PDA

View Full Version : 31 Motion 2011-M – Pan-American YCC and North American YCC Representatives



Lyle Craver
04-01-2011, 01:35 AM
Motion 2011-M – Pan-American YCC and North American YCC Representatives

Moved: Anna Jin; Seconded: Bob Armstrong

That section 10 of the CFC Handbook, Rules of procedure for The Canadian Youth Championship Tournaments, section 1012, Participation in World Events, be amended by adding as a paragraph to subsection ( a ), after the words “ the order of finish “, the following:
If the World YCC , and/or the Pan-American YCC, and/or the North-American YCC occur before the same year’s Canadian YCC, then the official players’ selection will be: the highest CFC-rated player from each section as of two months before the event date.

Bob Armstrong
04-01-2011, 08:48 AM
Jin/Armstrong Motion 2011-M Commentary:

It sometimes can happen, as it is partly in 2011, that the winners at the CYCC, held in July of the prior year, who are chosen to represent Canada at the World YCC, the Pan-American YCC or the North-American YCC, have played in their respective tournaments, Then the subsequent year, the WYCC, the PAYCC and/or the NAYCC are scheduled BEFORE that year’s CYCC ( e.g. the July 2011 CYCC is after this year’s PAYCC and NAYCC ). It is felt that the 2010 winners should not be entitled to play twice; also, because of the time lag, some of the winners may have changed age category. Canada needs the strongest players to play in this situation, and current CFC ratings should take precedence in determining the representative. Thus we are making the choice based on ratings two months before the respective event. In such a case, the following CYCC will not award prizes for the tournaments already held.

Also, the “ official players “ at the Pan-American YCC or the North-American YCC in such a situation as in 2011, will still be able to be “ official players “ in the same year for the World YCC, if they are Canadian YCC winners.

Michael Barron
04-01-2011, 08:36 PM
Jin/Armstrong Motion 2011-M Commentary:

It sometimes can happen, as it is partly in 2011, that the winners at the CYCC, held in July of the prior year, who are chosen to represent Canada at the World YCC, the Pan-American YCC or the North-American YCC, have played in their respective tournaments, Then the subsequent year, the WYCC, the PAYCC and/or the NAYCC are scheduled BEFORE that year’s CYCC ( e.g. the July 2011 CYCC is after this year’s PAYCC and NAYCC ). It is felt that the 2010 winners should not be entitled to play twice; also, because of the time lag, some of the winners may have changed age category. Canada needs the strongest players to play in this situation, and current CFC ratings should take precedence in determining the representative. Thus we are making the choice based on ratings two months before the respective event. In such a case, the following CYCC will not award prizes for the tournaments already held.

Also, the “ official players “ at the Pan-American YCC or the North-American YCC in such a situation as in 2011, will still be able to be “ official players “ in the same year for the World YCC, if they are Canadian YCC winners.

Dear Governors,

As a CFC Youth Coordinator, I strongly oppose this Motion.

This issue is currently under discussion on the CFC Youth Committee, and we're close to producing clear, logical and transparent rules which could help us to select official players in such situations.

Anna's idea of using CFC rating as the only criteria for selecting official players was rejected by the Committee.
That's why nobody from Committee members, who are CFC Governors, are unwilling to second her Motion.

I already stated it many times, and could repeat again:
We can't use CFC rating as selection criteria, because it's inconsistent across the country.

Just one example:
World Champion Jason Cao never had high CFC rating, and even after receiving 400 rating points as a "gift", he's not a top rated in his category.
If we pass this Motion, Jason would never have a chance to win World Championship.

Thanks for your consideration!

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-01-2011, 08:47 PM
and we're close to producing clear

Can Governors expect an amendment before this motion goes to a voting stage??

Michael Barron
04-01-2011, 08:52 PM
Can Governors expect an amendment before this motion goes to a voting stage??

Yes, we can! :)

Michael Barron
04-03-2011, 11:29 PM
Here is clear, logical and transparent rules produced by the CFC Youth Committee after discussion:

Definitions
Cycle - period of time between consecutive CYCCs
Qualified players - placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd at most recent CYCC, if their result was at least 50%.

Rules
1. Qualified players are chosen to be official representatives during the cycle in the following order:
1st place in the same age category
2nd place in the same age category
3rd place in the same age category

2. When a player exercises his/her right to be an official representative, he/she moves to the end of the list, and could be chosen again, after other 2 qualified players exercise their right or decline to participate at the event under consideration.

3. If all qualified players in a category decline to participate at the event or move to the older age category before the end of the cycle, the best available player should be selected by the following criteria:

(a) Highest FIDE rating

(b) Highest CFC rating

4. All official players should be CFC members in good standing.


I ask Governors to consider these rules as amended Motion 2011-M and approve them.
In this case we could use them for selecting official Canadian representatives at the 2011 North-American YCC in June.

Bob Gillanders
04-04-2011, 08:24 AM
Michael,

I just spent hours wading thru all the posts on Youth committee discussion, so I am playing catch up myself. Here are my comments:

1. There is no consensus opinion on the Youth committee yet.

2. The 2010 CYCC is a year ago now, 50% of the kids are now in a different age category. Also, 2010 CYCC was never meant as a qualifier for 2011 NAYCC. For these two reasons, 2010 CYCC participation should not be used as a criteria for selecting 2011 NAYCC official players.

3. In addition to #2 issues, 2010 CYCC is a year ago. The kids ability changes a lot in a year. 2010 CYCC performance should not be a factor.

4. Current CFC rating is best (but not perfect) indicator of current strength. Both FQE and FIDE ratings need to be considered. Good arguments are made on Youth committee board. Can we find a reasonable formula to incorporate them into rules, or is some judgement still required?

