Andrew Goff and I were
independently doing Bismark we agreed in principle to send it
to each other for checking before publication. What I would like
is a person I can depend on to check the results before they get
published (whether in a zine, Rag or webbed). This may not be
as easy to do with Masterpoints, but Ian has already checked the
latest against the previous and found a few errors, so it can
be done to a certain extent (you can't check a persons rank done
to the last point, but pick up obvious mistakes). This being the
case, I ask for a volunteer.
As for altering the systems, I don't believe any system should
be "set in concrete". We may WANT to alter certain aspects of
a system in the future, don't forget that the Bismark has only
now been running for enough years so we now know that it works
in an acceptable manner, but what we don't want is indiscriminant
changing that is not thought through and may be on a whim of an
individual. My approach is that as "custodian" any change I propose
I will put to the hobby through the Rag and will discuss it with
interested members at any forum (Tournaments, mail, ozdip), and
any change that is made will be only after the concerns of any
interested members have been addressed.
In that light, Tristan, I am the one proposing in Masterpoints
to add points for GMs, for two reasons:
- Encourage people who GM and stand out of play for the Tournament.
- Readdress the fact that certain people contribute to the hobby
and their career rank has been adversely effected i.e. John
Cain is a better player than his rank suggests and his rank
has been directly affected by the number of times he has sacrificed
his own game to GM The proposed changes should appear in a future
issue of the RAG. I don't think the proposed changes will change
the fundamentals of Masterpoints.
As for Tristan's "checks" my comments are:
- the custodian himself will need to be a DAA member;
(NO. WHY? The job is easily done, just keep records and calculate
points. What does that have to do with being a DAA member??)
- the custodian cannot change the rules without going through
the DAA;
(YES, DAA meaning hobby members)
- the committee of 3, not the custodian alone, will decide what
ARE 'Diplomacy Tournaments' for the purpose of these ratings.
(YES, provided discussion is held with hobby members.)
- the choice of who shall be the next custodian will have to
be made by DAA members.
(NO, what if we need a replacement after next tourney (that
bus takes me out, remember)? We can't depend on asking everyone
whether so-and-so is an acceptable choice. It would have to
be done by the committee or the Vic Mafia obviously.)
To sum up, I suppose I'm of the opinion that it doesn't really matter
what the DAA does e.g. forms a committee, appoints a "custodian"
etc. As far as I am concerned the job will be done just as every
autumn the leaves fall from the trees.
Bill Brown
1998 NT Diplomacy Champs
I have decided to chuck in the towel in regards to organising the
Lasseters NT Challenge. All things considered, it just would not
work. Major factors against are the numbers in the hobby being so
limited, travel costs and closeness in proximity to the Australian
Championships. This is not to say that there will not be an NT championships
in future.
Andy Turner, FIST, June/July 1997
ACT Tournament
I would not be sad to see the "ACT Championships" suffer a quiet and
dignified demise.
If there is one tournament that my complaints concerning excessive
numbers of tournaments have been directed against, it is the ACT
Championships. Over the past few years the Canberra people have
managed to "dis-organize" two tournaments which often have each
struggled to reach three boards. The two Canberra tournaments
are at least now approximately six months apart, but I still believe
the ACT Champs is too close to the NSW Champs.
Canberra has trouble supporting one decent tournament, which
the rest of the hobby is generous to dignify with the name "Australian
Diplomacy Championships". The local people should put their energy
and support behind this tournament - it is "their" tournament,
the "Canberra" tournament. Unfortunately, when the Sydney and
Melbourne people did hand it over to them to organize, they did
such an unsuccessful job that now Ken Sproat has taken its organization
upon himself.
Let me add that I have always been of the opinion that the Australian
Championships should rotate between Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra
(not many people seem to agree with me however).
Ian should feel free to publish this comment in the Rag if he
wishes. It may make me the number one hobby demon for certain
people, but that is a position I am quite happy to occupy.
John Cain
Response to DCOC Letter
This is a response a letter by Andrew Geraghty and Doug Stewart, published
in DAA Rag #4. In that letter, Andrew and Doug stated that "they"
(presumably meaning DCOC) paid $60 to Gareth Collins to offset his
losses from the Maroubra Classic. They assert that the DAA President
at the time had stated his intention for the DAA to assume finanical
liability for tournaments, both surpluses and losses, and so the $180
loss made by this tournament is a DAA liability.
