8. New Business

[Michael von Keitz]

New business goes here.

[Michael von Keitz]

NOTE: The following is presented for discussion. It will be on the agenda in April.

2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson)

i) The following alterations to the Olympic rules are to remove the selection committee and use only the selection rating for team inclusion.

1) Delete 904 (a) and renumber other parts of 904. Remove reference to selection committee on 904 (b)

2) Delete 905 and renumber other sections.

3) Alter 906 (b) & (c). (ii) alter "three highest rated players" to "four highest rated players" , (iii) delete

4) Alter 911 (a) - delete "he or she shall be replaced by the next player on the Selection Committee List. If the Selection Committee List is exhausted,"

ii) The following alterations to the Olympic rules are to alter the selection rules and role of the team captain.

1) 904 (f) In title alter "Election" to "Appointment" .... Delete "The players shall submit their votes for Team Captains" and replace by "The Team Captain will be appointed"

2) 908 Selection of Team Captains

(a) For each team the CFC Executive will receive applications from interested individuals.

(b) Applications must be received by 105 days before the start of the Olympiad.

(c) The best candidate for the position(s) will be chosen by the executive or a sub-committee, taking into account the duties of the captains as outlined in 913.

3) 913 Add (b) Aiding with game analysis and preparation for upcoming opponents. Reorder other sections.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

With regard to 2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) how would this function in light of the FQE-CFC agreement where we agreed that they would have a voice on the selection committee? It seems to me that getting this voice was at least one impetus to their wish to enter into such an agreement. If you eliminate the selection committee (which in general seems like a good idea to me) then we need an agreed upon formula to convert between FQE ratings and CFC ratings for purposes of choosing national teams before we eliminate the committee or at least at the same time as we eliminate the committee.

[Fred McKim]

Michael. I think you can clear this up, but these are meant to be two separate motions.

The rules on the selection committee is Rekhson / McKim
The rules on the captain position are McKim / Rekhson

[Fred McKim]

With regard to 2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) how would this function in light of the FQE-CFC agreement where we agreed that they would have a voice on the selection committee? It seems to me that getting this voice was at least one impetus to their wish to enter into such an agreement. If you eliminate the selection committee (which in general seems like a good idea to me) then we need an agreed upon formula to convert between FQE ratings and CFC ratings for purposes of choosing national teams before we eliminate the committee or at least at the same time as we eliminate the committee.

I don't see a problem. If there is a selection committee it is obvious they want a voice. If there is no committee then, they don't need a voice. I would think that the issue of rating equivalency may come up in either case

[Michael von Keitz]

I am seeking an interpretation from Chris Mallon and/or Vlad Drkulec on section 438 b) i. Is this clause understood to include players that have gone over a particular floor as the result of a ratings boon, only to fall back below, without ever having broken the floor as the result of tournament play?

[Christopher Mallon]

My interpretation is that if they were over the threshold then it's fine.

For example, if their Peak Rating is 2005, then they are eligible for NCM if they have the three performance norms, doesn't matter how they achieved that 2005 rating.

My software already functions in this way.

[Michael von Keitz]

Perfect! Thanks.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I would agree with Christopher on this question. A rating achieved by a rating boon is not distinguishable from one achieved by performance in tournaments.

[Bob Armstrong]

I don't think I can support this motion, when it comes up at the 2013 Spring Meeting.

I think the concept of the Selection Committee purpose is still sound - to build a very small bit of flexibility into the Olympiad team selection process. It allows Canada to bring in a clearly underrated player, who equals in strength the rating selected team members.

But I don't think the Committee should ever be selecting more than one member of the team. The Rating Selection should be the objective norm that generally applies to the majority of team positions.

But we should keep the door open for the system to take advantage of the unusual circumstance.

Bob A

[Vladimir Drkulec]

I don't think I can support this motion, when it comes up at the 2013 Spring Meeting.

I think the concept of the Selection Committee purpose is still sound - to build a very small bit of flexibility into the Olympiad team selection process. It allows Canada to bring in a clearly underrated player, who equals in strength the rating selected team members.

But I don't think the Committee should ever be selecting more than one member of the team. The Rating Selection should be the objective norm that generally applies to the majority of team positions.

But we should keep the door open for the system to take advantage of the unusual circumstance.

