PDA

View Full Version : 12. Class Certificates Motions (Chris Mallon) (re-designated as 2012-G1 and 2012-G2)



Lyle Craver
09-30-2011, 03:43 AM
I have re-designated Chris' motions 2012-G1 and 2012-G2. Please note that the mover requests 2012-G2 be conditional on the passage of the first motion.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in bringing these to a vote!

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2011, 12:04 PM
Motion #1
That the CFC Handbook be amended as follows:

Delete Section 738 (Certificate of Life Master) and replace with:

Section 738. Rating Categories, Titles and Certificates.

a) The CFC officially recognizes the following titles, rating classes and CFC rating floors: National Master (2200), National Candidate Master (2000), Class A (1800), Class B (1600), Class C (1400), Class D (1200), and Class E (1000).

b) To achieve standing for any class or title, the player must:
i. Have at some point had a published CFC rating above the minimum rating floor for that category or title
ii. Have in three separate tournaments achieved a norm, which is a performance rating at least 100 points above the rating floor
iii. For the purposes of these norms, only CFC ratings count, and the player must have played at least five games.
iv. Matches may not be used as a norm.
v. An event can be used as a norm for multiple classes - for example, a 2300 performance event can be a norm used by the same player for Class A, National Candidate Master AND National Master.

c) Certificates. The CFC will provide, free of charge, certificates to those who achieve the title of National Master or any higher title that the CFC chooses to award. Certificates for lower titles or classes are not automatically provided, but may be requested. The CFC Executive is empowered to set a fee for this service not to exceed $10 including shipping.


Motion #2

To be abandoned should Motion #1 not pass. That Section 738 a) of the CFC Handbook be amended as follows:

Insert "Senior National Master (2400)," prior to "National Master".
I split it into 2 motions because I do not want people opposed to the SNM title to possibly delay or even derail the whole motion as has happened in the past with other motions.

I believe Vladimir Drkulec has seconded these motions but he can confirm that. I switched the wording back from Category to Class to avoid confusion with the FIDE tournament rating categories.

Fred McKim
10-01-2011, 04:04 PM
I wonder if you should call these in 738 part a) as "life titles, rating classes, etc"

How is the administration to work ? Does the player contact the business office or rating auditor, perhaps ? Is a list to be maintained ?, etc

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2011, 06:08 PM
That sort of thing is more of a "regulation" rather than something that goes in the handbook. The Exec can decide the best way to handle that, including what fee level up to $10 to charge for the service.

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2011, 06:26 PM
It shouldn't cost $10 to do them, but the NM ones are free... so setting the fee at $10 you could contract someone to do them as they come in and it should basically pay for itself with a little extra to that person for their time.

I would suggest that they should be signed, probably by one of the President, Secretary, Ratings Auditor, or perhaps the ED. (With a nice pen, btw...) So finding someone local to one of these people would be the best bet. Shouldn't be too hard.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-01-2011, 07:16 PM
I'm willing to support Motion #1.

As for Motion #2 - no. I'm opposing the Senior in the title. Chess has a tradition with a Grand.

Lyle Craver
10-01-2011, 07:31 PM
I don't have a problem with the use of 'Senior' for 2400+ players.

Both the CFC and USCF have used the term Senior Master for 50+ years that I personally know of - not sure how far further back it goes so it's not like the Senior Master title is at all new.

Vladimir Drkulec
10-01-2011, 09:19 PM
I split it into 2 motions because I do not want people opposed to the SNM title to possibly delay or even derail the whole motion as has happened in the past with other motions.

I believe Vladimir Drkulec has seconded these motions but he can confirm that. I switched the wording back from Category to Class to avoid confusion with the FIDE tournament rating categories.

I can confirm that I have seconded these motions.

Vladimir Drkulec

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2011, 10:08 PM
Lyle, clarification - You didn't give these motion numbers, are they being voted on?

Pierre Dénommée
10-02-2011, 04:32 PM
I wonder if it is not too easy to get those title.

There should be a maximum number of unrated opponent for a norm to be valid.

The rating of the title candidate must not be provisional

There should be at least one third of the opponents belonging to a class or to a higher class then the class that the player is attempting to achieve. For example, for a class B title, at least on third of the opponents must be from class B or above.

Christopher Mallon
10-02-2011, 04:51 PM
Pierre, it would be virtually impossible to get any of the higher titles with a provisional rating in any case. As for the rest, it was designed to make it extremely easy to calculate - a simple database query could probably produce a list of anyone who qualifies for a certain title. Some people actually thought my requirements were too difficult in the prior discussion.

Valer Eugen Demian
10-03-2011, 07:29 PM
I'm willing to support Motion #1.

As for Motion #2 - no. I'm opposing the Senior in the title. Chess has a tradition with a Grand.

I second this opinion. With all due respect introducing the Senior title for ratings between 2200 - 2400:
A) Is meaningless (those players most certainly have FIDE ratings and aspirations);

B) Overlaps FIDE (why change something already working for several years);

C) The word "Senior" has negative connotations regardless if they are intended or not. ICCF has done the same thing long ago by introducing the Senior International Master title (SIM - ICCF) and ever since it is considered by people the poor relative of the other two: IM - ICCF and GM- ICCF.

Michael von Keitz
10-05-2011, 02:09 AM
Lyle, can you get these motions up for vote?

Bob Armstrong
10-05-2011, 11:07 AM
Lyle:

How come these 2 motions ( Mallon/Drkulec ) are not being voted on now??

Bob A

Vladimir Drkulec
10-05-2011, 01:00 PM
Lyle, can you get these motions up for vote?

I have the feeling that if we can bring this in we might close at least some of the enthusiasm gap that exists between CFC and USCF chess so lets make it a voting item ASAP.

Christopher Mallon
10-05-2011, 04:38 PM
At this point the President has at least three times instructed the Secretary to get these motions up for vote.

I'm not sure why it hasn't happened.

Valer Eugen Demian
10-07-2011, 06:29 PM
Thank you to all who voted in general and this split motion in particular! It is my hope we will stop talking about "new" categories preceded by the word "Senior" after the crystal clear voting on the issue this time around... We have enough areas deserving our full attention to afford wasting time on these kind of ideas...

Christopher Mallon
10-07-2011, 08:03 PM
By the way, I would be happy to work with the Exec (Fred I guess) on an interim mostly-automated method to produce lists of who has which title, until such time as it can be programmed into either the website itself or the rating software.

Michael von Keitz
10-10-2011, 12:53 AM
Chris Mallon presented two motions, one introducing formal rating categories/titles, the other specifically proposing the title of "Senior National Master." The first motion was generally well received, while the second motion was not. Some concern was raised that the titles might be too easy to achieve, but, in fact, previous discussions raised opposite concerns - that the requirements were too stringent. Ease of calculation was also cited as a reason for the system being proposed as it was. Regulations surrounding the implementation of the program were deferred to the executive, while Chris offered his expertise in assisting to develop an interim solution for the production of lists of those having earned titles.