If the then President of the DAA did intend for the DAA to assume
financial liability for Diplomacy tournaments, I am unaware of
any consultation of DAA members about this proposal. Any such
move would be a major change in direction for the DAA, about which
members certainly should have been consulted. Apart from any other
considerations, it would of course be quite impractical for the
DAA to assume financial liability for tournaments. This would
remove the incentive for tournament organizers to be financially
prudent. In fact, it would effectively involve the DAA giving
tournament organizers a blank cheque.
I have been involved in the Australian Diplomacy hobby since
1985. During this period the arrangements for tournament finances
have always been that tournament organisers assume responsiblity
for their tournament, including any profit or loss made by the
tournament. During my ten years of involvement in organizing the
Victorian Diplomacy Championships, the championships have made
a small surplus or occassionally a loss. Loses have been covered
by the organizer, with surpluses used by the Victorian Diplomacy
Club (VDC). The VDC also assisted with the financing of publicity
(especially direct mailouts) for the tournament.
I should point out that I am in favour of greater openess concerning
tournament finances, as they often do run at a surplus, which
should not just be pocketed by the organiser. Statements concerning
the 1996 and 1997 VicDipChamps finances have been published in
the DAA Rag. At the DAA AGM this Easter, I also proposed the motion
that "The DAA strongly recommends that tournament organisers publish
financial statements after tournaments".
Andrew and Doug also imply in their letter that Diplomacy Clubs
are members of the DAA. This is not the case. Membership of the
DAA is on an individual basis only. Any relationship between Diplomacy
Clubs and the DAA has only been on an informal basis.
John Cain
I am constantly amazed by how much undeserved attention some
lunatics get! I kept wondering why they get published at all,
especially given that their views on hobby admin and tournmt organisation
are clearly at odds with the hobby at large.
Comments in Rag 4 prompted me to make the following observations:
- I believe each person (DAA member or not) speaks as one individual.
No extra weight should be attached to someone who claims to
be president of a Dip club, purporting to represent others.
- I believe DAA officers could summarily decide on tournament
affiliation issues, on the basis of the prevailing views of
its members only. Once decided, however, I do not believe the
DAA need to communicate its proceedings to any Dip club, though
members can read about them in the Rag or on the Web. The DAA
also needs not give any reason or rationale about its decisions.
- I believe it is erroneous to think that the DAA has taken
up the role of publicity for tournmts. The DAA promotes the
hobby at large and acts as a flagship for the hobby. So it might
list, advertise or endorse tournaments in various ways. But
the promotion of each individual event (eg, mailouts & motivating
people to go along) remains the task of the Organizer. Some
organizers have got this fundamentally wrong all along. Hence
their inaction in the past; hence their complaint that DAA has
not done anything for them.
- It appears obvious that how DAA money is spent is purely the
decision of the officers. Not the contributing entity, ie, tournament
organizers.
- I do not believe anyone/anyclub has a monopoly over holding
any event. There is NOTHING to stop anyone from organising the
ACT Dip Championships at anytime anywhere. DAA affiliation (or
not) should then be assessed on its merits based on the opinions
of members.
- The DAA has never before been under a more competent and dedicated
leadership. 'The Rag' (Ian), the website (John & Stephen), the
updating of members-database (Ian), the relocation of tournaments
back with the wider gaming hobby (many), the computerisation
of tournament records/ ratings (Bill) are some fine examples
of things that we have only TALKED ABOUT for a long time.
Other people call themselves presidents of what-not-clubs and complain
a lot.
Tristan Lee
You may be constantly amazed Tristan, but this Editor will
continue to publish all "sides" of any question, as long as space
considerations allow. At the moment (in practice) this means that
all negative comments will get published, as not many are received.
Editor
Replacement Tournament in October??
I now believe that Canberra-October as planned by AG and DS is dead,
a fact which many others are becoming aware of now. The question remains
though, will anything replace it?
Firstly, the weekend in question (about 5-7 October I think) is
not a long weekend in Victoria (possibly other states as well,
I don't know). For myself this does not preclude me from travelling
interstate, it just makes it harder. I have to skip some classes
at uni to travel back from Canberra and Sydney or Adelaide would
be as far as I could travel at all.