Bob A

The problem with the selection committee approach is that it is never then about the clearly underrated player. It is about the different members of the committee applying their personal and regional biases. For some people, representing their country in an Olympiad is a very significant dream and milestone in their chess career. Anything that is done to make this process less transparent, objective and fair, by introducing personal biases and something as unscientific as having a committee make decisions about chess strength, seems to me to be wrong. If we could get borrow the enchanted mirror from the Snow White fairy tale we might ask it who the strongest chess player was but we don't have that luxury.

[Vlad Rekhson]

After witnessing all the unnecessary quarreling in respect to the selection committees of the last two Olympiads, I believe that anything would be better than a selection committee. Deciding by rating would be just as good as, if not better than any other system. Of course, there can be disadvantages to that, but if we agree on it now then at least we will know that there will be no bias in respect to one player or another.
As an alternative to deciding by rating strictly, one spot could be decided by a special tournament, which of course would be quite expensive to organize. It could also be decided by a special formula figuring out a rating trajectory of a “hot” player, but since I don’t want to design such a formula I wasn’t going to make a motion considering that possibility. In fact, drawing a random lot among the top five contenders for the last spot, would still be better than having a selection committee!

[Christopher Mallon]

No need for a special tournament Vlad. Just take the top 5 finishers from the Canadian Closed.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Please clarify: If motions would pass during the Spring session (April, 2013), would they be applied for 2016 and afterwords Olympiads?

2014 Olympiad (in Tromso) starts on 2014 August 1. The CFC selection process starts one year + 180 days before the Olympiad, roughly February 1, 2013.

In a case a motion to scrap the Selection committee would be presented for vote, I would move a conditional motion to increase the number of rated games to 20 in this clause:
"iii) Have played at least 10 regular CFC rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad)."

[Christopher Mallon]

Please clarify: If motions would pass during the Spring session (April, 2013), would they be applied for 2016 and afterwords Olympiads?

2014 Olympiad (in Tromso) starts on 2014 August 1. The CFC selection process starts one year + 180 days before the Olympiad, roughly February 1, 2013.

In a case a motion to scrap the Selection committee would be presented for vote, I would move a conditional motion to increase the number of rated games to 20 in this clause:
"iii) Have played at least 10 regular CFC rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad)."

It used to be 20 didn't it? Maybe 8-10 years ago?

[Michael von Keitz]

Please clarify: If motions would pass during the Spring session (April, 2013), would they be applied for 2016 and afterwords Olympiads?

The intention of the mover and seconder is for these regulations to apply for 2014. Under our current rules, things truly get underway no less than 180 days before the Olympiad, with the appointment of the Selection Committee. If this motion were to pass in April, that process would not yet have begun.


I would move a conditional motion

Amendments may be discussed with Fred and Vlad prior to the April meeting. Their purpose in presenting the motion now was to garner feedback.

[Christopher Mallon]

The intention of the mover and seconder is for these regulations to apply for 2014. Under our current rules, things truly get underway no less than 180 days before the Olympiad, with the appointment of the Selection Committee. If this motion were to pass in April, that process would not yet have begun.



Amendments may be discussed with Fred and Vlad prior to the April meeting. Their purpose in presenting the motion now was to garner feedback.

The problem is that while the Selection Committee might not be involved yet... the ratings period will have already started by April and so the rules would be getting changed DURING the process.

[Michael von Keitz]

The problem is that while the Selection Committee might not be involved yet... the ratings period will have already started by April and so the rules would be getting changed DURING the process.

I am not convinced it's a major issue. Although the Handbook says 10 games, Ilia has always gone with 20 (e.g. here (http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2180-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-National&p=15632#post15632)). As far as the players are concerned, this won't be a change in policy.

[Félix Dumont]

With regard to 2013-S Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) how would this function in light of the FQE-CFC agreement where we agreed that they would have a voice on the selection committee? It seems to me that getting this voice was at least one impetus to their wish to enter into such an agreement. If you eliminate the selection committee (which in general seems like a good idea to me) then we need an agreed upon formula to convert between FQE ratings and CFC ratings for purposes of choosing national teams before we eliminate the committee or at least at the same time as we eliminate the committee.

