PDA

View Full Version : 4b) Motion 2013-T Olympic Regulations (McKim/Rekhson) - discussion only



Michael von Keitz
01-20-2013, 03:10 AM
NOTE: I), II) and III) will be voted on separately.

I) Selection Rules and Role of 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.

II) Appointment of Advisory Committee

904 a) Appointment of Advisory Committee

The CFC Executive shall appoint an Olympic Advisory Committee (905) no later than 180 days before the start of the Olympiad.

904 b) Selection of Players

The composition of the Teams shall be calculated by the Olympic Coordinator according to rules (906) & (907) no later than 165 days before the start of the Olympiad.

905. The Advisory Committee

The CFC Executive shall appoint an Olympic Advisory Committee consisting of three well known and respected individuals who will act as a think tank and assist in any fund-raising and/or public awareness an/or strategic efforts.

a), b), c) - remove -

906 b) National Team

ii) the four highest players from the selection rating list

iii) - remove -

906 c) Women's Team

ii) the four highest players from the selection rating list

iii) - remove -

III) Removal of CFC ratings from Olympic Criteria

906 a) Eligibility

iii) change CFC rated or FIDE rated to FIDE rated


907 Selection Ratings

Selection of players for the Teams by rating shall be based on the highest published FIDE rating (from monthly FIDE lists) during the year prior to the start of the selection process (which begins 180 days before the start of the Olympiad).

a) - remove -

Bob Armstrong
01-25-2013, 10:17 PM
Elimination of the Olympiad Selection Committee??

I don't think I can support this motion ( though there are parts of it I would support if they were in a separate motion ).

I still think the purpose of the Selection Committee is very sound - to build a very small flexibility into the Olympiad team selection process. The Committee is free to chose the next player qualifying by rating if it so chooses. But it also 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.
It is true that the decision of the Selection Committee is subjective, and that the Committee members are asked to set aside any prejudices or vested interests, and be “ objective “ to the extent possible. In the past, this has sometimes been the case, sometimes some claim the Committee fell below this standard. But the risk is worth the benefit here in my opinion.

Bob A

Pierre Dénommée
01-26-2013, 09:55 AM
Why do we want to remove CFC rating as a selection criteria? For Canadian players, it is more accurate then FIDE rating.

Bob Gillanders
01-26-2013, 10:34 AM
I strongly object to this continued attack on the CFC rating system.
CFC ratings should be a strong factor is Olympic team selection.
Deleting it from consideration puts players who support chess in Canada by playing in Canada at a disadvantage.
I will be voting NO.

Félix Dumont
01-26-2013, 11:22 AM
I will support this motion. We need the strongest team possible, not the team made of those who managed to play in the most tournaments during the year and have the biggest inflation.
However, is there still a spot for the Canadian Closed Winner?


Why do we want to remove CFC rating as a selection criteria? For Canadian players, it is more accurate then FIDE rating.
If you remove "Canadian" and replace it by "Ontarian", your statement might be a little bit closer to the truth.

Any strong player can confirm you that it is nearly impossible to judge one's strength on his CFC rating.

Pierre Dénommée
01-26-2013, 12:02 PM
Did you know that the national team of France is selected by a single person? Its Olympiad result are quite impressive. In this case, the integrity of this single person is paramount.

I could also support parts of this motion if it was separated. With the FIDE licence for players in mind, the number of FIDE rated tournament in Canada could be decreasing sharply.



Elimination of the Olympiad Selection Committee??

I don't think I can support this motion ( though there are parts of it I would support if they were in a separate motion ).

I still think the purpose of the Selection Committee is very sound - to build a very small flexibility into the Olympiad team selection process. The Committee is free to chose the next player qualifying by rating if it so chooses. But it also 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.

Fred McKim
01-26-2013, 12:15 PM
In the previous meeting there seemed to be a general consensus that going to FIDE ratings would be more consistent and add as more of an equalizer, removing perhpas minor CFC events from skewing results.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-26-2013, 01:13 PM
I think that the selection committee is still needed. Rating is good but not an absolute criteria.

However, I may support an only-FIDE-rating clause.

Moving: to split the motion to two separate motions:
a. Committee part
b. FIDE part.