Assuming that some local Canberrans still would like to play
in a tournament in October, does anyone want to step forward and
organize it? Probably no local Canberrans would, so then it would
be up to someone from interstate to take the reins.
Considering that Tristan (aka VDC) is involved in organising
the Don in November (29-30) and Ken and John are similarly organising
January and Easter '98 tournaments, I would guess that they are
out of the question for stepping forward and organising yet another
event. Andy, Harry and Craig would be mighty unlikely in my opinion
for similar reasons.
That doesn't leave too many prospective organisers out there
does it? Rob Stevenson and Andrew Goff (ahem) were the only other
organisers of tournaments since I began playing tournaments. Or
perhaps some new blood could stand up (Stephen?). But you can
count me out of the question.
I would actually enjoy travelling to Adelaide for a diplomacy
tournament weekend, if someone was happy to run an event there.
Adelaide is easier to get to for me than Canberra and probably
a bit easier than Sydney too.
I believe that there is room between Brisbane (July) and the
Don (Nov) for a tournament, particularly if it coincides with
the uni mid- semester break.
Jason Whitby
Australian Diplomacy Champs
For those who are interested the Australian Diplomacy Championships
are being held at Lake Ginninderra College, Belconnen, ACT. January
24,25,26 1998.
At the moment I am planning for a 3 round Tournament.
The first day the place is open till 11:00pm. The second day
till 7:30 pm. The third finishes considerably earlier.
It is also my plan to allow the first 2 rounds to last as long
as possible. What do people think about playing 4 rounds? Each
players final score would use their best 3 games. 2 on the first
day starting 9am & ~4pm. 1 on the second starting much later -
maybe even midday. 1 on the 3rd starting 9:00 am sharp.
Would you be more likely or less likely to attend?
Ken Sproat, 21/6/97
Negotiation Times
For all to consider. (Only relevant for 3-day tournaments with 1 game
per day.)
At all the main tournmts (eg Victorian Champs, NSW, Aust Champs)
we have been having 1- game-per-day at each tournmt. The starting
time has been around 9:30am or thereabouts, with no externally
imposed limitation as to how long the games can take. I recall
that most games finish in a draw by 2pm.
Question: WHY oh why oh why do we have turnaround time of only
20 minutes?
In fact, those 20mins actually include the time taken for reading,
adjudication, retreats and builds. As well as time for writing
down units and writing orders. You'd be lucky to have about 12
mins to talk to 6 people AND to think. (Yes, one needs to THINK
too.)
"From 1904 the deadline shortens to 15 minutes." My oh my oh
my !!!! You might as well play Gunboat.
I believe this is not sufficient and not acceptable. I am yet
to hear any good reason as to WHY we are in such a rush.
More time should be 'made available' so that players can negotiate,
and also to consider alternative strategies, plot tactical moves,
think about to stab or not to stab, convince someone of something
else for the 3rd time, etc etc etc.
It may be true that some players are so cool that they don't
need any more time. In such cases there are free tea and coffee,
sometimes there's even a bar. But for slower-thinking mortals
like myself, I think these 20-minute deadlines are ridiculous.
I venture to say that novices would find them near impossible.
My poor tournmt performance is a direct result of such mindless
policies adhered to by a few fast- thinking fast-talking old cronies
of the Dip hobby. This must change. Slow and stupid people should
not be discriminated against.
Suggestion: (where tournament circumstances allow):
- 1901-1905: 20 minutes for negotiation and writing, adjudication
time separate.
1906 onwards: 15 minutes.
- 1901-1905: 30 minutes all inclusive
1906 onwards: 20 minutes all inclusive.
I DEMAND that this issue be seriously discussed forthwith. Or I will
get VERY CRANKY.
Tristan Lee, 23/6/97
The following article responds to various points raised by
Tristan in the previous article.
(Why only 20 minute rounds?) Because we are getting you
in practice for the 7 round extravaganza, which will feature two
games per day!
Ah Tristan, remember the bad old days, when tournaments were
liable to end in time draws between 4:00 pm to 5:00 pm, and the
games had only reached 1907? That is why we have moderate length
deadlines, and stick to them. The idea of quick deadlines is to
make sure that IF players wish to play a long game, then the time
is available for them to do so. With the current deadlines, most
rounds at the Victorian Championships feature one or two games
that run well into the afternoon, until 4:00pm or later.