The solution is actually rather simple : why wouldn't we use FIDE ratings?
It would be much better and simpler... I still can't believe we consider CFC ratings for the Olympiads, while we all know that they are not accurate at all and highly depend on the number of tournaments a player participates in every year.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I am not convinced it's a major issue. Although the Handbook says 10 games, Ilia has always gone with 20 (e.g. here (http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2180-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-National&p=15632#post15632)). As far as the players are concerned, this won't be a change in policy.

There are other posts:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2322-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-Women&p=16454#post16454
Seems that the real threshold is 10 games. Ilya just stopped counting games after it reached 20 games.

[Christopher Mallon]

The solution is actually rather simple : why wouldn't we use FIDE ratings?
It would be much better and simpler... I still can't believe we consider CFC ratings for the Olympiads, while we all know that they are not accurate at all and highly depend on the number of tournaments a player participates in every year.

Because your FIDE rating also depends highly on the number of tournaments you participate in, and some players have better access to FIDE events than others.

I will be interested to see if the upwards trend in the number of FIDE events in Canada is affected by the ridiculous new arbiter tax FIDE has decided on. I for one have no intention of paying for the "privilege" of running events which funnel even more money into FIDE.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I still can't believe we consider CFC ratings for the Olympiads

Own shirt is always warmer LOL

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

The intention of the mover and seconder is for these regulations to apply for 2014.

It the original motion would be accepted for 2014 Olympiad, I don't think that the required number of games (10->20) can be changed then.

[Michael von Keitz]

There are other posts:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2322-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-Women&p=16454#post16454
Seems that the real threshold is 10 games. Ilya just stopped counting games after it reached 20 games.

Hmmmm... In that case, it is a potential problem. In any event, the mover and seconder of the amendment can specify that it comes into effect for the next cycle, or some other governors can propose that amendment to the amendment. We can also have a special meeting next month for the purposes of dealing with this motion. For these reasons, I still don't see this amendment as a drop dead issue for the purposes of implementing these changes for 2014, should they be adopted by resolution of the assembly.

[Pierre Dénommée]

The sole purpose of a selection committee is to avoid personality clash and poor team players in the National Team. A good individual player may be a poor team member.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

The solution is actually rather simple : why wouldn't we use FIDE ratings?
It would be much better and simpler... I still can't believe we consider CFC ratings for the Olympiads, while we all know that they are not accurate at all and highly depend on the number of tournaments a player participates in every year.

That may be the simplest way to avoid protracted struggles over conversion formulae. If we filter out people who are inactive all three lists will show that certain same "usual suspects" return to the short list regardless of which ratings we use.

TOP 12 by FIDE

1 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2606
2 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2568
3 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2510
4 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2484
5 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2464
6 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2462
7 Rabinovich, Alex Thornhill, ON 2423
8 Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2420
9 Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2416
10 Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2402
11 Cheng, Bindi Toronto, ON 2397
12 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2397

Top Players by CFC Rating

1 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2684
2 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638
3 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2598
4 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2588
5 Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2576
6 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2571
7 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2571
8 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2547
9 Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2517
10 Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2490
11 Cheng, Bindi Toronto, ON 2485
12 Doroshenko, Maxim Vancouver, BC 2482

Top FQE ratings

1 50264 LESIEGE Alexandre 2587.26 Montréal
2 100535 KOVALYOV Anton 2586.25 Montérégie
3 100539 SAMBUEV Bator 2579.25 Montréal
4 102390 CASTELLANOS Renier 2516.25 Montréal
5 91708 CHARBONNEAU Pascal 2509.25 Montréal
6 48295 ROUSSEL-ROOZMON Thomas 2466.24 Montréal
7 10012 COUDARI Camille 2432.24 Montréal
8 10495 HEBERT Jean 2417.25 Montérégie

[Pierre Dénommée]

The CFC must act in such a way that the CFC rating is perceived as important and relevant. Selecting on another rating would completely devaluate one of our greatest assets.


The solution is actually rather simple : why wouldn't we use FIDE ratings?
It would be much better and simpler... I still can't believe we consider CFC ratings for the Olympiads, while we all know that they are not accurate at all and highly depend on the number of tournaments a player participates in every year.

[Michael Barron]

No need for a special tournament Vlad. Just take the top 5 finishers from the Canadian Closed.

Good idea!

A possible modification:
With annual Canadian Closed select winners of last 3 Canadian Closed Championships plus top finishers from the latest one.

[Fred McKim]

It the original motion would be accepted for 2014 Olympiad, I don't think that the required number of games (10->20) can be changed then.