We need to remember that NAYCC is open to all players. We are just trying to find the right selection rules for the official players that will receive benefits from NAYCC organizers (free accommodations etc). The Youth committee seem to be in agreement on many of the selections. There are a limited number of age/gender categories where there is dispute. Often only between 2 or 3 players. This maybe decided easily if some players decide not to go. If only one player in that age/gender category wants to go, then he/she is the official player. Correct?

In summary, I am inclined to support the original motion. Perhaps it needs some minor amendments to reflect FQE and FIDE ratings.

Where it comes down to a difficult decision between two players, maybe we can find a compromise where they share the benefits of being selected official player? Is this possible?

Comments.

Vladimir Birarov
04-04-2011, 10:03 AM
Bob,

1. There is no consensus opinion on the Youth committee yet.
I think this is not exactly the case. From how I see it, after Michael posted first version of the rules above, it is only the wording which is discussed but most of the committee members agreed on general approach.


2. The 2010 CYCC is a year ago now, 50% of the kids are now in a different age category. Also, 2010 CYCC was never meant as a qualifier for 2011 NAYCC. For these two reasons, 2010 CYCC participation should not be used as a criteria for selecting 2011 NAYCC official players.
All these arguments are correct but still it makes a lot of sense to let the player, who qualified from 2010 CYCC and he/she remains in the same age category, to be "official representative" in 2011 within the "cycle". In all other cases we'll go by highest FIDE and CFC ratings as described in paragraph (3).

Bob Gillanders
04-04-2011, 12:08 PM
All these arguments are correct but still it makes a lot of sense to let the player, who qualified from 2010 CYCC and he/she remains in the same age category, to be "official representative" in 2011 within the "cycle"

Vlad - I disagree. Are you not be definition excluding 50% of the players from being official representative?
That can't be good.:(

Ken Craft
04-04-2011, 12:46 PM
I'm happy to leave the decision in the Executive's hands for this year and look at passing some rules for next year's event.

Vladimir Birarov
04-04-2011, 01:50 PM
Vlad - I disagree. Are you not be definition excluding 50% of the players from being official representative?
That can't be good.:(
Sorry, Bob, I'm not sure if I got your point correctly - which 50% of the players we're excluding? Those who are now in different age category?

Fred McKim
04-04-2011, 01:57 PM
Sorry, Bob, I'm not sure if I got your point correctly - which 50% of the players we're excluding? Those who are now in different age category?

That would be what he was referring to.

They would not have the chance to be the official representative as defending CYCC champion, even in those cases where they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older.

Vladimir Birarov
04-04-2011, 03:00 PM
That would be what he was referring to.

They would not have the chance to be the official representative as defending CYCC champion, even in those cases where they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older.

Thank you, Fred, for trying to explain this to me but ... I'm even more confused now :confused:. This motion comes to resolve situation when we have NA or PanAm YCC prior to CYCC in the same calendar year. The motion says that, in this case, previous CYCC winners (places 1-3) who remained in the same age category have priority to be chosen as official players. And this seems the best we can do. In all other cases we'll use rating to determine the official player.

And, if I understand correctly, in your post "they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older" refers to players who were in their junior years in the previous CYCC, which means this year they may be representatives in the same age category.

Fred McKim
04-04-2011, 03:17 PM
Thank you, Fred, for trying to explain this to me but ... I'm even more confused now :confused:. This motion comes to resolve situation when we have NA or PanAm YCC prior to CYCC in the same calendar year. The motion says that, in this case, previous CYCC winners (places 1-3) who remained in the same age category have priority to be chosen as official players. And this seems the best we can do. In all other cases we'll use rating to determine the official player.

And, if I understand correctly, in your post "they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older" refers to players who were in their junior years in the previous CYCC, which means this year they may be representatives in the same age category.

I'm talking about a 2010 senior year winner who would not be able to exercise his ability to represent in 2011 NA YCC, even though he's obviously stronger than an incumbent junior winner from the year before who is still in the age group.

Bob Gillanders
04-04-2011, 05:02 PM
I'm talking about a 2010 senior year winner who would not be able to exercise his ability to represent in 2011 NA YCC, even though he's obviously stronger than an incumbent junior winner from the year before who is still in the age group.

Thanks Fred. That is precisely my concern. If it is still confusing, then consider this hypothetical case (any resemblance to actual kids is purely coincidental):

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011, so she can't be official player? :(

Vladimir Birarov
04-04-2011, 05:25 PM
Thanks Fred. That is precisely my concern. If it is still confusing, then consider this hypothetical case (any resemblance to actual kids is purely coincidental):

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011, so she can't be official player? :(

Bob, I think for your case to be real concern it should be completed this way:

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011.
There is at least one winner of 2010 CYCC U12 who still eligible to play in U12 in 2011.
Sally's rating is higher than of the winner above.


Only in case when all 4 are true, original motion will pick Sally and Michael's motion the winner from point 3. But if all 4 are true, are you sure it should be Sally?

Bob Gillanders
04-04-2011, 06:00 PM
Bob, I think for your case to be real concern it should be completed this way:

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011.
There is at least one winner of 2010 CYCC U12 who still eligible to play in U12 in 2011.
Sally's rating is higher than of the winner above.


Only in case when all 4 are true, original motion will pick Sally and Michael's motion the winner from point 3. But if all 4 are true, are you sure it should be Sally?

Yes. If all 4 are true, I would pick Sally. That is my point. :)

Michael Barron
04-04-2011, 08:02 PM
Thanks Fred. That is precisely my concern. If it is still confusing, then consider this hypothetical case (any resemblance to actual kids is purely coincidental):

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011, so she can't be official player? :(

Bob,

Of course, Sally is a good player worthy to represent Canada internationally - nobody denies that!
For her victory at 2010 CYCC she got a ride to 2010 WYCC (~$2500 worth) and 2010 PAYCC (~$500) - as the only Canadian player.