Separate adjudication time is a bad idea, as experience has
taught us, as it places no pressure on the boards to actually
get on with their adjudication -- they can just hang around without
cutting into negotiation time.
Let us consider Tristan's proposal, and its affects, based on
a realistic starting time of 10:00 am.
PROPOSAL (1): Assuming 5 minutes for Autumn adjucdication and
3 minutes for Spring adjudication, for a total of 8 minutes/year.
Autumn 1905 would be completed at 1:00 pm; then a 40 minute lunch;
Autumn 1908 completed at 3:34pm; Autumn 1910 at 4:50 pm; Autumn
1912 at 6:06 pm.
PROPOSAL (2): Autumn 1904 would be completed at 1:00 pm; then
40 minutes lunch; Autumn 1905 completed at 2:40 pm; Autumn 1908
at 4:40 pm; Autumn 1910 at 6:00 pm; Autumn 1912 at 7:20 pm.
Both of these are FAR TOO SLOW in my opinion. Do not forget
that at Conquest at least, we get a number of players in the Diplomacy
tournament who also play in other events at the Convention. One
of the factors that allows us to attract these players, and thus
build up the hobby, is that our games usually finish by 3:30 pm.
This allows these players to play in the 4:00 pm session of other
events.
Tristan may only be there to play Diplomacy, but that is not
the case for everyone. Our tournaments need to be as open as possible
to those who take Diplomacy less seriously as well. Having games
run to 3:30 or even 4:30 before reaching 1908 is a sure-fire way
to turn these casual players off.
John Cain, 24/6/97
So, using Bill's figures that most games finish before 1910,
and using John Cain's formula: for 25min to 1902, 20min to 1906,
15min thereafter on a vote:
- 1908=3:40pm
- 1910=4:50, ie most games over by 5pm.
If I'm still cruising along in a game at that stage, I must be having
a good time.
Tristan Lee, 25/6/97
Well, the problem with this is that you have understated the length
of games. According to Bill's figures, at the Victorian Championships
1995 and 1996, the AVERAGE game length was SPRING 1910. That means
that in fact more than half the games would still be going at
5:00 pm, and many of them much later than this, as I have commented
in a previous message.
When we introduced "no time draws" at the Victorian Diplomacy
Championships, it was regarded as a fairly radical idea. It now
seems to spread to most other three day tournaments, and become
accepted as an ideal to be aimed for where possible.
I do not think we can expect the average Diplomacy player to
put in a ten hour or longer day -- but that is what most players
would be facing in at least one round each tournament if we adopt
Tristan's proposal. If we are going to avoid time draws we need
to keep the seasons ticking over quickly and regularly to ensure
that a 1912 game (usually there is at least one of these per round)
is not finishing at 7:00 pm and a 1915 game after 9:00 pm. Otherwise
we will be back to the bad old days. Back then we certainly had
our 15 minutes negotiation time. This was followed by a separate
adjudication period which normally ended up as 5+ minutes for
Spring and 10+ minutes for Autumn, plus the odd delay here and
there for a dispute of some sort. All in all normally around 45
to 50 minutes a year (if not longer) meaning by the time you allowed
for a 10:00 am start and a 45 minute lunch break, you were lucky
to reach 1910 by 6:00 pm! (And time draws were generally called
at about 5:00 pm). It is difficult to arrange everything perfectly,
but I think our current system is a long way ahead of that situation.
John Cain, 30/6/97
Sydney Tournament
I recently attended the Sydney tournament which was part of the SAGA
games convention. The convention netted one new player who played
all three games and has now joined the DAA.
However the SAGA convention is only about half the size of Conquest
or CanCon, and had significantly less people present. Consequently
we had very few people walk in and check out diplomacy. (Although
one girl of about 5 or 6 did drop in and exclaim "I want to play
what they're playing daddy!")
As SAGA did not appear to give us a particularly good deal,
perhaps there might be an alternative convention in Sydney which
we could join. A city of 4-5 million people surely has a convention
at least as big as Melbourne or Canberra?
Perhaps a convention exists over the October (NSW) long-weekend.
If so, it would bear looking into moving the Sydney tournament
to this date.
Let me state for the record that I did enjoy the Sydney tournament
held at SAGA and will gladly attend next year if it is still at
SAGA. I think that other possible alternatives could be worth
looking into though.
