Item # 14 - 2010-11 Provincial YCC Qualifiers to the 2011 CYCC

[Bob Armstrong]

Item # 14 - 2010-11 Provincial YCC Qualifiers to the 2011 CYCC

The introductory post is by Michael Barron, Youth Coordinator

I would like to remind you about Motion 2009-13 Re: CYCC Qualifiers (Ellen Nadeau / David Lavin) passed at the CFC AGM 2009 in Edmonton:
The motion to replace the Articles 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 of the CFC Handbook as follows:
Will participate in the CYCC 2010 and subsequent CYCC’s, only:
- the qualifiers from that years YCC’s,
- the qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year,
- the highest rating of each age category (open and female) of each province (as of May 1st prior to the CYCC),
- three players for each category nominated by the host organizer.

Guidelines for YCC qualifiers for CYCC:

CFC Agrees to:
send 36 medals (3 medals for each of the 12 sections),
send 36 certificates for the winners,
send 1 CFC Organizers shirt,
send one sack (16 pieces) of key chains as small door prizes,
rate the tournament upon payment of dues.

Organizer Agrees to:
mention CFC in media and publicity,
rate the tournament CFC,
pay dues after the tournament.

Fee structure between CFC and Organizer :
After the tournament the organizer sends $6 per participant to the CFC Youth Program but must send a minimum $200 and only to a maximum of $400.
If the tournament is submitted electronically using Swiss Sys there is no additional rating fee. If the submission is other than electronic Swiss Sys then organizers must pay $1 per player above the series dues.

EXAMPLE OF COSTS
Players $ per player $ to CFC Youth Program
With Swiss Sys w/o Swiss Sys, add
30 $6 $200 $200 + $30
40 $6 $240 $240 + $40
60 $6 $360 $360 + $60
105 $6 $400 $400 + $105

Sections:
U8 Open and Girls
U10 Open and Girls
U12 Open and Girls
U14 Open and Girls
U16 Open and Girls
U18 Open and Girls

Age is determined as of Dec 31st 2010, for the 2011 series.
Organizers may combine sections depending upon the number of participants or tradition in their region. This may be Girls and Open sections together or more than one Open and Girls sections combined as necessary for the pairing. Each of the 12 sections may have the first three places as winners of medals, certificates and invitations to the CYCC 2011.
The format is a 5 round swiss (RR as required). There are advantages to having 90 min + 30 sec increment time control to prepare the players for the CYCC, but tradition or regional needs may go with a shorter time control i.e. 30 min/game to accommodate a one day tournament.

Suggested Fee Structure/Prize Fund:
Prize Fund is up to the organizers and depends upon costs incurred for tournament site.
This is meant as a guideline to help new organizers plan.

$20-$30 per player should be for CYCC registration of top players (60 players x $20= $1200 or $100 towards 12 sections 1st place CYCC Entry Fee: 60 x $30 = $1800 or $150 toward CYCC EF) if there are fewer than 60 players this is difficult.
$6 per player for CFC Youth Program.
So Entry Fee should be $26- $36+ expenses and any organizer ‘s share, which makes it a $45- $70 Entry Fee.
Once the winners have confirmed and registered participation at the CYCC, the CFC Youth Coordinator will facilitate payment from YCC organizers to CYCC organizer.

Pairing with Swiss Sys:
Swiss Sys Pairing program is provided free of charge to organizers of a CFC rated event and using Swiss Sys will cut costs when submitting the results for rating.
Here is the URL for the procedure to get a copy of Swiss Sys for a tournament.
http://www.chess.ca/swisssys.htm

Good tournament conditions:
First and Foremost: the organizers and the participants should have fun.
The most important conditions for the players include quiet, good air quality and good lighting. Parents need a place to be able to congregate without disrupting play and should be separated from the players. This is much better for players, Tournament Directors and the parents.
For more detailed descriptions of good tournament conditions please see
http://www.chess.ca/section_9.htm



Thanks to Ellen Nadeau for preparing these Guidelines!

I would like to ask all Governors and Provincial organizations to encourage local chess organizers to have at least one YCC qualifier in every Province fo facilitate local youth chess and qualify best local players for Canadian Championship.

[Patrick McDonald]

The problem with this structure is in areas where there may not be any YCC events organized.
How can we penalize our youth players that live in areas where no-one runs a YCC event?

[Michael von Keitz]

For interested players that come from provinces which do not hold YCCs, I imagine we would simply allow the representatives to be nominated by the corresponding executive. Patrick does raise a good point, however, and we should probably introduce a slight amendment to the current wording in the CFC Handbook.