Michael Barron
01-26-2013, 04:54 PM
I strongly object to this continued attack on the CFC rating system.
CFC ratings should be a strong factor is Olympic team selection.
Deleting it from consideration puts players who support chess in Canada by playing in Canada at a disadvantage.
I will be voting NO.

Well said, Bob!
I completely agree with you on this issue!

Christopher Mallon
01-26-2013, 05:46 PM
This really seems like almost an omnibus motion! :eek: There are many parts, some which are much more controversial than others. I'm glad to see the separate votes, but I find the naming of II "Appointment of Advisory Committee" to be a little misleading... As in reality that is not the biggest change being made by that part of the motion.

I support the minor housekeeping type stuff.

I support the Selection Committee getting to pick no more than one player for the team, which would be a compromise between what we have now and what this proposes.

I absolutely do not support the removal of the CFC ratings system from the equation.

Hal Bond
01-26-2013, 06:43 PM
I would feel more comfortable if we at least attempted to get a concensus from our strong players regarding the issue of FIDE/CFC ratings for qualifying to the Olympic team. Likewise I would prefer to see the players vote on a Captain rather than have one appointed by amateurs.

I prefer to see the Selection Committee remain in place.

Edward Porper
01-26-2013, 06:58 PM
So, you are fine with what Vlad Drculec defined as "inevitable personal, regional and what not biases", Hal? You are not bothered by the fact that Eric Hansen wouldn't have even made it to the 2012 Olympiad had the Selection Committee as represented by Yan Teplitsky had it its way?
It's ok to select a Captain who has no program, no plan, no idea how to help the players - and, consequently, is of no use to the team whatsoever - only because he happens to be several players' buddy?
If so, you should undoubtedly vote against this motion. Canada will keep oscillating between places 40 and 50, and everybody will be happy...

Edward Porper
01-26-2013, 07:00 PM
Sorry, there was a double posting.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-26-2013, 11:48 PM
Did you know that the national team of France is selected by a single person? Its Olympiad result are quite impressive.

Our results would be quite impressive too if we cheated and used an engine during the olympiad as the French have indicated at least one of their players and two of their trainers have done. To their credit, they were the ones who brought this to the world's attention despite the embarrassment.


In this case, the integrity of this single person is paramount.

I could also support parts of this motion if it was separated. With the FIDE licence for players in mind, the number of FIDE rated tournament in Canada could be decreasing sharply.

It should be noted that the current system of blended ratings will yield the same team as going to the all FIDE system would (or at least that was the case as of the last quarterly CFC meeting less than one month ago). This motion will not really affect the picking of this year's team as long as most of the top rated players decide to participate. This motion does make it easier to allow members of the FQE to participate in teams without having to create a conversion formula between CFC and FQE ratings. If FIDE undertakes actions which make relying on their ratings problematic we can always go back to a blended approach again by reversing this decision at a future date. I do understand the sentiment to continue to respect CFC ratings. My understanding based on conversations with individuals beyond the NM level of strength is that most are concerned with their FIDE rating and obtaining FIDE titles. There are few incentives and no titles beyond the NM title which a strong player can vie for within the Canadian rating system. When we discussed CFC titles most of the governors were not in favour of titles beyond that of NM. This action is consistent with that previous decision.

On the team captain question, it would be great if we could send a strong GM who could make a significant contribution to team performance. Given our fiscal realities this is unlikely to be the case in the near term future. It is not clear to me that this change is better or worse than the current system.

I have little sympathy for the idea that the involvement of a selection committee will make the team selection more flexible. Selection by rating is more fair especially if everyone knows the rules going into the process. Politics and regional bias should be minimized as much as possible in such decisions. The best way to do this is to eliminate the committee.

Vladimir Drkulec
CFC Masters Representative

Fred McKim
01-27-2013, 01:25 PM
I suspect that if the move to FIDE only ratings are used, the FQE may be within their rights to have some potential alteration to their CFC and/or FQE rating used.

Aris Marghetis
01-27-2013, 03:37 PM
I would feel more comfortable if we at least attempted to get a concensus from our strong players regarding the issue of FIDE/CFC ratings for qualifying to the Olympic team. Likewise I would prefer to see the players vote on a Captain rather than have one appointed by amateurs.

I prefer to see the Selection Committee remain in place.

I agree with Hal.