Jason Whitby, 12/6/97
Contents
Forthcoming Tournaments
The following list of tournaments have been approved by the DAA. The
results of most tournaments will count for inclusion in the Bismark
Cup and Master Points. Details of the later tournaments will be updated
in subsequent issues of this newsletter.
1997 ACT Diplomacy Championship
This tournament has been cancelled by the organiser.
1997 Don Challenge Cup
Location: Melbourne Chess Club
Leicester Street, Fitzroy
Melbourne
Date: 29-30 November
Liaison: Tristan Lee
GM: tba
Format: 3 rounds over 2 days, 9am
Scoring System: tba
Cost: $20
1998 NT Diplomacy Championship
This tournament has been cancelled by the organiser.
1998 Australian Diplomacy Championship
Location: CanCon '98
Lake Ginninderra College
Belconnen
ACT
Date: 24-26 January 1998
Liaison: Ken Sproat
GM: Ken Sproat
Format: 4 rounds over 3 days
Round 1: 9am - ~4pm (Sat)
Round 2: ~4pm - 11pm (Sat)
Round 3: 12pm - ~7pm (Sun)
Round 4: 9am - ~4pm (Mon)
Best 3 rounds count
Scoring System: KIS
Cost: tba
1998 Victorian Diplomacy Championship
Location: Conquest '98
Melbourne
Date: 10-12 April, 1998
Liaison: John Cain
GM: John Cain
Format: 3 rounds over 3 days
Scoring System: tba
Cost: tba
World Dip Con VIII
Location: Chapel Hill
North Carolina, USA
Date: 22-24 May 1998
1998 NSW Diplomacy Championship
Location: in conjunction with SAGA '98
Sydney
Date: Queen's Birthday weekend, '98
Liaison: Craig Sedgwick
GM: tba
Format: 3 rounds over 3 days
Scoring System: tba
Cost: tba
Contents
Australian Clubs
At the time of writing, I knew of 5 Diplomacy Clubs in Australia where
face-to-face games are played on a regular basis. Please provide me
with the appropriate details of any other clubs (or regular meetings)
within Australia.
MIDDSOC
MIDDSOC is a club located in Hurstville, which is in Sydney's south.
About three or four times a week, (Friday night, Saturday, and sometimes
Tuesday and Thursday), the club gets together for games like Dungeons
and Dragons, Warhammer, and Diplomacy. Short term, I intend to get
FTF Diplomacy games happening on some Sundays. Long term, I'm planning
a tournament there.
For those Sydneysiders who want to check out the club, rock up
at any time on any Friday evening to Rear 53 Tavistock Ave, Hurstville.
There's always about three or four one-turn-per- week games of
Diplomacy there, with new ones starting every month or two.
The Diplomacy Club of Canberra (DCOC)
Meets 1st Friday of every month at the Slovenian Australian Association.
Starting time is 7pm.
The Perth Diplomacy Club.
Meets 3rd Sunday of every month at the loft (above the tavern) at
the University of Western Australia. Nominal starting time 11am.
Queensland University Games Society.
Meets 1st Saturday (except May, 2nd Sat) of every month in the Small
Clubs & Societies Common Room in the Student Union Complex. Meetings
run from 9am - 5pm. Various board games are played (Diplomacy not
necessarily running).
Also "traditional" boardgames (Chess, Draughts, Scrabble, etc)
every Friday night (7-10pm) in the Philosophy Common Room in the
Forgan Smith Building.
Victorian Diplomacy Club (VDC).
Meets 3rd Saturday of every month at the Student Union Building, Melbourne
University (2nd floor). Starting time 12pm. A number of different
board games are played at this meeting.
Contents
Diplomacy in Auckland
Well, we had our first meeting of what hopefully will become the Auckland
Diplomacy Club on Sunday. 7 Players and two or three 'having a lookers'
turned up.
Ken et al will be thrilled to hear I got screwed! [Warning: what
follows is an excuse.] I got France, my least favourite country.
I got three builds (by mistake) in 1901 and then got tall- poppied.