[Fred McKim]

It would seem almost certain that this format is going to reduce the number of participants in the CYCC, and the event will no longer be able to completely fund the winners to the WYCC.

Was this thought about at the time ?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

At the time of the motion in May 2009, I did for myself, and it was sent to Ellen Nadeau, the following report:

A CYCC Revenue Comparison: Old System vs Reformed System
( prepared by Bob Armstrong )

Revision 2, May 21, 2009

Attempt at Reconstructing CFC Revenue from Past CYCC’s

The average no. of players in a CYCC, using the last 5 year stats, is approx. 150 players.

Remitted to CFC out of CYCC entry registration - $ 100

Revenue: 150 X $ 100 = $ 15,000

Projected CFC Revenue Under Proposed Reform ( Motion 2009-13 )

Motion 2009-13 Re: CYCC Qualifiers
(Ellen Nadeau / David Lavin)
The motion to replace the Articles 1003, 1004, 1005, 1006 of the CFC handbook is as follows:
Will participate in the CYCC 2010 and subsequent CYCCs, only:
-the qualifiers from that years YCCs
-the qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year
-the highest rating of each age category (open and female) of each province(as of May 1st prior to
the CYCC)

Calculation:
A) from CYCC

Item 1 : Top 3 qualifiers from that year’s YCC’s = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 3 winners x 10 provinces = 360 players.
Item 2 : Top 3 qualifiers to WYCC from CYCC previous year = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 3 winners = 36
Item 3 : No. of Highest Rating from Provinces = 12 ( 6 groups, open & female ) X 10 provinces = 120.

Maximum Total ( If all eligible attend ): 360 + 36 + 120 = 516

Remitted to CFC out of CYCC entry registration - $ 125 ( minimum starting in 2009 )

Revenue : 516 X $ 125 = $ 64.500

B) from YCC’s

Assume an average of 6 players ( admittedly a somewhat random number ) per 12 groups X 10 provinces = 720 players

Remitted to CFC per YCC player - $ 6 per player X 720 players = $ 4,320
( Note: it may be slightly less than this because there is a maximum remittance per YCC of $ 400; also there is a cheaper remittance option of $ 4 per player ).

C) Total Revenue: $ 68,820 !!??

Questions: We are expecting each province to send approx. 48 players or a total of approx. 480 ( a few less due to overlapping ) players. How realistic is that? How can this be when the average has historically been over the last 5 years, 150 players. And a large portion of the 150 have been from the home province of the CYCC. Moreover, Governor Ken Craft has raised the concern about this motion that some provinces do not have the infrastructure to hold a provincial YCC. Is he right? Will some provinces not participate? We have also seen that some groups ( especially female ) have difficulty getting participants – will that affect numbers? And how many parents of the “ qualifiers “ will be willing to bear the cost of attending the CYCC, wherever it is held. The figure of over 450 players in the CYCC is obviously wildly optimistic, though these are the numbers who can qualify.
The main issue though is whether the new system can at least generate as many funds towards prizes as the old system. So lets assume , rather than over 450, a number less than the average no. of the last 5 years, which is 150. I will choose 100 players – it is below the average because players are limited to at least 3 per group from each province, eliminating those home province players who now would not be entitled to play. I feel 100 is achievable under the new system ( it would be approx. 22% of the number entitled ).

Revised Reform Revenue Projection Based on Lower Anticipated Turnout

A ) from CYCC – 100 players @ $ 125 = $ 12,500 ( note: the average CYCC has been 153 players )
B ) from YCC’s - $ 4, 320
C) Total Revenue - $ 16,820.

Revenue Comparison:

Old System - $ 15,000
Reformed System - $ 16,820

Conclusion

The reformed system will produce at least as much prize funding toward the WYCC as did the prior system.

[Fred McKim]

I believe the 2010 CYCC revenue was $20,000 (off the top of my head).

I don't think it will work. Sorry.

[Michael Barron]

I believe the 2010 CYCC revenue was $20,000 (off the top of my head).

I don't think it will work. Sorry.

Sorry, Fred, I have different opinion.

First, the proposed system won't penalize our youth players that live in areas where no-one runs a YCC event.
It just will encourage all provincial organizations to organize such events.
By the way, such event could be run by the parents of our youth players - just like Patrick McDonald and Ellen Nadeau did it for their kids... :)

Second, the proposed system allows all provinces to be represented in any case - the highest rating of each age category (open and female) of each province will participate.