I am nowhere close to being an elite player, but at the last Olympiad, there in person, I observed/listened to the players/Captains/etc. In my humble opinion, there are certain risks to doing stuff like forming teams just by rating (for example). I respectfully suggest we are under-estimating the value of a built TEAM.

Michael Barron
01-27-2013, 07:56 PM
It's ok to select a Captain who has no program, no plan, no idea how to help the players - and, consequently, is of no use to the team whatsoever - only because he happens to be several players' buddy?
...

Edward,
There could be different opinions, but I completely agree with you on one point:
a Captain shouldn't be selected by players!
The Captain should select players - not other way around!
ALL selected players should be Captain's buddies - or at least willing to work together for the benefit of the TEAM, putting their personal ambitions aside.
In that case the end result could be much better... ;)

Edward Porper
01-27-2013, 08:44 PM
I could well agree with you on that, Michael - provided we dig a bit deeper into the topic.
Every player's buddy? Wonderful! That's really a perfect case scenario.
But what should we do if several objectively strongest players do not happen to be the Captain's buddies - disregard them?
And if so, what is the Captain's responsibility? Who is he accountable to - and to what degree?
I hope you don't disagree with me that rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand - the more you are entitled to decide, the heavier is your responsibility.
In our case, what happens to the Captain who did handpick every player, played and seated them as he saw fit - and failed big time?
A pat on the shoulder and "good job" like it was the last time? A resignation from an UNPAID job after he has effectively gone on vacation with everybody around him being a buddy at the CFC expense? If that's the case, quite a few would love to captain!
Only a professional contract with clear-cut defined responsibilities (including financial rewards for a success and punishments for a failure) would justify vesting such a tremendous power into the Captain - and we clearly don't have the means to provide for that. And even in this case, one question would remain: WHO and HOW will choose the Captain, to start with? In my opinion, that should be done strictly on merit of a competitive program presented by the aspiring candidates. The Captain should prove that he knows how to help EVERY player on the team to produce his very best - let alone his understanding of possible team strategies based on the players' personal strength and weaknesses
And the choice should be made at the very top - either by the President or at least by the Executive.

Finally, about personal ambitions.
If a knowledgeable Captain presents his motives in a distinct way, and those motives are FAIR (which necessarily means that everyone is treated equally, as a valuable team member - and the same principles apply to everybody to the same extent), ambitions would cause little trouble in most cases as it would be relatively easy to sacrifice them for the Team. Yet, when an incompetent amateur (who is totally unable to help anybody chess-wise) uses the power he hasn't deserved by any objective criteria (like a competitive program approved by those in charge of the Federation) to trample upon some to make life easier for the others, it hardly contributes to anything like a Team spirit. A team is one body - and as in a body, if you abuse even the smallest finger, the whole body is going to suffer!
And humans aren't fingers - that's why one's bias is poisonous and lethal for any team. And bias is inevitable where subjectivity rules...

Vladimir Drkulec
01-27-2013, 09:08 PM
The FIDE only ratings will yield the same team as blended FIDE and CFC ratings if everyone near the top of the standings is able to play.

CFC and FQE play would still count towards the current ten game activity rule and the proposed twenty game activity rule? If not, then I would have a problem with this especially if FIDE has made it much more difficult to run FIDE rated tournaments.

Ken Craft
01-28-2013, 07:29 AM
I'll be voting "no". I do not support removing CFC ratings from the equation.

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 02:00 PM
Taking in the consideration that several Governors seem to support parts of the motion but would tend to say "no" to the whole, I suggest that the motion parts should be voted for separately. That is,
one vote for eliminating the Selection Committee as such;
one vote for establishing that the Captain should be chosen by the Executive based on merit of the competitive program presented by the applicants.
one vote for the ratings (CFC, FIDE or blended) to be used as the selection criterion.

Fred McKim
01-28-2013, 02:10 PM
Taking in the consideration that several Governors seem to support parts of the motion but would tend to say "no" to the whole, I suggest that the motion parts should be voted for separately. That is,
one vote for eliminating the Selection Committee as such;
one vote for establishing that the Captain should be chosen by the Executive based on merit of the competitive program presented by the applicants.
one vote for the ratings (CFC, FIDE or blended) to be used as the selection criterion.

