PDA

View Full Version : 7. 2013-P Amendments to Class Certificate Program (Bond/Gillanders) - commentary only



Michael von Keitz
09-30-2012, 06:20 PM
That the following clauses be added to Section 7, p.738b): "ix. Should a player have a norm result after the first 5 rounds of play, regardless of subsequent results within the same event, a norm shall be awarded"; and "x. Should a player's performance after 4 rounds of play in an event be such that a norm result is guaranteed regardless of result in the fifth round, that player shall be awarded a norm, whether the fifth round is played or not."

Michael von Keitz
09-30-2012, 06:20 PM
This may be split for voting purposes, depending on governor feedback.

Christopher Mallon
10-01-2012, 05:06 PM
I have some issues here.

First of all, as the one who lead the development of the system, and as the one who wrote the software that gives us a nice easy list of who has which titles, it may have helped to run this by me ahead of time!

I have big issues with both proposals. The main one is that the whole system was designed to be SIMPLE, with very few loopholes (if any), and one that a computer could, in a matter of less than 10 seconds, spit out a list of every CFC member in the database and what title they are eligible for.

Both proposals will ruin that computer capability, forcing us to do everything by hand. Not to mention adding two more layers of confusion to something that should be dead-simple.

A 6-round event does not always pair the first 5 rounds the same as a 5-round event pairs the 5 rounds - they can be (not always) different, in other ways as well (# of players for example). An event should be taken as a complete set of games, not breaking them up.

The improvement we SHOULD be making to the system is to automate the titles to run every week right after new ratings are uploaded, and to display people's titles on their rating pages. I've suggested this extremely minor thing several times now. I can even easily make the software post a list directly to the forums of everyone who earned a new title each week (once the website displays them, anyway). So long as this proposed motion doesn't ruin that software capability, of course.

Pierre Dénommée
10-01-2012, 11:24 PM
The software argument is an excellent reason to vote against the motion.

Should a player's performance after 4 rounds of play in an event be such that a norm result is guaranteed regardless of result in the fifth round, that player shall be awarded a norm, whether the fifth round is played or not.
is a good proposal. FIDE has a similar proposal aimed at preventing a player from deliberately depriving the opponent of a norm with an intentional no-show forfeit in the ultimate round. I doubt that anybody would try such a trick at the CFC level. FIDE norms are hard to get whereas CFC norms are much easier. So even if an irresponsible opponent deliberately scraps a norm, it won't be long before the victim achieve his norm.

Christopher Mallon
10-02-2012, 06:30 AM
The software argument is an excellent reason to vote against the motion.

Should a player's performance after 4 rounds of play in an event be such that a norm result is guaranteed regardless of result in the fifth round, that player shall be awarded a norm, whether the fifth round is played or not.
is a good proposal. FIDE has a similar proposal aimed at preventing a player from deliberately depriving the opponent of a norm with an intentional no-show forfeit in the ultimate round. I doubt that anybody would try such a trick at the CFC level. FIDE norms are hard to get whereas CFC norms are much easier. So even if an irresponsible opponent deliberately scraps a norm, it won't be long before the victim achieve his norm.

It's also highly unlikely... say you are earning a Class-A norm with around a 1900 performance rating required. To absolutely guarantee a norm in the 5th round regardless of opponent rating, you would actually need something around a 2300 performance rating over 4 rounds.

We will not have the same problem FIDE has with no-shows, as under CFC rules no-shows are rated, and thus will show up in the system as a game played. (Handbook 718/733)

The only case where it would not be rated is if both players fail to show up - and why should the first player get a norm in that case?

Thanks for the support on the software argument though :)

Bob Gillanders
10-02-2012, 10:26 AM
Yes, Chris you should have been consulted. :o

In the interests of keeping it simple, and we should, for practical reasons I suggest we use your software to calculate the titles earned, ignoring for the moment this proposed amendment.

If the amendment passes, in the rare cases where it applies, the player can simply email the CFC and ask for a review.