Of course, she CAN be official player and this year too.

But let's continue your example:

Molly (now age 11) - 3rd place winner 2010 CYCC (U12) last year when she was age 10.
She wasn't official player at 2010 WYCC (since winner got it), she wasn't official player at 2010 NAYCC (since 2nd place winner got it), she couldn't go to 2010 PAYCC (since her family had other plans for the summer).
But her parents took her to 2010 WYCC for their own expense, where Molly performed well and got FIDE rating higher than Sally.

Molly now is just in the right age for U12 group in 2011, so she can show her best at 2011 NAYCC.

The question:
Could the CFC somehow reward Molly for her 3rd place at 2010 CYCC and dedication to chess?

Just to remind you:
The Motion 2011-B, just passed at the January Online Meeting, says:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1381


(a) Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) is a qualifier to international youth chess competitions.

Top 3 finishers in each section are qualified to become official representatives for:
1) World Youth Chess Championship (WYCC);
2) Pan American Youth Chess Championship;
3) North American Youth Chess Championship.

Thank you for your consideration!

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2011, 10:56 AM
I don't think the ball should just be passed to the Executive. I think the CYCC parents deserve clear rules on how their children are to be treated re prizes and interntional playing opportunities.

I am voting for the original motion. It is clear and simple. It may not be best, and maybe Michael's rules are more sophisticated, but there is a problem with Michael's rules - there is NO Consensus yet among the Youth Committee, as far as I can see, and it seems, as far as Bob G can see, despite Michael and Vlad's assertions to the contrary. I have been working behind the scenes with Anna, Bob G, Michael, and Xuekun Xing ( she has been collaborating with Anna and me on the Motion 2011-M, and is active on the Youth Committtee ). Both Anna and Xuekun have been putting forward behind the scenes possible amendments to Michael's rules to close holes they perceive in it. Though some negotiations may be going on still, I do not see them reaching agreement before it is time for us to vote. Bob G has already informally delayed the start of voting to accomodate these negotiations, hoping a new consensus motion could arise to be voted on. Voting should have started last night, April 4 @ 9:00PM EDT. Once Bob G calls the voting, then there can be no more amendments, nor even debate on the motions under vote.

In terms of the Youth Committee situation, and the lack of review of Michael's rules by the whole Youth Committee, here is a letter from Xuekun on the issue on Monday afternoon:

" Bob G comments: There is no consensus opinion on the Youth committee yet.

Vlad comment: I think this is not exactly the case. From how I see it, after Michael posted first version of the rules above, it is only the wording which is discussed but most of the committee members agreed on general approach.

Evidence based conclusion:

Bob G is correct. Michael's new rule rolled out on page 15 of the Youth Discussion board, afterword Vlad provided a list according to Michael's new rule and Victor provided a list too.

Fact: two lists are different, then Michael explained whose list is right and why.

The rest of the post are maily done by Micheal and Victor about changing the wording. That's true. But we did not hear voice from other members since then.

But before page 15, all members expressed their thoughts and I gave a summary on page 16 about everyone's thoughts.

Only before Michael rolled out his rule, all members expressed thoughts, after Michael's new rule, only Victor clearly expressed support, majority memebrs keep silience.

So There is consensus opinion on the Youth committee before Michael's new rule (67.5% support to use rating) and There is NO consensus opinion on the Youth committee yet after Michael's new rule.

Thanks

Xuekun "

In the light of this letter, and the ongoing behind the scenes negotiations still going on because all are not satisfied with Michael's rules, I wrote to Anna, Michael, Bob G and Xuekun as follows a few minutes ago:

" Hi Anna & Xuekun::

I’m sorry but I am having great difficulty understanding the legislation being proposed – likely because I have not lived with it for months as all of you have ( not member of the Youth Committee ).

But what I do understand is that the Youth Committee has reached NO CONSENSUS yet – everyone is still trying to improve Michael’s rules. And what about the silent rest of the Youth Committee? What are there views? And do they have yet again different proposals to improve Michael’s rules??

Seems to me bringing in Michael’s rules is premature at this point. I think the Youth Committee needs to do a lot more homework on this one. Of course, if you and Michael can agree to something in the dying days of the meeting, all to the good. But it doesn’t look to me from here that you are going to make it, and voting has already been delayed by Bob G beyond the 9:00 PM EDT, April 4 start time in the CFC Handbook. So it has to start soon, and then there can be no more amending motions nor even debate on the motions.

So I am going to vote against Michael’s amending motion, because it obviously still needs to be fine tuned. And we can’t have a law in place for selection for the 2011 NAYCC and 2011 Pan-Am YCC, that people disagree with, and which maybe many do not even understand.

I was able to second Anna’s “ ratings “ motion ( Motion 2011-M ) because it was clear and I could understand it. So I will vote for it.

But I think it requires one amendment, which Anna and Xuekun and I were discussing yesterday. I attach a proposed amending motion ( Motion 2011-M1 ), which requires Anna to tell me which option she wants in the amending motion. Once she advises me, I will go to the meeting and file it on her behalf, and mine.

Hope this is helpful to the ongoing debate “ off the meeting board “.

Bob "

I am still awaiting replies to this letter, and to the request for instructions on the proposed amending motion 2011-M1.

I felt I should share this with the govenors, so that they will understand the background to my intended voting at this point ( unless Michael, Anna, Bob G and Xuekun reach some agreed wording in the next few hours ).

Bob

Vladimir Birarov
04-05-2011, 12:26 PM
Bob A.,
As a member of Youth Committee who actually read all 18 pages of this discussion, I can see many "inaccuracies " in your post and very few correct facts.

From Xuekun's e-mail:


"The rest of the post are maily done by Micheal and Victor about changing the wording. That's true. But we did not hear voice from other members since then.