They are all being voted on individually

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 02:16 PM
Why, then, do the governors say they will vote against the motion as a whole while supporing some parts of it?
Is it a misunderstanding?

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-28-2013, 02:39 PM
Why, then, do the governors say they will vote against the motion as a whole while supporing some parts of it?
Is it a misunderstanding?

Seems yes. I missed the first sentence "NOTE: I), II) and III) will be voted on separately." LOL

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 02:48 PM
Seems like everybody did.

Pierre Dénommée
01-28-2013, 02:55 PM
Have you checked this site http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/team-selection.jsp

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 03:05 PM
they must recognize that athletes have a right to know on what criteria their performance will be evaluated (placing or points accumulated at specific events, official rankings, participation qualifying events, etc.) Coaches must use their expertise and technical knowledge of their sport to support the development of clear and comprehensive team selection policies by their NSO.

Perfect! Does one need any more proof that the so-called Selection Committee stands in a way of each and every principle outlined in this document?!

Paul Leblanc
01-28-2013, 04:13 PM
I agree that the Team Captain should be appointed by the CFC Executive based on the qualifications of each applicant. I also agree that the team should comprise the Canadian Champion and the highest rated players. Having a committee substitute a lower rated player seems unfair. I disagree with using FIDE ratings because I want to encourage our strong players to play in CFC events and because I believe our rating system is sound.

Pierre Dénommée
01-28-2013, 07:58 PM
Another interesting quote.

Some form of subjectivity is permissible when selecting a team for a major event. Team selection in team sports can involve intangible factors like cohesion and chemistry; therefore, discretion and subjectivity are not necessarily inappropriate. Nonetheless, the selection process must not be so subjective as to make it difficult for the athletes to understand the factors being evaluated


they must recognize that athletes have a right to know on what criteria their performance will be evaluated (placing or points accumulated at specific events, official rankings, participation qualifying events, etc.) Coaches must use their expertise and technical knowledge of their sport to support the development of clear and comprehensive team selection policies by their NSO.

Perfect! Does one need any more proof that the so-called Selection Committee stands in a way of each and every principle outlined in this document?!

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 08:20 PM
Pierre, the problem is that in this particular case subjectivity is nothing but bias, to choose the mildest word.
Teplitsky didn't want Eric to be on the team because Eric didn't belong to the so-called "Russian school" Teplitsky considered himself belonging to. That was enough for this selector to call Eric a "club player"!
If the committee is kept, there is no guarantee it won't happen again - in many different forms, for many different reasons. Personal bias combined with a total lack of responsibility (whatever happens at the Olympiad, the Selectors - and for that matter, the Captains under current rules - have nothing to gain or lose) is an ultimate poison. And we have Kevin to account for it, if nothing else.
For the sake of everything that is healthy and sound in Canadian chess, these motions should pass. That is, the committee should be disbanded once and forever - and the Captains should be chosen on merit, NOT on whim. There can be no team chemistry and no success without that...

Michael Barron
01-28-2013, 08:54 PM
I could well agree with you on that, Michael - provided we dig a bit deeper into the topic.
Every player's buddy? Wonderful! That's really a perfect case scenario.
But what should we do if several objectively strongest players do not happen to be the Captain's buddies - disregard them?
And if so, what is the Captain's responsibility? Who is he accountable to - and to what degree?
I hope you don't disagree with me that rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand - the more you are entitled to decide, the heavier is your responsibility.
In our case, what happens to the Captain who did handpick every player, played and seated them as he saw fit - and failed big time?
A pat on the shoulder and "good job" like it was the last time? A resignation from an UNPAID job after he has effectively gone on vacation with everybody around him being a buddy at the CFC expense? If that's the case, quite a few would love to captain!


This is what we really need! :)
And you could be the first in the line... ;)



Only a professional contract with clear-cut defined responsibilities (including financial rewards for a success and punishments for a failure) would justify vesting such a tremendous power into the Captain - and we clearly don't have the means to provide for that. And even in this case, one question would remain: WHO and HOW will choose the Captain, to start with? In my opinion, that should be done strictly on merit of a competitive program presented by the aspiring candidates. The Captain should prove that he knows how to help EVERY player on the team to produce his very best - let alone his understanding of possible team strategies based on the players' personal strength and weaknesses
And the choice should be made at the very top - either by the President or at least by the Executive.


