PDA

View Full Version : Item # 9 – Tournament Director and Organizer Certification Program ( TDOCP ) Committe



Bob Armstrong
10-01-2010, 08:25 AM
Item # 9 – Tournament Director and Organizer Certification Program ( TDOCP ) Committee – Mandate

Introductory Post - by Chris Mallon

10/8/29 Governors’ Discussion Board Post - I'll be looking for 2-4 people in total [ for the Committee ], and obviously preference going to certified and / or experienced arbiters and organizers…My intention is to work with the committee to develop a certification program and then recommend it in toto to the governors for approval…I see no reason why we can't include organizers.

Michael von Keitz
10-01-2010, 12:27 PM
As I have mentioned previously, I am interested in serving on this committee.

Stuart Brammall
10-01-2010, 01:02 PM
As someone who has organised and arbitrated events with no experiece whatsoever I must say that rather then making it more difficult for people who wish to volunteer there time to run chess tournament through forcing them through a certification process, we should instead look to make it easier in any way we can.

Have we had complaints abouts organizers or arbiters?
What has prompted this?

I can tell you all that if such a program existed 3 years ago there would have been no events organized at Hart House, which would have effectively reduced Toronto to one event per year at that time.

After taking the arbiter's course at the Canadian Open, and seeing who failed-- some the most active volunteers (Egorov, Ferreira) and some of the most experienced (Ficzere), nobody would consider banning them from running there event.

There have been no complaints, and these volunteers are infinately valuable.
Do not alienate or regulate them, the CFC stands on the shoulders of these volunteers.

Fred McKim
10-01-2010, 01:04 PM
I can't picture any test the CFC was to put forward for arbiting, to be as demanding as the FIDE test must have been.

Christopher Field
10-01-2010, 01:29 PM
I agree that we don't want to put a lot of difficulties in the way of amateur organisers. As a long-time organiser and TD, I have simply never found the time to take a course. I have, however, read both FIDE and CFC manuals extensively.

On the other hand, having a certification programme in place is a good idea. Having more potential organisers and directors with more knowledge of tournament needs and conditions can only benefit our players.

I would be willing to serve on this committee.

Christopher Field.

Stuart Brammall
10-01-2010, 01:32 PM
The rigour of any proposed test is not what I am questioning--- it is the wisdom of adding a barrier in the path of potential new volunteers.

Bob Gillanders
10-01-2010, 02:04 PM
Stuart, I hear you loud and clear.

I would oppose any move to make certification mandatory. I do not see the CFC ever refusing to sanction or rate an event because it didn't have a certified TD or organizer on board.

But....improving the quality of our organizers and TD's is certainly a laudible goal..:)

Instead, let us nurture the natural tendency for self improvement....:D

Mark S. Dutton, I.A.
10-01-2010, 02:28 PM
The rigour of any proposed test is not what I am questioning--- it is the wisdom of adding a barrier in the path of potential new volunteers.

How right you are Stuart.

We need to encourage MORE not LESS.

At the same time, we need to step up and help those who do volunteer by assisting them with getting the tools and knowledge they need to do the job as good as possible.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-01-2010, 02:40 PM
It does not hurt to have a licensing system (it's so popular thing in Canada)
Will you allow any volunteer to run a Canadian Open or Closed. (you got a point ;)

(just curious - How many organizers have the CFC? I might go through crosstables to get this info 2010.)

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2010, 09:26 PM
I like how people start jumping on the problems they see with this before I even post what my vision for it is! :eek:

In brief,

I would like to see a three-part system.

The first part has a very simple test - covering basic knowledge that you really SHOULD have before directing a tournament, volunteer or not. You can attempt it any number of times (the point is to learn, not to exclude). Once you pass, you're a certified TDO and can run rated events.

The next part is the NTD certification. This might require some or all of the following: seminars, written/oral tests, "norms", reference checks, interviews. I'm just tossing ideas out here at this point, specific implementation would be decided by the committee. There would probably be a cost to this level, depending on the complexity of the process. NTD would be required before the CFC would support applications for FA/IA/IO titles.

The third part is maintaining a TDO mentoring program. This could take several forms. It would certainly include a forum for TDOs on the CFC site where advice could be sought. It might also include setting up NTD candidates with a mentor arbiter who can provide advice and guidance.

Now, notice that I have used the term TDO throughout, and the reason is after some thought I believe it is important that TDs learn the organizing side, and organizers learn the arbiter side. I've heard too many horror stories, some of them quite recent, about one or the other not knowing what the other was doing and giving conflicting information, so I believe it's important that it be integrated in this fashion.

There has been some suggestion that the provinces run some part of this program, however in my opinion, the last thing we need is another hodgepodge system. I intend to steer the committee towards developing a national system.