Brian Wolstenholme, a newbie was leading with 11 SC's as Italy(!)
in his first game(!!), but was facing concerted pressure from
the combined forces of Turkey (7 Sc's - Simon) and Russia (8 Sc's
- Leon Quidding) when the game was wrapped up at 5pm (1909). Austria
(Andrew Ward) was eliminated in 1909, and I still had a French
Army defending stoutly in Berlin. Bevyn Quidding playin Germany,
a.k.a the Phoniex, conspired to come back from the dead in 1904,
and peak at 9 units, but was possibly about to slip in Scandinavia
at the end against the determined advances of the Russian Forces
commanded by his brother. Daniel Hurley played England and was
still cruising with 2 units at the end.
We all really enjoyed ourselves. Most of us hadn't played FTF
for over a year, and in some cases 4 years. The bug seems to have
caught, and we all left keen for another go in 4 weeks time.
We played 20 minutes to the end of 1902 (excluding resolution)
and then 15 minutes (excl.) to 1906, and then 10 (excl.) from
then on. Being Brian's first ever game, I think any faster would
have been unfair, but we could probably get more moves in in the
same time next time.
Brandon Clarke, 30/6/97
Contents
DAA Tournament Results
1997 NSW Championship
This 3 round, 2 board tournament was played early in June in Sydney.
The results are summarised below:
Points
1st place: Rob Stephenson 44
2nd place: Craig Sedgwick 36
3rd place: Bill Brown 34
4th place: Ken Sproat 30
5th place: Ben Grosman 28
6th place: Harry Kolotas 27
7th place: Simon Keast 25
Best Countries:
Austria: Ben Grosman 9
Italy: Harry Kolotas 10
France: Rob Stephenson 13
England: Craig Sedgwick 12
Germany: Rob Stephenson 10
Russia: Rob Stephenson 12
Turkey: Ken Sproat 11
Best Novice: Simon Keast
1997 QUGS Championship
This 4 round, 2 board tournament was played early in July in Brisbane.
The results are summarised below:
Points
1st place: Daniel Edwards 36
2nd place: Christian Kelly 33
3rd place: Darryl Greensill 25
4th place: Glen Dawson 24
5th place: Owen Gintis 24
6th place: Simon Gallimore 22
7th place: Paul Appleyard 21
Best Countries:
Austria: Peter Fordyce 9
Christian Kelly
Italy: Darryl Greensill 10
France: Dale Edwards 10
Peter Fordyce
Owen Gintis
England: Christian Kelly 14
Germany: Daniel Edwards 10
Russia: Daniel Edwards 9
Turkey: Daniel Edwards 10
Simon Gallimore
Contents
DAA Cash Flow (from 1 Jan 1997)
Note: The details of the DAA cash flow is provided for the benefit
of its members. These details are not to be reproduced in any other
publication.
Item $ $
Initial Cash Balance (1/1/97) 66.20
Income
Subscriptions, '97 130.00
Affiliation Fees:
ACT Championships '96 30.00
Australian Championship '97 63.00
Victorian Championships '97 82.00
NSW Championships '97 42.00
QLD Championships '97 27.00
Total Income 374.00
Expenses
DAA Rag #3 41.20
DAA Rag #4 75.95
Stamps 6.40
Photocopies (for AGM) 3.85
Filing Fee (Inc. Assoc) (x2) 64.00
Total Expenses 191.40
Cash Balance as at 31/7/97 $248.80
Contents
Report from NSW Championships
The standard of play at the tournament was very high. This was mainly
due to the small number of inexperienced players. Even those playing
in their first tourno had played before and proved quite capable.
The tournament was poorly attended due to the ever dwindling numbers
of Sydney and Canberra players. The turnout from Melbourne was
good, as usual. I guess there has already been some discussion
online about the poor attendance at this tournament and I will
not venture an opinion on what is required to get us back to 40
and 50 at a tournament, except to point out the following:
- the tournamnet was advertised through all available hobby publications
and a flyer sent out to past players (approx 30) that we knew
would not receive hobby publications
- the change of venue from Paddington may have put off some
people due to a lack of convenient public transport and distance
from the city
- being with SAGA gained us 2-3 new players
The convention itself was poorly organised (in my opinion). Rooms
that were pre-allocated were found locked on the morning of the first
day and could not be unlocked as the school janitor had left and could
not be contacted. The registration/ information area was staffed by
one person (who was one of the organisers). He could not leave the
area to deal with problems and was only able to do so later on when
people volunteered to process entries. Facilites were adequate but
not what we had come to expect at Paddington RSL.