Your conclusion based on this:


... there is a problem with Michael's rules - there is NO Consensus yet among the Youth Committee ...

From how I see it, your conclusion is completely wrong - lack of responses from "other members" just shows lack of opposition to Michael's rules. If "other members" would want to disagree they would do it - after all they did it on 15 pages :eek: prior to last version of Michael's rules.
What is true, from other side, that there is no consensus on Anna's rules. In fact, she decided to put her motion without knowledge of Youth Coordinator and most of committee members.

Dear Governors,
Please, excuse me for another long post but to make it clear for all I have to include two last posts from Youth Committee board. One is from very active and respectable member Victor Itkin (one of 2011 CYCC organizers as well):

I can not gurantee you that we have consensus among all members, but majority of the members who took active part in this discussion accepted Michael's proposal.

The worst thing in this story is the way how all this have happened:
1. Anna sent an email to Michael, proposing to revoke her initial motion (I have a copy) and substitute it with the new rules proposed by Michael.
2. Michael agreed by return email (I have a copy).
3. Bob A. drafted the new motion (I have a copy).
4. I proposed one small correction (copied it on the Forum).
5. Michael accepted the correction.
6. Bob A. sent email to Anna and Michael (with copy to me) with the final version of the motion.
7. Michael posted this motion at Governor's Forum and asked Anna to support it as it was agreed.
8. As far as I understand (I do not have access to the Governor's Forum) Anna did not support it as she promised.
9. Bob Gillanders made his post today in the morning.

My opinion: Anna was acting in this situation not in a good faith.


And the second one is from Ana herself where she in fact acknowledges agreement with Michael's rules and just asks for small correction:

I did compromise with Michael's motion, as I have no access to board whole day, I ask Bob A help me to amend, Now we come to final step which I only want to add c/ for Junior players who really have good performs during the year.
Qualified players are chosen to be official representatives by following order:
a. 1st place in the same age category
b. 2nd place in the same age category
c. 3rd place in the same age category or 1st place in the proceeding age category whoever has the higher CFC rating.

I will assist Michael's correction move motion M forward. hope will help our players come to NAYCC and Pan-American with CFC gaols: Acknowledge and award excellent, fairness to all players and promote chess in Canada .

Ken Craft
04-05-2011, 12:45 PM
We have a motion on the floor and I assume it is the one we are voting on. Has the mover of the motion been present at this meeting to take part in the debate?

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2011, 12:57 PM
Hi Ken:

To be a bit more accurate, we have an original Motion 2011-M, and an amending motion ( which I refer to as the Barron amendment ), which basically guts the original motion, and replaces it with something else.

Anna has signed in, though she has not herself posted on this thread - but her contributions have been posted here by others continuing the debate.

Bob

Ken Craft
04-05-2011, 01:11 PM
Bob A. that would be a replacement motion. Has the Chair ruled he is willing to allow it to stand in place of the original motion? They seem substantively different. I'm just confused. I just want some guidance on what we are debating and what we wil be voting on.

Vladimir Birarov
04-05-2011, 01:20 PM
We have a motion on the floor and I assume it is the one we are voting on. Has the mover of the motion been present at this meeting to take part in the debate?

It is clear from my previous post that Ana asked Bob A. to amend her motion and to replace it with Michael's one (she posted her message on Youth Committee board yesterday 11:50 PM, so I'm not sure why Bob A. presented this differently).

I did compromise with Michael's motion, as I have no access to board whole day, I ask Bob A help me to amend
If Ana is not here to clearly deny this, then, I think, her motion should be revoked and replaced with Michael's.

Ken Craft
04-05-2011, 01:28 PM
Bob G. makes the rulings here as President. Motions once moved are the property of the Governors. Why do people have a such a difficult time with simple parliamentary procedures?

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2011, 02:07 PM
Hi Ken:

Is Michael's post an amending or replacing motion? I'll have to leave that to Bob G.

All I know is that I am wanting a vote on the original motion, and am trying to get it passed, because as far as I can see, the Youth Committee has not yet had a chance to vote on Michael's " rules ". And I want some rule in place to choose candidates.

Bob

Ken Craft
04-05-2011, 03:08 PM
I await Bob G. straightening this out. Is it possible for governors to have access to the Youth Committee's online discussions?

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2011, 03:08 PM
Hi Vladimir:

After the motion that I drafted, that you refer to, I am not aware of Michael agreeing to the amendment. And after that Anna instructed me that she wanted more changes, and that's where it was left - her still negotiating with Michael to get agreement on her latest wording. And I have had no word from Anna yet that there is any agreement. And that is why the original motion needs to be passed - because it puts some rule in place. The Youth Committee needs to work with Michael more on his " rules ".

That is the very problem - there is no consensus. And is it not true that the Youth Committee has had no opportunity to yet vote on Michael's attempt to capture what the youth committee wants?

And there cannot be consensus when I have two of the active Youth Committee members e-mailing me that Michael's rules are not yet fair ( Anna Jin/Xuekun Xing ).

Bob

Stuart Brammall
04-05-2011, 03:50 PM
Perhaps to avoid future confusion the governors on the youth committee could provide some sort of precis of their proceedings-- a simple accounting of the committee members for and against a course of action would helpful.

Vladimir Birarov
04-05-2011, 04:39 PM
Bob G. makes the rulings here as President. Motions once moved are the property of the Governors. Why do people have a such a difficult time with simple parliamentary procedures?

Who has "difficult time with simple parliamentary procedures"? :eek: I don't.
I just expressed my opinion and used phrases such as "I think ..." and "from what I see ..." to make it clear that it is my personal opinion.