As to the question of Mandatory? Not Mandatory? The purpose of the system is to educate, not to exclude. I propose no cost for the lowest level of certification, more than likely some grandfathering of existing TDs to that level (some even to NTD), and newcomers basically either just pass the test right away, or they learn some things and then pass the test and can run events. So, I would argue that after some period of time, it COULD and SHOULD be made mandatory, however that is a question for down the road, I don't propose that it be mandatory right away.

In any case, that is my basic framework. I'm looking for probably four people to work with, I don't want a huge committee, and I wouldn't mind some non-Ontario perspectives either! If you are still interested, please let me know, and of course I'm open to suggestions from the Governors.

Bob Armstrong
10-02-2010, 12:36 PM
Hi Chris:

I understand that you are just forming your committee, and still evaluating volunteers. So it is early on.

You are also already canvassing for ideas on the " mandate " of the committee, which I assume the committee will decide on once formed.

Can I ask that once that is done, that the committee then put out to the members a " TD and TO Discussion Paper ", which sets out a history of the certication issue in Canada, and sets of questions that you feel the committee needs to answer, and on which you would like Member/Public input. I have already canvassed the topic with one member, and there are some very interesting comparisons with the cycling world in Canada, and Commissars and Cycling Organizers. This member would be willing to put in a brief brief to the committee on the questions that might be posed.

Thanks.

Bob

Michael von Keitz
10-03-2010, 12:58 AM
Letting alone the obvious reality that officials in virtually every physical sporting activity go through training prior to being able to step on the pitch, pool deck, or sheet of ice in any official capacity, consider the category of "mental sports," which chess falls under. Even here, the officials are typically required to undergo training - the CFC is the exception, not the rule. The American Contract Bridge League, the American Checkers Federation, the Canadian Bridge Federation, the United States Chess Federation and more, all have some sort of TDOCP in place. Under the CFC's current system, Joe Blow can crawl out of the sewers tomorrow, run a tournament - poorly - and still see the money collected and the event rated by the CFC. To characterize a TDOCP as some affront to current arbiters and organizers is completely contrary to the purposes of the program. This is not a statement that all TDs and organizers in our system are incompetent, but that we can offer a superior product to that which we presently have available - self-directed trial-and-error, with some level of grandfathering for the fortunate few.

In my own personal experience, if anything, I found the lack of a formal TDOCP to be discouraging - in running a few CFC-rated events in my high school days, I had no one to refer to for guidance, saw the mention of a certification program in the handbook, ultimately enquired, and was informed that it had become defunct. The goal of this program is to help potential volunteers, such as my (slightly) younger self, to make a quick transition from inexperienced to fully capable. I don't see that as being a cardinal sin.

All of this said, my vision is slightly different than Chris'. I would like to see a two-tiered system (one for organizers and one for tournament directors), each of which will employ the following: a mandatory one-day seminar, experience as a deputy arbiter (organizer) in one event with no complaints and experience as a chief arbiter (organizer) in one event with no complaints. In my view, meeting these requirements should qualify you for the title of Regional Tournament Director (Organizer). Next, I feel that experience as deputy or chief with three premiere provincial events should qualify you for the NTD (O) title. Once the NTD (O) title has been achieved, you are qualified to start collecting FA/IA (IO) norms by serving as deputy or chief at Canada's premiere events (Closed, Open, etc.).

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 02:31 AM
Hello there, sorry for the late arrival, but here are my 2 input points for now :

1) I also offered to be part of this commitee, and am awaiting that decision.

2) There have already been some posts advocating some kind of mandatory aspects, with some of them, IMHO, rather strongly worded. I guess I would concur most with Stuart above, that we need to be very careful how hard we push this. We cannot even establish a cycle of guaranteed big events, due primarily to lack of Organizer bids, and yet we are considering pushing volunteers away? Seriously guys, from conversations with other TD/O types, many of them often think of hanging it up. So instead, why don't we reset the initial vision of this committee COMPLETELY, to one that only has to do with SUPPORTING TD/O types? IMHO, THAT will improve Organizing/TDing.

Bob Armstrong
10-03-2010, 02:36 AM
This is not really my field, but it seems to me that many want a " voluntary " system.

That is, TD's/O's are encouraged to take the course/test, to improve their own competence, and to perhaps increase the demand for them, by having advertisable credentials.

The system would not be " mandatory ", in that TD's/O's could still operate without the credentials.

Is this a majority view of the governors?

Bob

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 02:44 AM
This is not really my field, but it seems to me that many want a " voluntary " system.

That is, TD's/O's are encouraged to take the course/test, to improve their own competence, and to perhaps increase the demand for them, by having advertisable credentials.

The system would not be " mandatory ", in that TD's/O's could still operate without the credentials.

Is this a majority view of the governors?

Bob
But how does a test actually help volunteers improve? Why not offer mentors?