Third, we could introduce a slight amendment to the current wording - for example:
The CFC Executive could allow a player to participate at the CYCC without qualification in exceptional circumstances.

Forth, the proposed system doesn't really limit participation - as Bob's calculation shows, Maximum Total is 516 players!
So, the total revenue will be about $4,000 higher than current system without qualification.

The real goal of the proposed system is to encourage provincial, regional and local chess organizations to run more youth events of different levels and get more kids to play more chess.

[Fred McKim]

The goals are admirable, and if all provinces were as organized as Ontario, things would be great.

Were the various provinces polled to see how many would hold events ?

[Christopher Field]

I see this as ambitious and worthwhile.
Bob Armstrong's analysis suggests that it will most likely be revenue-positive. It will be important to monitor and do everything possible to maintain participation close to current level. What was the participation in 2010?

One question: using the international time control is important. It gives our players experience with it, including those who will represent Canada. I do not think that a one-day option at 30 minutes per player should be included. At least a full week-end or equivalent is more appropriate. I don't think players travelling a long distance, many with their parents, will appreciate a one-day rushed event.

[Fred McKim]

I think future analysis should include looking at which provinces will be holding YCC events. I wouldn't expect any to be held under the proposed format in the 4 Atlantic provinces, due to insufficient numbers of players to meet cost. As well cost of $20 - $30 is unrealistic for those without likely chance of qualifying.

So I think the analysis is really looking at whether the Ontario YCC and possibly Alberta or BC YCC will meet the cost of the missing players.

[Michael Barron]

The goals are admirable, and if all provinces were as organized as Ontario, things would be great.

Were the various provinces polled to see how many would hold events ?

We could do it right now.
The Assembly of Governors includes representatives from all provincial chess organizations.

Which provincial chess organizations don't want YCC in their provinces and why?

[Michael Barron]

I see this as ambitious and worthwhile.
Bob Armstrong's analysis suggests that it will most likely be revenue-positive. It will be important to monitor and do everything possible to maintain participation close to current level. What was the participation in 2010?

One question: using the international time control is important. It gives our players experience with it, including those who will represent Canada. I do not think that a one-day option at 30 minutes per player should be included. At least a full week-end or equivalent is more appropriate. I don't think players travelling a long distance, many with their parents, will appreciate a one-day rushed event.

This is a good question, Christopher!

I agree with you - using the international time control is preferable.
However, the local traditions and possibilities could be different, and we can't impose strict requirements, at least not in the first year.

Let's leave such decisions for local organizers for now.

[Michael Barron]

I think future analysis should include looking at which provinces will be holding YCC events. I wouldn't expect any to be held under the proposed format in the 4 Atlantic provinces, due to insufficient numbers of players to meet cost. As well cost of $20 - $30 is unrealistic for those without likely chance of qualifying.

So I think the analysis is really looking at whether the Ontario YCC and possibly Alberta or BC YCC will meet the cost of the missing players.


Fred,

Let's clarify:
Are you arguing that 4 Atlantic provinces don't need any youth chess tournaments?
How can we develop youth chess in these provinces in this case?

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I think future analysis should include looking at which provinces will be holding YCC events. I wouldn't expect any to be held under the proposed format in the 4 Atlantic provinces, due to insufficient numbers of players to meet cost. As well cost of $20 - $30 is unrealistic for those without likely chance of qualifying.

So I think the analysis is really looking at whether the Ontario YCC and possibly Alberta or BC YCC will meet the cost of the missing players.

BC has been holding the BCYCC for years in a row (!!) as the mandatory step for participating at CYCC. Of course there was a minority of players who by-passed BCYCC every now and then, but their number was insignificant.

Basically we have to compete with the well establishd Chess and Math system of regionals and provincials, where only the 1st place from each grade goes to the nationals. The entry fees required are comparable and still every year the Chess and Math provincial beats in numbers the BCYCC by more than 2 times. Without debating too much on the value of each tournament and available percentages for qualifying at the nationals, I think we must keep the value of BCYCC. The regionals have already disappeared in the Greater Vancouver Area...

[Fred McKim]

If I held a YCC PEI would not be able to generate $200 towards the CYCC. There is no interest at present towards players participating in CYCC. Our representatives would be in the bottom quarter of every age group.

It should be noted that I held PEI Youth Chess Championships abount 10 years ago, but stopped when the number of particpants dropped below 10.

Historically I think we've had less than 5 particpants in the CYCC.

I wished we were ready for this system, but I just don't know if it is cash neutral as it's supporters claim.