Governor who moved the original motion (Ana) clearly stated that she is willing to amend her motion and replace it with Michael's. I realize that she didn't do it here, on this thread. That's why, in my opinion, she has to be here to either confirm or deny. Would it be OK with you, Ken, to vote on this motion without the mover presenting for debates and answering these questions? Would it be according to parliamentary procedures?

Vladimir Birarov
04-05-2011, 04:54 PM
I'm sorry, Bob, I don't see it this way. If you think that
The Youth Committee needs to work with Michael more on his " rules ". then no motion should be voted now, Youth Committee will keep discussing, and for 2011 NAYCC list of official player will be left for discretion of Youth Coordinator and approval of CFC executives.


And there cannot be consensus when I have two of the active Youth Committee members e-mailing me that Michael's rules are not yet fair ( Anna Jin/Xuekun Xing ).
Bob
So, if I'll e-mail you saying that Ana's rules are not fair then you'll realize there is no consensus on it either?

And more about consensus - last post from Victor Itkin on committee forum:

I do not see any sense to continue discussion on this Forum until Anna's "rating" motion would be revoked from voting on the Governor's Forum.
At least I'll not participate in this discussion anymore.

Daxin Jin
04-05-2011, 06:00 PM
Hi Guys,

Sorry I have no access to the board during the day, I did not amend or revoke my original motion . According to my understanding there are still disagreements in Youth Commitee board.

Michael Barron
04-05-2011, 11:02 PM
Hi Guys,

Sorry I have no access to the board during the day, I did not amend or revoke my original motion . According to my understanding there are still disagreements in Youth Committee board.

Dear Governors,

I have a written agreement of Daxin Jin to amend the Motion according to recommendation of Youth Committee.

The majority of the CFC Youth Committee support the following clear, logical and transparent rules produced by the CFC Youth Committee after lengthy discussion:

Definitions
Cycle - period of time between consecutive CYCCs
Qualified players - placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd at most recent CYCC, if their result was at least 50%.

Rules
1. Qualified players are chosen to be official representatives during the cycle in the following order:
1st place in the same age category
2nd place in the same age category
3rd place in the same age category

2. When a player exercises his/her right to be an official representative, he/she moves to the end of the list, and could be chosen again, after other 2 qualified players exercise their right or decline to participate at the event under consideration.

3. If all qualified players in a category decline to participate at the event or move to the older age category before the end of the cycle, the best available player should be selected by the following criteria:

(a) Highest FIDE rating

(b) Highest CFC rating

4. All official players should be CFC members in good standing.


Since Daxin apparently changed her mind after the agreement was reached, I move, and Vladimir Birarov second the following Motion:
To amend Motion 2011-M by replacing initial text by clear, logical and transparent rules produced by the CFC Youth Committee after discussion.

In this case we could use them for selecting official Canadian representatives at the 2011 North-American YCC in June.

Thank you for your consideration!

Vladimir Birarov
04-05-2011, 11:14 PM
Since Daxin apparently changed her mind after the agreement was reached, I move, and Vladimir Birarov second the following Motion:
To amend Motion 2011-M by replacing initial text by clear, logical and transparent rules produced by the CFC Youth Committee after discussion.


This is to confirm that I second the motion moved by Michael Barron.

Bob Armstrong
04-05-2011, 11:59 PM
I have been advised by two very active members of the Youth Committee, one a governor ( Anna Jin ) and the other a non-governor ( Xuekun Xing ), both of whom have children in the Canadian youth chess system, that Michael's rules in his amending motion are not yet completely fair - they put the junior players in an age bracket at a disadvantage when choosing candidates.

Also, given that there are at least two Youth Committee members opposed to Michael's rules as currently drafted, there is obviously no unanimous consensus of the Youth Committee.

Also, I have been told that there were pages and pages of Youth Committee discussion on this on the Youth Committee discussion board, that went every which way. Michael came out with a list, when people wanted a set of rules. Only after Anna filed her motion ( or maybe gave notice of her intention to file ) did Michael then draft up and present his current rules. And as far as I am aware, the Youth Committee has never had a formal vote on whether Michael's rules satisfy all, or the majority of the Youth Committee.

For these reasons, I think Michael's rules require further discussion and voting in the Youth Committee. I think they are currently still suspect.

So I will be voting against the amendment.

But I do think some rule needs to be in place - and the Jin Motion 2011-M is simple and clear, as Bob G has earlier stated. It may not be best , and may not be too sophixticated, but it will give a clear rule as to choosing candidates for the 2011 NAYCC and Pan-Am YCC. So I am voting for Motion 2011-M. What passing the motion will do , is fill the current vaccuum. A rule will then be in place, should nothing better come forward in the near future.

I would strongly urge, however, that the Youth Committee deal with this matter immediately after this meeting. If Michael, in a vote of the Youth Committee can get a majority for his rules, then there is no reason he cannot then file a motion again amending the new section. This can be done by e-mail vote of the governors within a week or so. And this can be done, even if this meeting defeats the Barron Amendment, and passes Motion 2011-M.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
04-06-2011, 01:05 AM
I was expecting to see a compromise solution when I got home tonight! :confused:

Vladimir Birarov
04-06-2011, 01:16 AM
And as far as I am aware, the Youth Committee has never had a formal vote on whether Michael's rules satisfy all, or the majority of the Youth Committee.
Youth Committee is purely advisory, no voting done there has any formal power.


Also, given that there are at least two Youth Committee members opposed to Michael's rules as currently drafted, there is obviously no unanimous consensus of the Youth Committee.
I wonder, why consensus among Youth Committee members is so important in case of Michael's rules and has no importance at all for Ana's motion?


But I do think some rule needs to be in place - and the Jin Motion 2011-M is simple and clear ...
I realize that this is an advantage for the rule to be simple and clear but it can not be its self-purpose. Rules are to assure fairness in the process and, in my opinion, Michael's motion definitely does a better job here.