OK. These are still intended to be 2 separate motions. One concerns the selection committee, the other concerns the team captain.

While I would support the number of games required increasing to 20, I would see this as a separate motion - and as Michael says would probably not be able to be changed until the 2016 Olympics.

I personally wouldn't be in favour of increasing the number of spots from the Canadian Closed (as it stands: 1).

[Christopher Mallon]

I personally wouldn't be in favour of increasing the number of spots from the Canadian Closed (as it stands: 1).

I'm not in favour either, I just mentioned it as the obvious choice if that was the route to go with.

Egis, I'm willing to second an actual motion (not just an amendment) stating something like "That the required number of games to qualify for the National or National Women's teams be changed from 10 to 20 (handbook section 906 a3)." We can discuss it for the duration of this meeting and Michael can decide when we vote on it, with the understanding that it takes effect for the 2014 Olympiad (so the vote would have to conclude before February 1st)...

Also I note that the way the regulations are currently worded, this rule actually applies to ANYONE wanting to be on the team, including the Canadian Champion and the Selection Committee list.... not sure if this is intentional or not.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Egis, I'm willing to second an actual motion stating something like "That the required number of games to qualify for the National or National Women's teams be changed from 10 to 20 (handbook section 906 a3)."

Deal. I moved, you seconded.

Please find a new motion subject to a Secretary/President formal approval to make it valid for 2014 Olympiad and beyond, i.e., it should be voted before February 1.


Moved by Egidijus Zeromskis
Seconded Christopher Mallon

That the required number of games to qualify for the National or National Women's teams be changed from 10 to 20 (handbook section 906 a3).
where 906 a3 is:
"iii) Have played at least 10 regular CFC rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad)."
A new version will be read
"iii) Have played at least 20 regular CFC rated or FIDE rated games during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad)."

Rationale:
gauge a current strength of potential Olympiad team members.
keep in form (active) players.



As for the champion exclusion - need to think how to formulate.

[Félix Dumont]

That may be the simplest way to avoid protracted struggles over conversion formulae. If we filter out people who are inactive all three lists will show that certain same "usual suspects" return to the short list regardless of which ratings we use.


Top Players by CFC Rating

1 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2684
2 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638
3 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2598
4 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2588
5 Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2576
6 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2571
7 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2571
8 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2547
9 Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2517
10 Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2490
11 Cheng, Bindi Toronto, ON 2485
12 Doroshenko, Maxim Vancouver, BC 2482


So, if Eric loses 15 rating points, he would not make the team? And if, for some reasons, we had to choose between Eric and Nikolay, we would pick Nikolay? I'm sorry, but I could never support a motion that would automatically select the players according to their CFC rating.


The CFC must act in such a way that the CFC rating is perceived as important and relevant. Selecting on another rating would completely devaluate one of our greatest assets.

The CFC rating is great for amateurs, but is pointless for strong players. Are Russian players selected for their FIDE rating or their local rating?

We want a team composed of the best players. And it's not like if I was saying this to favorize Quebec players ; we already have two qualified GMs and no real chance of a third player in the team. I would just feel very bad if a strong player (like Eric Hansen) was not qualified, because of a national rating.

[Fred McKim]

Is there a lot of support for going with only FIDE ratings ?? We should deal with it now. It solves any potential problem with Quebec ratings.

[Bob Armstrong]

Is there a lot of support for going with only FIDE ratings ?? We should deal with it now. It solves any potential problem with Quebec ratings.

I like the idea of going with FIDE ratings.

It eliminates the possible inflationary effect of a strong player playing only in Canada, and making fodder of the local weekenders, and adding to his CFC rating. However, it is to be noted that now most top weekend tournament sections are also FIDE rated. But the issue still holds of whether there is strong enough FIDE rated opposition in Canada, that meet regularly in weekenders. Also, this new phenomenon helps the FIDE ratings to stay current, whereas in the past they could tend to get " stale ".

Additionally, it will encourage top Canadian players to play internationally. This is good for Can. chess reputation abroad ( possible tournament invites ), and is good for chess promotion in Canada, as seen by the interest in followiing Eric Hansen, Aman Hambleton, Raja Panjwani, Leon Piasetski, Alexandra Botez and Liza Orlova, in their recent and current tournaments abroad.