The choice should be made by the Assembly of Governors - the same body that elect the President and the Executive.
The Captain should be responsible to the Assembly of Governors - the same way as the President and the Executive, and the newsletter editor, for that matter...



Finally, about personal ambitions.
If a knowledgeable Captain presents his motives in a distinct way, and those motives are FAIR (which necessarily means that everyone is treated equally, as a valuable team member - and the same principles apply to everybody to the same extent), ambitions would cause little trouble in most cases as it would be relatively easy to sacrifice them for the Team. Yet, when an incompetent amateur (who is totally unable to help anybody chess-wise) uses the power he hasn't deserved by any objective criteria (like a competitive program approved by those in charge of the Federation) to trample upon some to make life easier for the others, it hardly contributes to anything like a Team spirit. A team is one body - and as in a body, if you abuse even the smallest finger, the whole body is going to suffer!
And humans aren't fingers - that's why one's bias is poisonous and lethal for any team. And bias is inevitable where subjectivity rules...

Edward, there could be different opinions, but some people just can`t be team players...
It`s in the best interests of all involved to avoid selecting such players for the team.

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 09:12 PM
I could be in line because - unlike the individual who was unfortunately selected - I am a professional titled player with many successes and a coach with 20+ years of experience. I worked at the WYCC, and there was nothing but favourable reports about my job.
As for the Assembly of Governors, let the Governors decide if they agree with the motions.
Regarding some people who can't be team players, you are absolutely right. The question is, who is going to decide the identity of those people.
Judging by your remarks, you fancy yourself in the judge's mantle quite well. And I understand that: some people just need to feel important.
It's a pity, not everybody can...

Pierre Dénommée
01-28-2013, 11:42 PM
There is nothing mild about bias. Bias is defined as a lack of neutrality to such an extent that the decision-maker is unable to consider other views or that the decision was made on the basis of, or significantly influenced by factors unrelated to the merits of the decision. Bias can lead to litigation.


Pierre, the problem is that in this particular case subjectivity is nothing but bias, to choose the mildest word.

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 11:49 PM
There is nothing mild about bias. Bias is defined as a lack of neutrality to such an extent that the decision-maker is unable to consider other views or that the decision was made on the basis of, or significantly influenced by factors unrelated to the merits of the decision. Bias can lead to litigation.

You are right, of course - and I didn't mean that bias is something neutral. Far from it!
Yet, that was the most"civilized", so-to-say, word that occured to me to describe what Selection Committees are guided by, oh so often. Impunity combined with an unmerited authority is much more than certain people can cope with - and you are right again, their action could (sometimes should!) lead to litigation. The only way to avoid all that is to disband this committee once and forever!

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-28-2013, 11:51 PM
Have you checked this site http://www.crdsc-sdrcc.ca/eng/team-selection.jsp
Would "Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)" take any dispute/issue coming from a chess organization? I could not find their description of "sport" :/

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-29-2013, 12:02 AM
You are right, of course - and I didn't mean that bias is something neutral. Far from it!
Yet, that was the most"civilized", so-to-say, word that occured to me to describe what Selection Committees are guided by, oh so often. Impunity combined with an unmerited authority is much more than certain people can cope with - and you are right again, their action could (sometimes should!) lead to litigation. The only way to avoid all that is to disband this committee once and forever!

The selection committee is not one person's band.

Edward Porper
01-29-2013, 12:03 AM
Would "Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)" take any dispute/issue coming from a chess organization? I could not find their description of "sport" :/

Does it mean that their principles should not be applicable to chess, Egidijus?

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-29-2013, 12:52 AM
Don't make a question from a question especially extrapolating far beyond my question.

Edward Porper
01-29-2013, 01:11 AM
Don't make a question from a question especially extrapolating far beyond my question.

It's a pretty important question - and I wonder why would you choose not to answer it...

Christopher Mallon
01-29-2013, 06:03 AM
I could be in line because - unlike the individual who was unfortunately selected - I am a professional titled player with many successes and a coach with 20+ years of experience. I worked at the WYCC, and there was nothing but favourable reports about my job.

You are also starting to step a bit close to a conflict of interest, FYI...

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-29-2013, 09:03 AM
It's a pretty important question - and I wonder why would you choose not to answer it...