Also, I think Michael's rules are very clear. All that they do is to add one (but superior) condition - in case we have the player who in his/her junior year was among CYCC winners, this player will have priority to be chosen as official representative for the next (his/her senior) year events scheduled prior to CYCC. In all other cases we'll use rating system(s) - the same as in original motion.
Using example of Sally and Molly, if Molly was place 1-3 in 2010 CYCC U12 being 11 years old and Sally wasn't, then Molly will be our official player in U12 for 2011 NAYCC (since it is scheduled before 2011 CYCC) regardless of the fact whose rating is higher. If you think this not the way it should be, then we just might cancel CYCC and choose players to represent Canada based on their ratings (which is, of course, simple and clear).

Ken Craft
04-06-2011, 07:19 AM
Bob G., could you please provide guidance on what we will be voting on? ie. original motion, etc.

Bob Gillanders
04-06-2011, 07:31 AM
Also, I think Michael's rules are very clear. All that they do is to add one (but superior) condition - in case we have the player who in his/her junior year was among CYCC winners, this player will have priority to be chosen as official representative for the next (his/her senior) year events scheduled prior to CYCC. In all other cases we'll use rating system(s) - the same as in original motion.
Using example of Sally and Molly, if Molly was place 1-3 in 2010 CYCC U12 being 11 years old and Sally wasn't, then Molly will be our official player in U12 for 2011 NAYCC (since it is scheduled before 2011 CYCC) regardless of the fact whose rating is higher. If you think this not the way it should be, then we just might cancel CYCC and choose players to represent Canada based on their ratings (which is, of course, simple and clear).

Thank you Vlad. If I am understanding your last post correctly, the two competing motions maybe more similar than they appear. They appear to be miles apart, but maybe not. Maybe I am just wishful thinking?

If you could elaborate on your motion a bit, continue the Sally, Molly whatever example to illustrate Michaels rules, then we can all understand it better. Just stating the rules are clear, transparent, whatever, doesn't make it so. They are not. :(

I am out all day, and can't comment further until late this evening. But there is no voting on the governors meeting until thursday anyway. So still time for everyone to come together, or to explain there position better. :D

Bob Gillanders
04-06-2011, 07:34 AM
Bob G., could you please provide guidance on what we will be voting on? ie. original motion, etc.

There will be no voting on this issue until governors are given an opportunity to understand it. :)

Ken Craft
04-06-2011, 07:45 AM
Maybe the Governors should be given full access to the Youth Committee's discussions. It feels like a vote by the Governors on a motion is being held up by discussions we as Governors do not have access to.

Daxin Jin
04-06-2011, 08:43 AM
Here is Natalia Khoudgarian WIM post in Youth commitee

I agree with Bob. According to Michael's rules the kids who are changing the age category will be "non-priority" compare to players who are staying in the same category. And how about players who did not compete in CYCC of previous year? They might be top Canadian players and just because of some circumstances missed the event.
In regards of Youth Committee consensus: how many members do we have? How many members voted? Did we have a final vote? Are there any alternatives to Michael's rules that we can consider?

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2011, 08:54 AM
So we now have 3 members of the Youth Committee who have reservations about the exact wording and operation of Michael's attempt to capture the various positions put forward over pages and pages of posts in the Youth Committee ( Governor Anna Jin, WIM Natalia Khoudgarian ( former Canadian Women's Champion ), and CYCC parent Xuekun Xing ). How many more Youth Committee members would have reservations if they were given a chance to vote? - which they have not been.

Natalia has now added her voice to those of Anna and Xuekun, who say there is not yet a Youth Committee consensus.

Bob

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2011, 09:09 AM
The Cooperative Chess Coalition would like to confirm that it understands that the Youth Committee is only an advisory body to the Youth Coordinator.

But members volunteering should be given clear voices. And one of the ways of determining issues among competing positions is for there to be a vote. That way the majority will of the advisory body is clearly and firmly established. Otherwise someone is making subjective judgments about what the position of the advisors is.

Of course, the Youth Coordinator is always free to do as he wants in terms of his final decsion, but it is hoped that volunteer CFC member opinions will have some weight.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator

Vladimir Birarov
04-06-2011, 10:04 AM
Thank you Vlad. If I am understanding your last post correctly, the two competing motions maybe more similar than they appear. They appear to be miles apart, but maybe not. Maybe I am just wishful thinking?


Original motion suggests to solely use ratings in qualification process.
Michael's motion suggest to use results of the recent CYCC when possible, and only then ratings.

So, the difference is small but important.

The main idea of amending motion:
Within period of time between consecutive CYCCs (called "cycle") winning places 1-3 in the recent CYCC gives priority during the qualification process regardless of the fact if the event under consideration happens to be scheduled the same year as recent CYCC or next year. The only problem with "next year" event is that some (or maybe most) of the winners will change age categories but this is beyond our ability to fix. What we aim to is to give the winner of the recent CYCC who remained in the same age category his/her earned right to represent Canada.

I'll be happy to answer any question regarding Sally/Molly example I gave in my previous post.

Stuart Brammall
04-06-2011, 12:28 PM
The Cooperative Chess Coalition would like to confirm that it understands that the Youth Committee is only an advisory body to the Youth Coordinator.

Did the CCC have an in depth discussion to reach this consensus? It appears to me that perhaps the CCC supports Bob A.'s opinion in the same way the youth committee supports Michael B.'s.

It is difficult for me to accept there is consensus in either of these groups, and I will not be taking recommendations from either anymore seriously then I would a recommendation from their respective cheifs.

Lyle Craver
04-06-2011, 05:32 PM
I oppose any motion that would replace use of ratings with a subjective selection criteria.

I freely acknowledge that particularly with rapidly improving juniors ratings are an imperfect tool. This has never NOT been the case even back when I was a junior (in the late 1960s) and ratings were done on 3"x5" file cards well before Jonathan Berry's first rating program!