Fred McKim
10-02-2012, 10:30 AM
Yes. That is the only practical way to implement this.

Pierre Dénommée
10-02-2012, 12:52 PM
733 also mention that Games marked F or D (for Forfeit or Default) will not be rated (rule 718) unless they are also marked R (for Rated).

It looks like there is arbiter discretion when reading 733 but I see no such discretion in 718. Furthermore, a player may advise the director 1 minute before the beginning of the round which is too late to change the pairings but the player has still advised in advance :). In this case, there is arbiter discretion. It is unlikely but still possible.



We will not have the same problem FIDE has with no-shows, as under CFC rules no-shows are rated, and thus will show up in the system as a game played. (Handbook 718/733)

Vladimir Drkulec
10-04-2012, 11:26 AM
I am not sure what problem this proposal is seeking to address. It seems to me that the system is working and many people seem to be interested in the system as it is currently implemented. It seems to me that there is a bit of an inequity in the proposed rule in that a norm result is not possible in a four round event but you can have a norm result after four rounds. As Pierre says most people who achieve the required performance will sooner or later achieve the required norms without this new rule. I don't think that we should make it too easy to get a norm as then the whole system becomes a joke.

The system as it currently works relies on very little human intervention and that is very good as it is possible for this job of checking norms to be very time consuming as it was when we first came up with the system before Chris automated it.

I will be voting against this proposal.

Bob Armstrong
10-04-2012, 11:50 AM
I also will vote against the motion - the cure is worse than the problem.

Bob A

Michael von Keitz
10-04-2012, 06:05 PM
This motion arose out of member feedback. In one case, the player in question has health problems that prevent him from playing 5 rounds in a weekend Swiss. In the days of his having better health, he accumulated 2 norms and missed out on a third. This last being an exceptional result over 4 rounds that, due to his health, could not be stretched further. Of course, back then, the program was not in place and his playing strength and ability to fight through the pain to attend events in general has fallen since.

In the other case, the player had a norm result after five rounds of play. Had he withdrawn, his norm would have been secured and, in fact, would have counted for the category above the class in question. Instead, he played on in an attempt to continue his winning streak. Again, this was during a time when the program was not in place, and he ended up with a perf slightly below the floor.

That's the context, for what it's worth. I believe we may also eventually have a request that a norm result over 10 rounds be counted as two norms.

Egidijus Zeromskis
10-04-2012, 08:58 PM
Until there is a software solution, a player could inform the office of his or her results during first five rounds, which could be checked by (maybe) a Rating Auditor later.

Christopher Mallon
10-04-2012, 09:28 PM
I still don't see the issue. You want to break the automation, increase the workload on whomever is administrating it, and add two levels of complexity to the rules for a couple of edge cases...

If someone is good enough to earn a title, they will earn the title, even if it might take just a little bit longer.

If you can't tell, I strongly oppose this.

Michael von Keitz
10-06-2012, 04:51 PM
The basic argument is that foreknowledge of the future availability of this program would have changed the chosen actions of these individuals (and others like them) in the past. The suggestion that a player good enough to earn a title will earn that title eventually anyway is fraught with assumptions. Much like some players pursuing NM titles under the old system would withdraw from events if they were in danger of having their rating fall too low prior to completing their string of 25 games, these players would have, in one case, played a fifth game to secure his final norm (painkillers and all) and, in the other, withdrawn after five rounds. Edge cases, or not, history denied them the opportunity to make a fully informed decision. That said, the intent of the motion was for the "exemptions" to apply uniformly to all title applicants, as opposed to strictly favouring the "victims," and, of course, it seems this is destined to fail.

Lyle Craver
10-07-2012, 07:24 PM
Regretably I have already voted on this motion but based on the discussion have changed my mind.

I would argue that it is entirely appropriate that a player be allowed to challenge a non-norm ruling on the basis of the ideas expressed in this motion (one remembers how some 40 years ago Duncan Suttles failed to get a GM norm in similar circumstances at the Olympiad) but that we definitely should not cripple how crosstables are handled to do so.