Because your questions is badly worded.
If you insist: No, it does not mean. Better? LOL

Fred McKim
01-29-2013, 10:19 AM
This thread has become non-sensical. Gentleman chill.

I think everyone can agree that the 2012 Olympic committe was especially divisive. The fact that they got to select three members for the team (as per the new rules passed) made things even more difficult. Eventually an independent third party had to come in to choose between two candidates being put forward for the final position. Canada is a small chess community at the IM level, impressions can be made quickly and be hard to get over. Feelings come into play, tempers rise, etc, etc.

If the vote goes for the selection committee to continue, I think some very strict guidelines should be put in place ....

Edward Porper
01-29-2013, 11:40 AM
Because your questions is badly worded.
If you insist: No, it does not mean. Better? LOL

Somewhat.
And I can rephrase if it helps: do you agree that the principles of such a respectable organization as SDRCC should apply to chess as well?

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-29-2013, 12:19 PM
Somewhat.
And I can rephrase if it helps: do you agree that the principles of such a respectable organization as SDRCC should apply to chess as well?

Do you think that the list based on the highest rating is not the best criteria according to those principles?

Edward Porper
01-29-2013, 12:36 PM
Do you think that the list based on the highest rating is not the best criteria according to those principles?

It definitely is.
That said, let's see:

athletes have a right to know on what criteria their performance will be evaluated (placing or points accumulated at specific events, official rankings, participation qualifying events, etc.) Coaches must use their expertise and technical knowledge of their sport to support the development of clear and comprehensive team selection policies

Do you think that the Selection Committee has ANYTHING to do with the above quotation defining those principles?

Bob Armstrong
01-29-2013, 12:39 PM
If the Selection Committee survives the vote, then I will closely look at the section, with a view to bringing a motion at the April Meeting that will restrict the no. of players the S.C. gets to choose. I believe in the SC, but I do not think it should have the extensive role it currently has.

Bob A

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-29-2013, 12:39 PM
It definitely is.
That said, let's see:

athletes have a right to know on what criteria their performance will be evaluated (placing or points accumulated at specific events, official rankings, participation qualifying events, etc.) Coaches must use their expertise and technical knowledge of their sport to support the development of clear and comprehensive team selection policies

Do you think that the Selection Committee has ANYTHING to do with the above quotation defining those principles?

May we replace COACHES with the Selection Committee?

Edward Porper
01-29-2013, 01:04 PM
May we replace COACHES with the Selection Committee?

We definitely may because the athletes' right to know doesn't depend on WHO chooses them.
The principle state that
1) Athletes have a right to know on what criteria their performance will be evaluated
2) The selection policies should be _clear and comprehensive_.
That definitely implies "WHOEVER applies those criteria"

Pierre Dénommée
01-29-2013, 02:06 PM
We were very close to get there ounce when the CFC receive an official letter from an attorney representing a player. If the issue has not been settled amicably, we would know for sure. We are a member of the Canadian Olympic Committee.


Would "Sport Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada (SDRCC)" take any dispute/issue coming from a chess organization? I could not find their description of "sport" :/

Vlad Rekhson
01-30-2013, 04:40 PM
I have stated this a few weeks ago when this was discussed, but I will state it again. In my opinion everything would be better than selecting players by a selection committee. The last two times it has been extremely divisive. For example, the Ontario member of the selection committee chose two Ontario players who were lower rated than the Alberta ones. Had he got his wish Eric Hansen would not be on the team. Now, how does that make sense? I think that going with a rating system while imperfect is the best way to alleviate unnecessary aggravation and conflict.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 04:52 PM
I think, things are much better the way they are now, then what is proposed.
As mentioned by Michael Barron, in strong chess countries, the captain is appointed by high officials of the federation, and is responsible for selecting the players. Canada is at an amateur chess level, and I think that players selecting the captain works well here. Also, I dont think a strong grandmaster captain or even coach can do much to help the team during the olympiad. It is much more important to have training sessions before the olympiad, but there is no money for that.

Same goes for CFC ratings, it is important to have our players play in CFC tournaments. I guess, when Canada has a team of five 2600 players, it is a good idea to just use fide ratings, but not now.