Overall I would call the tournament a success on the basis of
the high standard of the games and the enjoyment of the players.
I would like to think that in the future we will attact more players
as a result of returning to SAGA and that an overall strategy
will return tournament numbers to what they were in the good ol'
days.
Craig Sedgwick, 3 August 1997
Contents
Report from QUGS Championships
Well, it's all over, thank God. The tournament went well, and everyone
who came seemed to have a fun time. All nine of them.
Yes, that's right, "nine" entries! Plus a few friends who dropped
by on the second day to fill out the boards. We managed two boards
a round by getting both GMs to take as position on each board,
except in the last round, when we had enough ring-ins to only
need one GM a board. I've just played seven games of Diplomacy
in two days. Taxing, but very enjoyable nonetheless.
Obvious Lesson #1: Lots of prizes didn't get people to turn
up, and the people who did come along did it for love of the game.
Next time, we'll skimp on the loot.
As for the format of the tournament, I felt it went well, though
a number of players said that they wanted to finish one of these
games sometime. Next year, we'll probably have three rounds over
two days, or maybe even one game a day.
Obvious Lesson #2: People do seem interested in Diplomacy here
in Brissie, but apparently taking up the whole weekend is a turn-off.
To get around that, we're considering organising a series of Diplomacy
events, one every two months, where people spend a day playing
one game. This, however, is a matter for us to hash out next Saturday,
at the next Q.U.G.S. meeting.
Also, I intend to run a Colonial Diplomacy event at Briscon
1998 (which is held over the first weekend of May). All in all,
there's still going to be a fair amount of Diplomacy happening
in Brisbane over the next twelve months.
Well, any questions? My mind is a blank right now; I can't think
of anything else you might want to know. Fire away!
Gary Johnson
Contents
1997 NSW Champs
Financial Statement
Income $75.00
Expenses
Trophies 152.00
Electronic Timer 19.95
GM Expenses 20.00
DAA Affiliation Fee 42.00
Advertising 15.00
Total Expenses $248.95
Net Result -$173.95
Craig Sedgwick Co-Organiser, 20 June 1997
Contents
1997 QUGS Champs
Financial Statement
Income
Entry Fees: 121.00
QUGS Subsidy 96.00
Total Income: $217.00
Expenses
Prizes 190.00
Publicity 0.00
DAA Affiliation Fee 27.00
Total Expenses $217.00
Gary Johnson, 27 July 1997
Contents
Diplomacy Riddle
The Riddle of the Mirrored Openings
(a Sherlock Holmes Puzzle)
by Graeme Ackland, Master Aenigmatist
Holmes looked up from his armchair at me. I was engaged in a heated
discussion across the room with his dear brother, Mycroft. Holmes
took his pipe out of his mouth, put it back, and returned to his
reading.
I was visibly upset. "Confound this NMR rule, Mycroft! A chap
misses a single deadline and he's eliminated -- in 1901 to boot!
Look at this."
Pulling the battered Diplomacy set from the bookcase, I set
up the pieces in their familiar starting configuration. I then
wrote out a set of orders, saying "A reasonable enough opening,
eh?" "Now I think of it, weren't you at the Calhamer Club that
night, Mycroft?"
Mycroft peered at my scrawl. "Indeed I was! I believe you requested
my advice regarding the opening moves on this occasion, as I was
playing the same power as you were in another room. It looks that
from the offers you have written, evidently you took that advice."
"Yes, and a lot of good it did me!" I growled. Here are the
other orders."
Mycroft waited as I pushed pieces around the board, and then
exclaimed, "Remarkable! The identical openings for all the other
powers occurred in my game as well. This situation requires urgent
negotiations, Watson. You need only make your neighbours aware
of the logic of the position and an excellent Fall awaits you".
"Perhaps," said I, "but you'll recall that that very night we
three were all called urgently away to that business on Dartmoor.
When we returned to the Club the Fall moves had already processed:
in our absence that infernal NMR rule was enforced. All my units
had been ordered to hold while all the other powers' units had
moved out of their home countries. The other powers had each taken
two neutral centres, and my country had been invaded by no less
than four foriegn powers, while I faced an inevitable 1901 elimination.
That has never happened to me before, and it is in no small measure
due to your foolish opening."