Michael von Keitz
10-03-2010, 03:41 AM
But how does a test actually help volunteers improve? Why not offer mentors?

I know this wasn't necessarily directed at me, but, in case you might be equating the two, I am advocating for a seminar - not a test. Coupled with practical experience as a deputy TD (O), this seems, in some sense, to equate to mentoring to me.

Bob Gillanders
10-03-2010, 09:10 AM
No that isn't a typo.

I am hearing too many words like mandatory, tests, seminars, qualified. Instead of restricting or screening TD and organizers we need to focus more on the encouragement, assistance, and education of our volunteers. Maybe we should change the name to:

TDOAP = Tournament Directors & Organizers Assistance Program. :D

The first task of the committee could be to start a monthly column in CCN to educate our volunteers and members on the rules of chess and tournament play. Perhaps a quiz or a hypothetical dispute scenario to mediate. The answers would be in the next issue of CCN. Members who give the best answers are acknowledged. A contest. Have some fun with it. :D

Christopher Mallon
10-03-2010, 10:09 AM
I think we need only look to the most recent appeal to the NAC to see why a certification program is needed!

Also please note that mentoring was a part of my plan, there's no need to start up a separate program for that.

Not to mention, if the CFC even wants to *dream* about becoming a registered sporting association.... name ONE of those, just one! that doesn't have mandatory certification for its officials!

Is it wrong to expect even a tiny level of professionalism here? Is it too much to expect them to spend a small amount of time to attain certification?

Stuart Brammall
10-03-2010, 03:30 PM
I do not think having a certification program will substantially reduce the number of desputes similar in nature to the last NAC appeal.
It will prevent people from taking the time out of their lives to run rated events--- Perhaps not in the major centres where experience can be readily accessed, but certainly in rural areas, where competitive chess is just gaining its footing.

Even with the most qualified individual events get screwed up... just look at the Canadian Open.

Aris Marghetis
10-03-2010, 05:25 PM
I know this wasn't necessarily directed at me, but, in case you might be equating the two, I am advocating for a seminar - not a test. Coupled with practical experience as a deputy TD (O), this seems, in some sense, to equate to mentoring to me.
Hi Michael, all right, we seem to be converging! I also like Bob's post below about something like "assistance program", and Stuart's about smaller places.

Michael von Keitz
10-03-2010, 07:25 PM
The first task of the committee could be to start a monthly column in CCN to educate our volunteers and members on the rules of chess and tournament play. Perhaps a quiz or a hypothetical dispute scenario to mediate. The answers would be in the next issue of CCN. Members who give the best answers are acknowledged. A contest. Have some fun with it. :D

What I like about the thought of a seminar is the open dialogue between a group of arbiters of varying experience, facilitating a rapid exchange of knowledge and information. In my view, a monthly column in CCN would not have the same effect, though I would support it as a supplementary focus.

Phil Haley
10-03-2010, 07:35 PM
Excellent posting Chris..."to educate not to exclude" good foundation...Phil Haley

Valer Eugen Demian
10-03-2010, 11:41 PM
This is a must to have and should have never been discontinued even for a brief period of time. Of course the wording can be as mild as possible. I think volunteers will welcome such move and feel more supported by CFC. Mentorship by province can be done in hierarchical order; who wouldn't want to learn more from experienced TDs either first hand or by phone/ email?

I would be interested in this committee too.

Lyle Craver
10-06-2010, 04:21 AM
I have been a certified director for 25 years and found it an important element in my education as a CFC certified TD and my advancement to FIDE International Arbiter.

I agree in the strongest possible terms that the program never should have been given such a low priority but we cannot change history. My personal opinion is that the program nicely mirrors the level 1, level 2, level 3 system for referees adopted by several sports organizations in Canada. Having such a system in place and working (which I do not think it is at present) is an important part for our recognition as a sporting body.

I lean towards making it mandatory for organizers holding FIDE rated and provincial and national events. This would be the equivalent of the level 2 and 3 refereeship.

Other than those points I line up pretty much with Christopher in his first comment on this subject on all points.

Two final points - (1) I have long felt it should not be possible for a person to qualify as a FIDE Arbiter or International Arbiter without simultaneously qualifying as a CFC National Tournament Director

(2) the list of arbiters by province should feature prominently on the CFC website (I'm thinking of something along the lines of what FIDE has on www.fide.com) and TDs should be encouraged to advertise their credentials as part of their tournament ads.

Lyle Craver
10-06-2010, 04:31 AM
One other item I failed to mention is that some years back the French Chess Federation produced a training course for directors which with my limited reading ability in French looked pretty gosh-darned good.

I have heard that the FQE has adapted some of the French materials to their own use.

Perhaps another Governor more fluent in Canada's other official language could care to comment on this?