However barring a consistent national championship cycle (and I understand the current dilemna is not of the CFC's making) replacing ratings with a selection board pretty much guarantees cries of unfairness from one part of the country or another. (Particularly from the parent of some kid who was not selected) Where I come from that is called "asking for it"

I agree we've got a tough decision to make and that nobody in this country is to blame. All we can do is make a decision and get on with it. (This primarily means age, but could also mean FIDE status) Use of ratings is not perfect but it is less imperfect than any other selection criteria.

One thing I would say very strongly however - no junior should be eligible to play in a provincial or national championship if he/she is not eligible to take part in the event that winning that tournament would qualify him/her for. (This would normally mean age, but could also mean FIDE status)

Vladimir Birarov
04-06-2011, 07:15 PM
I oppose any motion that would replace use of ratings with a subjective selection criteria.

Completely agree with you, Lyle! That's why we need some rules in place.

The facts are:

original motion substitutes CYCC results with rating
amending motion fixes it to be in accordance with "consistent national championship cycle" even in cases when international event happens to be prior to same year CYCC

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2011, 11:00 PM
Did the CCC have an in depth discussion to reach this consensus? It appears to me that perhaps the CCC supports Bob A.'s opinion in the same way the youth committee supports Michael B.'s.

It is difficult for me to accept there is consensus in either of these groups, and I will not be taking recommendations from either anymore seriously then I would a recommendation from their respective cheifs.

Hi Stuart:

It might be helpful here if I give you some info on how the Cooperative Chess Coalition operates. I am authorized, as CCC Coordinator, to take positions for the group, where we have not had time for prior discussion. However, I must put all posts dealing with CCC in a " Weekly Posts Log ". Then every Friday, the group gets this Log. If they have any concerns about anything I've said, then it is immediately raised for group discussion. If I have spoken out of turn, then it is determined what public correction I should make. Seems pretty democratic to us.

I'm not sure Michael has gone back to his Youth Committee with his " rules " yet , to get their confirmation. I will be going on Friday to get the confirmation of my group, re my post here.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

Bob Armstrong
04-07-2011, 11:58 PM
Unfortunately, I must now leave the meeting and it looks like I will totally miss the voting.

I have seconded the original motion for Anna. Should any opinion be required of the seconder in my absence, I am satisfied to have Anna speak for me, and I will support whatever she says or does.

Bob

Bob Gillanders
04-08-2011, 01:01 PM
There will be no voting on this issue until governors are given an opportunity to understand it. :)

We have two motions competing motions before the governors. There does not appear to be any further negotiations between the Anna and Michael groups. Both motions do have merit and I thank everyone for their contributions. I am concerned that some governors not involved in the youth programs will feel uninformed on the issue, and will understandably avoid the vote. I also regret we have not heard from many of our youth committee members on this issue.

I need to go out for a bit. I will be back about 3:30 with a few comments and some final decisions on voting. Thank you everyone for your patience.

Bob Gillanders
04-08-2011, 05:12 PM
Okay, I'm finally back.
It would appear everyone has had their say, and we are all waiting for the vote. It would have been preferable if the youth committee had reached a consensus opinion to present to the governors for approval, but that is not the case.

Governors will be asked to choose between the two motions presented by Anna and Michael. If anyone wants to make a last minute comment, go ahead. Lyle will be opening the voting booth late this evening or early tomorrow, at which time the debate (or lack of) will end. I am going out for the evening in a few minutes, so I will leave the exact timing to Lyle, whatever fits his schedule.

Voting polls will be open until monday evening.

Michael Barron
04-08-2011, 11:29 PM
Dear Governors,

To feel informed on the issue, you need to know the following:

1) The CFC Youth Committee prepared, and the Assembly of Governors passed at the January Online Meeting the Motion 2011-B:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1381


(a) Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) is a qualifier to international youth chess competitions.

Top 3 finishers in each section are qualified to become official representatives for:
1) World Youth Chess Championship (WYCC);
2) Pan American Youth Chess Championship;
3) North American Youth Chess Championship.

It means that 3 CYCC winners in each section have right to represent Canada in different international competitions.

2) Two very active members of the Youth Committee ( Anna Jin and Xuekun Xing ), both of whom have children in the Canadian youth chess system, were not happy with the rules.
Their children have the highest CFC rating in their respective sections, and these two members of the Committee want to change established rules to allow their children to get a free pass to ALL international competitions.

3) The CFC Youth Committee consists of 16 members, and after discussion the majority confirmed that CYCC is the qualifier to international competitions, and CYCC winners should represent Canada in different international competitions.
To clarify the established rules, the CFC Youth Committee proposed the following Motion:

Definitions
Cycle - period of time between consecutive CYCCs
Qualified players - placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd at most recent CYCC, if their result was at least 50%.

Rules
1. Qualified players are chosen to be official representatives during the cycle in the following order:
1st place in the same age category
2nd place in the same age category
3rd place in the same age category

2. When a player exercises his/her right to be an official representative, he/she moves to the end of the list, and could be chosen again, after other 2 qualified players exercise their right or decline to participate at the event under consideration.

3. If all qualified players in a category decline to participate at the event or move to the older age category before the end of the cycle, the best available player should be selected by the following criteria:

(a) Highest FIDE rating

(b) Highest CFC rating

4. All official players should be CFC members in good standing.

4) But two very active members of the Youth Committee still insist that we should ignore CYCC and use only CFC rating for qualification.

That's why we have two competing motions before the Governors.
Hopefully, now Assembly of Governors has all necessary information to make a right decision for the benefit of Canadian youth chess.

Thank you for your consideration!