Bob A

[Fred McKim]

I'm thinking that any modification to the number of games or going FIDE only maybe shouldn't apply to the Women, but that doesn't solve the FQE problem, either. Thoughts ?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

If you make the requirement 20 games there are a few of the top women that may need to scramble to qualify. I'm not saying that would be a bad thing but you might need to reach down into lower rating and age groups in order to find women or girls who have played enough. At least one of the top girls might not be available because of school (Yuanling Yuan). I would also not apply the 20 game rule to the winner of the Canadian Closed. If you are good enough to win the zonal and Canadian Championship you probably don't need an activity rule. Changing the basis of selection from the current one will probably hurt the chances of one or two players and help the chances of one or two players.

Top Females by FIDE rating
1 Yuan, Yuanling Toronto, ON 2220
2 Khoudgarian, Natalia Toronto, ON
3 Botez, Alexandra Burnaby, BC 2024
4 Peng, Jackie Richmond Hill, ON 1993
5 Roy, Myriam Varennes, QC 1985
6 Kalaydina, Regina-Veronicka Calgary, AB 1958
7 Agbabishvili, Lali York, ON 1954
8 Du, Jasmine Halifax, NS 1885
9 Renteria, Manuela Toronto, ON 1876
10 Zhou, Qiyu Ottawa, ON 1861
11 Xiao, Alice Huanyi Vancouver, BC 1854
12 Serbanescu, Natasa Thornhill, ON 1799

Top Females by CFC rating

1 Yuan, Yuanling Toronto, ON 2336
2 Khoudgarian, Natalia Toronto, ON 2284
3 Peng, Jackie Richmond Hill, ON 2214
4 Agbabishvili, Lali York, ON 2108
5 Du, Jasmine Halifax, NS 2084
6 Botez, Alexandra Burnaby, BC 2038
7 Zhou, Qiyu Ottawa, ON 2007
8 Roy, Myriam Varennes, QC 1971
9 Kalaydina, Regina-Veronicka Calgary, AB 1962
10 Xiao, Alice Huanyi Vancouver, BC 1859
11 Serbanescu, Natasa Thornhill, ON 1845
12 Liu, Jiaxin Richmond Hill, ON 1736

[Vlad Rekhson]

I would support going with only FIDE rating.

[Michael Barron]

Are Russian players selected for their FIDE rating or their local rating?


The Russian players selected by Selection Committee, where the Team Captain has the decisive voice.
Could you imagine any rating system where Peter Svidler doesn't make the team? :confused:



We want a team composed of the best players. And it's not like if I was saying this to favorize Quebec players ; we already have two qualified GMs and no real chance of a third player in the team.

I would think, both Pascal and Thomas have real chances to make the team.
All they have to do - is to start playing chess again and meet activity requirement.

Any rating system is screwed, because different players play in different tournaments.
Players from smaller provinces don't have as many chances to boost their CFC rating as Ontario players.
On the other hand, not every Canadian player can afford to travel to Europe and Latin America to boost his FIDE rating.

The only fair selection criteria - is the direct competition between interested players.

[Paul Leblanc]

I sort of feel obliged to say that the Canadian team should be selected using the Canadian rating system. The emphasis should be on getting our strong players to support Canadian events, not get their 10 or 20 FIDE rated games in Europe and be eligible for the team without competing actively in Canada.

[Edward Porper]

The Russian players selected by Selection Committee, where the Team Captain has the decisive voice.
Could you imagine any rating system where Peter Svidler doesn't make the team? :confused:



I would think, both Pascal and Thomas have real chances to make the team.
All they have to do - is to start playing chess again and meet activity requirement.

Any rating system is screwed, because different players play in different tournaments.
Players from smaller provinces don't have as many chances to boost their CFC rating as Ontario players.
On the other hand, not every Canadian player can afford to travel to Europe and Latin America to boost his FIDE rating.

The only fair selection criteria - is the direct competition between interested players.