[Ken Craft]

I doubt NB will be holding a qualifier. I think I remember voting against this motion.

[Fred McKim]

Somebody needs to do the math. Go back through the past few CYCC's and see how many players would be eliminated (probably mostly from ON). See how many provinces might hold a YCC based on their participation levels at the CYCC.

[Daxin Jin]

One question: using the international time control is important. It gives our players experience with it, including those who will represent Canada. I do not think that a one-day option at 30 minutes per player should be included. At least a full week-end or equivalent is more appropriate. I don't think players travelling a long distance, many with their parents, will appreciate a one-day rushed event.[/QUOTE]
I agree with Christopher, even not in major provincials like Ont, BC, and Albert still need take seriouse for the CFC tournament. 30 minutes per player looks like chess&math that only hold in their field. If we prepare players who are going to world chess stage already need follow FIDE Rules from YCC.
As Michal Barron said YCC still important to let all players of their age section participate in serious chess with experience that no possible to have in Open tournaments. His four point could cover all questions. Increase the number players of CYCC should begin with local chess club who lead youth players in CFC rated. There still very few tournaments for Youth players in Canada. Keep more YCC tournaments and give more qualifiers from YCC.

[Michael Barron]

Somebody needs to do the math. Go back through the past few CYCC's and see how many players would be eliminated (probably mostly from ON). See how many provinces might hold a YCC based on their participation levels at the CYCC.

Fred,

No players would be eliminated.
Let me repeat:
The intent of the Motion - to encourage local organizers to run more youth tournaments.

Such province as Ontario could run many YCC qualifiers.
It already has Ontario YCC in Kitchener and North Ontario YCC in Kapuskasing for many years.
I know people who're contemplating organizing YCC qualifiers in Toronto and Windsor.
If there is sufficient interest, such tournament could be organized in Ottawa too.

Money is not a problem as well.

The approved rule says:
"Will participate in the CYCC 2010 and subsequent CYCC’s, only:
- the qualifiers from that years YCC’s,
- the qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year,
- the highest rating of each age category (open and female) of each province (as of May 1st prior to the CYCC),
- three players for each category nominated by the host organizer."

It says nothing about money.
All other provisions are only Guidelines, and could be changed on organizer's request.

A minimum $200 payment supposed to cover CFC's expenses for promotional package:
36 medals (3 medals for each of the 12 sections),
36 certificates for the winners,
1 CFC Organizers shirt,
one sack (16 pieces) of key chains as small door prizes.

If you feel that YCC PEI would not be able to generate $200 towards the CYCC - forget about it!
Just run it as a regular CFC event for youth players in your province and help them to qualify for CYCC.

What we need - more kids to play more chess!
And medals and certificates they could win at the CYCC... :)

[Ellen Nadeau]

YCC reinstatement was proposed by me and approved by the Governors with the idea that the YCC becomes a ADVERTIZING event for the CYCC not an elimination process.

Costs: Bob you cannot take the $6 per player revenue and figure it goes to WYCor CYCC. The package items :medals,certificates,CFC shirt,keychains must be paid for. The cost were calculated to be revenue neutral.

Fred McKim, there is no reason Atlantic Canada cannot afford to run this tournament. I suggested a $30-$40 registration fee if the organizer hoped to help pay entries to the CYCC. If an organizer has a free room for the tournament he can charge $4 per player which goes to the CFC and covers rating. For the $4 he does not receive a package so there is no loss for the CFC and no high expenses to the organizer.


I agree tha long time controls for YCC are ideal but would not support forcing this as regional organizers know what their local players can support. IE John Rutherford would not hold a YCC over 3-4 days. This would eliminate potential players from the CYCC. Our CYCC event must be of international standards.

[Fred McKim]

Michael - can someone confirm that a province can hold a regular Provincial YCC event (old style) and remind me what the commitment was to the CYCC. Shouldn't this still be in the rules ?

The issue in PEI is that we've had a total of 3-4 players over the history of the CYCC attend that event. That could change in the future.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

One question: using the international time control is important. It gives our players experience with it, including those who will represent Canada. I do not think that a one-day option at 30 minutes per player should be included. At least a full week-end or equivalent is more appropriate. I don't think players travelling a long distance, many with their parents, will appreciate a one-day rushed event.
I agree with Christopher, even not in major provincials like Ont, BC, and Albert still need take seriouse for the CFC tournament. 30 minutes per player looks like chess&math that only hold in their field. If we prepare players who are going to world chess stage already need follow FIDE Rules from YCC.
As Michal Barron said YCC still important to let all players of their age section participate in serious chess with experience that no possible to have in Open tournaments. His four point could cover all questions. Increase the number players of CYCC should begin with local chess club who lead youth players in CFC rated. There still very few tournaments for Youth players in Canada. Keep more YCC tournaments and give more qualifiers from YCC.