Lyle Craver
04-08-2011, 11:31 PM
The big question I had when reading both motions was whether these motions were to apply to THIS P-A YCC and NAYCC or ALL future P-A and NA YCCs.

Based on the wording of both that I see it seems the latter is the case.

Michael Barron
04-08-2011, 11:41 PM
The big question I had when reading both motions was whether these motions were to apply to THIS P-A YCC and NAYCC or ALL future P-A and NA YCCs.

Based on the wording of both that I see it seems the latter is the case.

Yes, Lyle, you're correct - these motions are to apply to ALL future international chess competitions:
WYCCs, P-A YCCs, NA YCCs, and many others competitions, where Canada never participated.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-08-2011, 11:55 PM
"Motion 2011-M2: Moved Michael Barron; Seconded: Vladimir Birarov
That section 10 of the CFC Handbook, Rules of procedure for The Canadian Youth Championship Tournaments, section 1012, Participation in World Events, be amended to read:"


Now this motion would change TOO MANY THINGS.

The 1012 section had more about than Official representatives.

The whole 1012 (see http://www.chess.ca/section_10.shtml )


"1012.Participation in the World Events:

[Motion 2011-B moved by Vladimir Birarov, seconded by Valer Demian

INVITED PLAYERS

(a) Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) is a qualifier to international youth chess competitions.

Top 3 finishers in each section are qualified to become official representatives for:

1) World Youth Chess Championship (WYCC);

2) Pan American Youth Chess Championship;

3) North American Youth Chess Championship.

If the winner is unable to participate, the second place finisher shall be invited to go in his place. If the second place finisher also declines, the highest finisher in the tournament who is willing to participate in the world event (if not rejected by CFC Executive due to the sub paragraph (d)), shall be selected. The CFC Board of Directors shall use an appropriate tie-breaking method to break ties if required to determine the order of finish.

All official representatives to WYCC should receive financial support from CFC to reduce their travel expenses.

(b) Players with the Special Rights according to FIDE rules will be eligible to participate at WYCC notwithstanding their participation at CYCC. In case of participation at CYCC, CFC will pay the cost of transportation for such players to WYCC in full.

ADDITIONAL PLAYERS

(c) 2nd and 3rd prize-winners (including tie-breakers for 2nd and 3rd places) in each category will be eligible to participate at WYCC using their own funds.

(d) All other CYCC participants wishing to participate at WYCC are eligible to submit to CFC their applications for participation during 15 days after ending of CYCC. CFC Executive has the right to reject the application if the applicant's level at their discretion is significantly lower than the average level of his/her category at WYCC. All players whose applications are approved will be eligible to participate at WYCC using their own funds plus paying extra fee of $150 to CFC Youth Program fund.

(e) 3 top CFC rated players in each category (by January 1st of the current year) if not able to participate at CYCC due to extraordinary circumstances, and wishing to participate at WYCC, are eligible to submit to CFC their applications for participation at WYCC before the start of CYCC. CFC Executive has the right to reject the application at their discretion if applicant's circumstances are not valid and/or exceptional. All players whose applications are approved will be eligible to participate at WYCC using their own funds plus paying extra fee of $300 to CFC Youth Program fund. "

Please clarify what would be actual changes in 1012.

Michael Barron
04-09-2011, 12:02 AM
Now this motion would change TOO MANY THINGS.

The had more about than Official representatives.

The whole 1012 (see http://www.chess.ca/section_10.shtml )



Please clarify what would be actual changes in 1012.


Actually, the proposed Motion clarifies the 1012 section.

I would add it as subsection (f) to the 1012 section.

Christopher Mallon
04-09-2011, 09:15 AM
I thought the whole point of having a Youth Committee was so that things like this could be figured out BEFORE getting to the step of being voted on by the Governors. I've read this thread straight through and I'm still confused as to what exactly is going on. I don't personally buy any of the rationale behind the changes either.

Michael Barron
04-09-2011, 07:47 PM
I thought the whole point of having a Youth Committee was so that things like this could be figured out BEFORE getting to the step of being voted on by the Governors. I've read this thread straight through and I'm still confused as to what exactly is going on. I don't personally buy any of the rationale behind the changes either.

Chris,

I would agree with you - I personally think that the Motion 2011-B passed at the January Online Meeting was clear enough.

Unfortunately, not for everyone.
Two very active members of the Youth Committee demand to nominate their children as official Canadian representatives at the 2011 NAYCC, despite the fact that they both already were official Canadian representatives at different international youth chess competitions twice since the last CYCC.

The Youth Committee rejected their demands, but how could we prevent them from bringing this issue before the Governors?
Especially such very active Governor as Bob Armstrong? :rolleyes:

And do we need to prevent them?
Maybe it's better to explain them publicly that their demands are unreasonable?

Just like Hazel Smith did it on ChessTalk - please see:
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?p=35421#poststop

Thank you for your consideration!

Bob Gillanders
04-09-2011, 10:01 PM
Michael. Debate ends when the voting booth opens.
Why are you still campaigning. You know better. :mad:
Lyle - you should close this thread. :(

Michael Barron
04-09-2011, 10:17 PM
Michael. Debate ends when the voting booth opens.
Why are you still campaigning. You know better. :mad:
Lyle - you should close this thread. :(

Sorry, Bob. :(

I also thought that debate was finished, but if Chris still has some questions, I just felt that I should address them... ;)

Bob Gillanders
04-09-2011, 10:22 PM
Sorry, Bob. :(

I also thought that debate was finished, but if Chris still has some questions, I just felt that I should address them... ;)

Then you should have answered his questions, and stopped at that! :mad:

Michael Barron
04-09-2011, 10:38 PM
Then you should have answered his questions, and stopped at that! :mad:

Sorry again, Bob, but I did exactly that.

If you could answer his question:
"what exactly is going on?"
better, please do it. ;)