That's a great idea - as long as it can be done. The top 8 or 10 players by rating play a round-robin to determine 4 remaining spots on the team (one goes to the current champion). In that case everybody deserving would get a fair chance, and there could be absolutely no complaints.
Yet, if such a tournament is too expensive to organize, the selection criteria should remain fair and transparent - and that's either a straightforward choice by rating or a possible rating-change formula mentioned by Vlad Rekhson. Everything should work as long as it's objective and known to every interested party in advance

[Michael Barron]

That's a great idea - as long as it can be done. The top 8 or 10 players by rating play a round-robin to determine 4 remaining spots on the team (one goes to the current champion). In that case everybody deserving would get a fair chance, and there could be absolutely no complaints.
Yet, if such a tournament is too expensive to organize, the selection criteria should remain fair and transparent - and that's either a straightforward choice by rating or a possible rating-change formula mentioned by Vlad Rekhson. Everything should work as long as it's objective and known to every interested party in advance

Sorry, Edward, if I was not clear enough... :(

How selecting top 8 players by rating to play a round-robin is better than selecting top 5 players by rating to play at the Olympiad? :confused:

The latest example:
Canadian Junior Championship that was last week in Toronto.
Top 10 juniors by rating competed in this event.
It was a great Championship!
But...
The previous Champion that convincely won Canadian Junior less than a year ago wasn't even invited to defend his title!
Why?
Because his rating isn't high enough... :(

We have already a tournament where the best Canadian players compete:
Canadian Closed Championship.

We need to use the results of Canadian Closed to select the Canadian Team.
To eliminate accidental anomalies we could use results for last 2 or 3 years.

[Edward Porper]

Sorry, Edward, if I was not clear enough... :(

How selecting top 8 players by rating to play a round-robin is better than selecting top 5 players by rating to play at the Olympiad? :confused:

The latest example:
Canadian Junior Championship that was last week in Toronto.
Top 10 juniors by rating competed in this event.
It was a great Championship!
But...
The previous Champion that convincely won Canadian Junior less than a year ago wasn't even invited to defend his title!
Why?
Because his rating isn't high enough... :(

We have already a tournament where the best Canadian players compete:
Canadian Closed Championship.

We need to use the results of Canadian Closed to select the Canadian Team.
To eliminate accidental anomalies we could use results for last 2 or 3 years.

You would be right, Michael, if the Closed were indeed Closed. Limit it to 10 or 16 qualifiers from the provincials +past champions and possibly, a couple of highest rated players - and I am fully with you on that.
As such, it would indeed be the most important chess tournament for Canadians. As it is, it's just another Open where EVERYBODY has to pay an entry fee, and there are essentially no conditions. No wonder, not everybody can afford it. Besides, it would be too late for any _current_ Olympiad - would you automatically disqualify someone who didn't play a year ago? Or even two years?
I think that the selection should be current - apart from being fair and transparent, of course.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

I sort of feel obliged to say that the Canadian team should be selected using the Canadian rating system. The emphasis should be on getting our strong players to support Canadian events, not get their 10 or 20 FIDE rated games in Europe and be eligible for the team without competing actively in Canada.

The regional stagnation of the CFC rating is the main reason it can not be used alone. The more valuable information gives FIDE rating, especially if players go to Europe. In the Olympiad, players will play not against Canada, but other countries. Thus, their results on the international level provided more information than their internal affairs. There are not many Canadian tournaments which provide international type opportunities.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

You would be right, Michael, if the Closed were indeed Closed. Limit it to 10 or 16 qualifiers from the provincials +past champions and possibly, a couple of highest rated players - and I am fully with you on that.

Even this kind of tournament would not truly represent actual power. An exaggerated example - Nakamura's results (disaster) at London grand prix :)

[Paul Leblanc]

I think most Canadians with FIDE ratings earned them in Canadian tournaments. So the regional differences probably exist for their FIDE ratings as well.
Nobody I know in BC travels to Europe except Michael Yip and he doesn't play in BC!

[Vlad Rekhson]

To me creating a special qualifying tournament is not something that we should be looking at currently, because the Olympiad members are not being paid, so now we would also ask them to spend money in order to go to a special tournament in order to qualify for a team? This would disqualify many good team members who would not be able to go to such an event.

As far as ratings are concerned, if all we had in Canada were CFC ratings, it would probably be fine to include them in the calculation, but in Quebec they are rarely used, so I think that it would be best to just go with FIDE.
FIDE ratings are often inaccurate for the lower rated players, but they are quite accurate for those rated 2400+.

[Félix Dumont]

I think most Canadians with FIDE ratings earned them in Canadian tournaments. So the regional differences probably exist for their FIDE ratings as well.
Nobody I know in BC travels to Europe except Michael Yip and he doesn't play in BC!