BCYCC is a 2 days event running under the same rules as CYCC. There are no 30 minutes games at this level.

[Michael Barron]

Michael - can someone confirm that a province can hold a regular Provincial YCC event (old style) and remind me what the commitment was to the CYCC. Shouldn't this still be in the rules ?

The issue in PEI is that we've had a total of 3-4 players over the history of the CYCC attend that event. That could change in the future.

Fred,

I can confirm that a province can hold a regular Provincial YCC event (old style).
As Ellen mentioned, the commitment to the CYCC fund is $4 per player.
Yes, this still should be in the rules, but for some reason I can't find it... :(

[Lyle Craver]

Definitely a full description of the CYCC and subsidiary events should be in the Handbook revision now underway.

Both you and Ellen would be ideal people to write it.

[Michael Barron]

Definitely a full description of the CYCC and subsidiary events should be in the Handbook revision now underway.

Both you and Ellen would be ideal people to write it.


Lyle,

It's written already.

Could you please advise:
What is the procedure to update the Handbook?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

As Chair of the Procedures' Committee, supervising the Handbook Updating Subcommittee ( Kerry Liles ), it is my opinion that any changes to the wording of the Handbook have to be made by motion ( unless it is grammatical, for consistency, etc. ie. technical in nature ).

Bob

[Michael Barron]

Hi Michael:

As Chair of the Procedures' Committee, supervising the Handbook Updating Subcommittee ( Kerry Liles ), it is my opinion that any changes to the wording of the Handbook have to be made by motion ( unless it is grammatical, for consistency, etc. ie. technical in nature ).

Bob

Hi Bob:

Now in the Hanbook we see (http://www.chess.ca/section_10.shtml):

"1003. Players: {Motion 2009-13 2009 AGM Nadeau/Lavin}

The following players shall be eligible to participate in each Youth Tournament provided they comply with the formal entry requirements of Article 1007:

(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.

(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.

(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}

(d) The proof of qualification will rest with the applicants to the CYCC.

(e) The host organizer may nominate three players for each category from the host location. {Amendment of Original Motion Barron/Langer}"

I hope, you would agree that paragraph (d) should be removed from the list.

How could we do that?
Is it technical in nature?
Or a motion is needed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

Maybe I do not understand the section, but doesn't ( d ) mean :

the onus of showing qualification is on the player seeking to play. In other words, if there is any ambiguity about the qualification of a player, or any uncertainly, and the organizer is unsure whether the player indeed qualifies, then it will be decided AGAINST the player if they fail to come up with sufficient proof to satisfy the organizer that they do in fact qualify.

If my interpretation is right, then why is the section not proper and important?

And if I am right, what is wrong with the section, that you think it should be removed?

Bob

[Michael Barron]

Hi Michael:

Maybe I do not understand the section, but doesn't ( d ) mean :

the onus of showing qualification is on the player seeking to play. In other words, if there is any ambiguity about the qualification of a player, or any uncertainly, and the organizer is unsure whether the player indeed qualifies, then it will be decided AGAINST the player if they fail to come up with sufficient proof to satisfy the organizer that they do in fact qualify.

If my interpretation is right, then why is the section not proper and important?

And if I am right, what is wrong with the section, that you think it should be removed?

Bob

Hi Bob:

The section
"1003. Players:"
lists 4 categories of players who are eligible to participate in CYCC:
(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.
(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.
(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}.
(e) Three players for each category nominated by the host organizer.

The paragraph
"(d) The proof of qualification will rest with the applicants to the CYCC."
just doesn't belong to this list.

Does it matter?
I don't know... :rolleyes:

I just don't want to waste my and your time on such things.
If somebody believes that something should be changed in the Handbook revision, they are welcome to submit a Motion... :)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

You raise a valid point - ( d ) does not describe a class of player. I think it should stay in the Handbook though, for the interpretation I gave it above.

Is it technical in nature - I think so - it is a good statement of burdent of proof , but in the wrong place. It could for instance become s. 1004, referring back to s. 1003, with some technical wording surrounding it.

I will take this up with Kerry and Bob G, to see whether they think we can avoid a motion to make this correction.

Thanks for raising it. If anyone feels this would be a " substantial " amendment, and requires a " Motion ", please let me know.

Bob