"A sorry tale, Watson, but you really should look to your negotiations
for blame rather than to the opening I suggested: I also missed
the fall deadline and had my forces declared in civil disorder.
Before I left I took some elementary precautions. As a result
of skillful diplomacy on my part, the Fall moves in my game were
considerably different from those in yours. On our return, I found
myself in a position to capture three new centres in 1901."
"Well, Mycroft," I complained, "I definitely could have used
those additional supply centres after seeing the Russian-English
alliance that showed itself when England supported the Russians
into Kiel and Holland in Spring of 1902."
At this point, Holmes again looked up from his book. "You know,
Watson," he began, "Mycroft is quite right. Had you negotiated
arrangements for different Fall moves from the other powers as
he did, you would have been in a much more favorable position."
"Holmes!" I exclaimed, "I hardly think you are in any position
to comment on either your brother's openings or my negotiations.
You have been sitting at the other end of the room reading; you
don't even know which power we played, let alone what our opening
moves were!"
"On the contrary, dear Watson. Not only do I know the power
you played and your opening moves, I can even tell you what your
board looked like at the end of 1901." Holmes nodded to his brother,
smiled at the both of us, and drew on his pipe as he returned
to his book.
What was the position in Watson's game at the end of Fall 1901,
and how did Holmes know?
The above riddle was published in the Spring 1997 Retreats
edition of the Diplomatic Pouch. An answer will be published in
the next issue of this newsletter.
Contents
1997 Bismark Cup
The following list has been summarised from information supplied by
Bill Brown. Four tournaments have been played in 1997 to date.
Placing State Total
1 VIC Bill Brown 135
2 NSW Harry Kolotas 116
3 VIC Jason Whitby 111
4 VIC Rob Stephenson 105
5 NSW Craig Sedgwick 98
6 VIC Ken Sproat 72
7 VIC Gary Bekker 71
8 QLD Daniel Edwards 60
VIC Rohan Keane 60
10 ACT Tri Vo 53
11 VIC Tristan Lee 51
12 QLD Christian Kelly 47
13 ACT David Gould 46
14 ACT Andrew Goff 45
NSW Stephen Muzzatti 45
16 QLD Darryl Greensill 42
17 NSW Geoff Kerr 40
18 QLD Glen Dawson 37
19 VIC Ian van der Werff 36
20 NSW Ben Grosman 32
QLD Owen Gintis 32
22 VIC Richard Orme 30
23 QLD Simon Gallimore 29
24 QLD Paul Appleyard 24
NSW Simon Keast 24
26 VIC David Currell 20
VIC Frank Meerbach 20
28 VIC Shane Beck 17
29 NSW Andrew Kisliakov 16
QLD Dale Edwards 16
QLD Peter Fordyce 16
32 ACT Luc Gentet 15
NSW Alwyn Patterson 15
34 VIC David Blom 14
SA/NT Andy Turner 14
36 ACT Troy Anderton 13
12 points:
Carl Chang, Steve Goldie, Arianwen Harris
11 points:
Andrew Bushby, Daniel Jacobs, Phil Orme, Dugal Ure
9 points:
Tom Drake-Brockman, Donald Patterson
8 points:
Bob Blanchett, Chris Goff, Leigh Gold, Paul Goldie, Shaun Gunn,
Andrew Harding, Simon Morton, Gareth Schofield, Pedro Silva, Roland
Wallander
5 points:
David Astley, Robert de Graaf, Paul Drake, Gavan Lim-Joon, Joshua
Martin, Ian McAlpine, Richard Nolan, Frank Tarcasio
Notes:
- Australian title was rated 3+1 boards
- Victorian convention was rated 4+1 boards
- NSW tournament was rated 2+1 boards
- QUGS tournament was rated 2+1 boards
Contents
Master Points
The current Master Points can be viewed elsewhere on this website,
and have therefore not been repeated here.
Contents
The "DAA Rag"
Please contact me if you have any additional information that is appropriate
for inclusion in this newsletter, especially articles for the Forum
and information on other Diplomacy clubs. The deadline for issue #6
is the end of October 1997.
Editor: Ian van der Werff (DAA Secretary)
GPO Box 170B
Melbourne VIC 3001
Phone/Fax: (03) 5424 8585
Mobile: (0419) 329 766
email: ivdw@acslink.net.au
|