The problem is that CFC gives bonus points, while FIDE doesn't. The more CFC games someone plays, the higher his rating will be, while if he doesn't get better, his FIDE rating should stay about the same. Even if no chess player played outside of Canada, FIDE ratings would still be way more accurate.

[Bob Gillanders]

The problem is that CFC gives bonus points, while FIDE doesn't. The more CFC games someone plays, the higher his rating will be....

Felix, no. This has been debated at length, again and again and again, bonus points do not necessarily create inflation. As long as their effects do not overcompensate for the natural deflationary pressures inherit in the system, then there is no net inflation. Our rating auditor, Paul, monitors the system to ensure that no inflation is taking place.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Technically bonus points do cause inflation but this should offset the deflation from players leaving the system at higher ratings than they started at. Going with straight FIDE ratings probably makes the system for selection simpler but it will return the same result as the current blended system. With respect to the current players it seems to me I understood that the current blended CFC-FIDE system uses a peak rating so as not to discourage those on the bubble from playing.

[Bob Gillanders]

Technically bonus points do cause inflation but this should offset the deflation from players leaving the system at higher ratings than they started at.

Thanks Vlad. You explained it better than me. I came back to edit my post, and soften the tone. I just get so mad when people criticize the CFC rating system, which, IMHO, is superior to the FIDE system!

Yes, you heard me. Superior! :)

[Michael Barron]

You would be right, Michael, if the Closed were indeed Closed. Limit it to 10 or 16 qualifiers from the provincials +past champions and possibly, a couple of highest rated players - and I am fully with you on that.
As such, it would indeed be the most important chess tournament for Canadians. As it is, it's just another Open where EVERYBODY has to pay an entry fee, and there are essentially no conditions. No wonder, not everybody can afford it. Besides, it would be too late for any _current_ Olympiad - would you automatically disqualify someone who didn't play a year ago? Or even two years?
I think that the selection should be current - apart from being fair and transparent, of course.

Why should we limit participation?
The more players - the better!
IMHO, every Canadian master deserves to play at Canadian Closed.

As for conditions...
Hopefully, new Fundraising Coordinator could find a sponsor which will provide decent conditions for all Canadian Closed participants... :cool:

Of course, the selection should be current!
Next Olympiad will be in August 2014.
Canadian Closed 2013 could be a qualifier for Olympiad 2014.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Perhaps a blended approach might be suggested. The top CFC rated player, the top FIDE rated player and the top FQE rated player plus the top two players at the Canadian Closed with any remaining spots determined by FIDE rating. If a player qualifies by multiple criteria his spot doesn't move to the next in line but goes to the next highest rated FIDE player not qualified by another means.


Olympiad Selection List using blended approach
1. Bator Sambuev qualifies by Canadian Closed and Highest CFC
2. Anton Kovalyev qualifies by highest FIDE and highest FQE rating among active players and also 2nd place at Canadian Closed
3. Eric Hansen qualifies by next highest FIDE rating.
4. Leonid Gerzhoy qualifies by next highest FIDE rating among those not qualified otherwise.
5. Nikolay Noritsyn qualifies by next highest FIDE rating.
6. Aman Hambleton qualifies by next highest FIDE rating.
7. Tomas Krnan qualifies by next highest FIDE rating. (Rabinovich hasn't played the requisite number of games)
8. Edward Porper qualifies by next highest FIDE rating.
9. Raja Panjwani qualifies by next highest FIDE rating.
10. Bindi Cheng qualifies by next highest FIDE rating.

TOP 12 by FIDE

1 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2606
2 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2568
3 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2510
4 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2484
5 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2464
6 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2462
7 Rabinovich, Alex Thornhill, ON 2423
8 Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2420
9 Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2416
10 Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2402
11 Cheng, Bindi Toronto, ON 2397
12 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2397

Top Players by CFC Rating

1 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2684
2 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638
3 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2598
4 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2588
5 Krnan, Tomas Burlington, ON 2576
6 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2571
7 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2571
8 Samsonkin, Artiom Toronto, ON 2547
9 Panjwani, Raja Kitchener, ON 2517
10 Porper, Edward Edmonton, AB 2490
11 Cheng, Bindi Toronto, ON 2485
12 Doroshenko, Maxim Vancouver, BC 2482

Top FQE ratings

1 50264 LESIEGE Alexandre 2587.26 Montréal
2 100535 KOVALYOV Anton 2586.25 Montérégie
3 100539 SAMBUEV Bator 2579.25 Montréal
4 102390 CASTELLANOS Renier 2516.25 Montréal
5 91708 CHARBONNEAU Pascal 2509.25 Montréal
6 48295 ROUSSEL-ROOZMON Thomas 2466.24 Montréal
7 10012 COUDARI Camille 2432.24 Montréal
8 10495 HEBERT Jean 2417.25 Montérégie

[Edward Porper]

Why should we limit participation?
The more players - the better!
IMHO, every Canadian master deserves to play at Canadian Closed.

As for conditions...
Hopefully, new Fundraising Coordinator could find a sponsor which will provide decent conditions for all Canadian Closed participants... :cool:

Of course, the selection should be current!
Next Olympiad will be in August 2014.
Canadian Closed 2013 could be a qualifier for Olympiad 2014.

Words have meanings, Michael, don't you think? :-)
Closed is something that is _not for everybody_, by definition. It's a privilege that should be earned, not bought!
That said, I personally don't mind Canadian Closed 2013 becoming THE qualifier - because there is no way it can become A qualifier. There is simply no time to consider Canadian Closed 2014 for the same purpose. And, as you understand, if that is voted for, no quantum leap would allow _anybody_ who didn't do well in this particular tournament to make the team a year later :-)
As for the new FC, I'll do my best - yet it's not worth confusing me with God gracious...

[Bob Armstrong]

I think the blended CFC/FIDE formula is quite fair, and irons out a few of the wrinkles that would exist if only one or the other rating system is used. I'd stick with the status quo ( Hate it when I have to be conservative LOL ).

Bob A

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Nobody I know in BC travels to Europe except Michael Yip and he doesn't play in BC!

Did Jason Cao move out of BC? LOL
It was his CFC rating got a boost to match the FIDE rating, if I remember correctly.
Recently he came back from Europe (World Championship, SLO).

[Fred McKim]

I think the time to change the general qualification method for the Rating Selection List is getting very short. Probably any major change would work for the next Olympiad.

Eleimation of the selection committee or directed instructions / rules on the 5th player can still be changed during the selection rating period (I would think) as it doesn't effect that part of the regulations.

[Michael Barron]

Words have meanings, Michael, don't you think? :-)
Closed is something that is _not for everybody_, by definition. It's a privilege that should be earned, not bought!


Yes, Edward, words have meanings.
Yes, Closed is something that is _not for everybody_, by definition.
Canadian master is _not everybody_, by definition, don't you think? ;)


I personally don't mind Canadian Closed 2013 becoming THE qualifier - because there is no way it can become A qualifier. There is simply no time to consider Canadian Closed 2014 for the same purpose. And, as you understand, if that is voted for, no quantum leap would allow _anybody_ who didn't do well in this particular tournament to make the team a year later :-)


I wouldn't be so strict...
IMHO, Bator Sambuev and Eric Hansen deserve to be on the team for their results in 2012 and 2011, even if they don't make top 5 in Canadian Closed 2013 for some reason.
But remaining 3 spots on the team should be defined by Canadian Closed 2013.

[Félix Dumont]

I have some problems with the Canadian Closed being the only way to qualify. It costs a lot to travel, and some players might not be able to afford it. Unless we somehow manage to invite all of the best players and pay for the expenses, I don't see how we could qualify the participants at the Canadian Closed. Obviously, when the Canadian Closed is in the East, very few players from B.-C. or Alberta can participate and vice versa if it is held in the West.

I think I would support Vladimir's idea though, since most players will be determined by the FIDE rating.

[Michael Barron]

Perhaps a blended approach might be suggested. The top CFC rated player, the top FIDE rated player and the top FQE rated player plus the top two players at the Canadian Closed with any remaining spots determined by FIDE rating.


Thank you, Vlad!
Your blended approach make sense.
I would support it, with a small modification:
"... with any remaining spots determined by placement at the Canadian Closed, using FIDE rating as a tiebreaker."

[Christopher Mallon]

Why not leave the current rating qualifications as-is (except moving to 20 games for the National but not the Womens team yet) but replace the Selection Committee pick with the 2nd-place at the Canadian Closed?