As for the selection committee, I think it should continue to exist, but it should only have the right to choose one player. A little subjectivity is ok, but choosing 3/5 members of the team as it happened last time is too much power.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-30-2013, 04:56 PM
Please disclose all selections. Who and whom.
One person judged others and some of those got offended, and the system became faulty. grr.


Even if it was only ratings and funds would have been available to atract best (and so on), Eric would missed a team...


Players Tit FIDE CFC Avrg #G Elg Pl WNE
Sambuev Bator GM 2531 2753 2642 ≥20 Champion
Bluvshtein Mark GM 2611 2634 2623 ≥20 Yes 1
Spraggett Kevin GM 2588 2618 2603 ≥20 Yes 2
Gerzhoy Leonid IM 2503 2647 2575 ≥20 Yes 3
Noritsyn Nikolay IM 2475 2661 2568 ≥20 Yes 4
Lesiege Alexandre GM 2528 2577 2553 0 No 5 NEG
Charbonneau Pascal GM 2517 2585 2551 0 No 6 NEG
Tyomkin Dimitri GM 2498 2570 2534 4 No 7 NEG
Hansen Eric IM 2454 2612 2533 ≥20 Yes 8

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 06:11 PM
Regarding Teplitsky's choices on the committee - I think Eric definitely should have been selected, and he was, and he would be by rating too (all the ones above him did not plan to play). I myself think Teplitsky is quite qualified to make decisions, but to avoid a lot of conflicts - the committee should be elected by the players that have a chance to play at the olympiad, lets say top 20 players in Canada (better criteria can be used, of course). Just like it is a tradition to elect the Appeals Commitee during Canadian Closed tournaments, I think it would work here as well. I believe, mostly people would vote for individuals they think are fair and respected, not for people who could later return the favour by putting them on the team. Same goes for captain selection.

I think this whole matter should be for the top players for discussion, since, after all, it affects them the most, not for the governors.

Bob Armstrong
01-30-2013, 07:16 PM
Regarding Teplitsky's choices on the committee - I think Eric definitely should have been selected, and he was, and he would be by rating too (all the ones above him did not plan to play). I myself think Teplitsky is quite qualified to make decisions, but to avoid a lot of conflicts - the committee should be elected by the players that have a chance to play at the olympiad, lets say top 20 players in Canada (better criteria can be used, of course). Just like it is a tradition to elect the Appeals Commitee during Canadian Closed tournaments, I think it would work here as well. I believe, mostly people would vote for individuals they think are fair and respected, not for people who could later return the favour by putting them on the team. Same goes for captain selection.

I think this whole matter should be for the top players for discussion, since, after all, it affects them the most, not for the governors.

I voted against the motion to have the Executive choose the captain of the Olympiad team ( if I got the motion right, and the right motion ). I think Nikoay's idea makes sense in terms of the Selection Committee. However, with the Team Captain, I think the five players should select a captain by unamimous consensus. If they cannot do that, then the Executive chooses the captain. I do not think it would be a good thing for the Captain to be elected by majority vote - this will just entrench tension into the Olympiad Team immediately.

But it looks like, at the moment, the regulation will be changed to give the choice to the executive ( if I understand the motion ). So it may be that our ideas will not be able to be brought in motion form again to the governors, until there has at least been one opportunity for the new rule to be tried. If others think the issue can be raised again earlier, they will have to convince a lot of people, I think, that they are not just trying to again win a vote they just lost.

Bob A

Edward Porper
01-30-2013, 07:44 PM
I voted against the motion to have the Executive choose the captain of the Olympiad team ( if I got the motion right, and the right motion ). I think Nikoay's idea makes sense in terms of the Selection Committee. However, with the Team Captain, I think the five players should select a captain by unamimous consensus. If they cannot do that, then the Executive chooses the captain. I do not think it would be a good thing for the Captain to be elected by majority vote - this will just entrench tension into the Olympiad Team immediately.


And that's exactly what happened in 2012: the captain was voted for by 2 players out of 5 and chosen by default on a secondary vote!
What "team choice" can we possibly talk about?!
If all 5 could be unanimous, that would be a perfect case, of course - otherwise, favouritism is just inevitable...

But it looks like, at the moment, the regulation will be changed to give the choice to the executive ( if I understand the motion ). So it may be that our ideas will not be able to be brought in motion form again to the governors, until there has at least been one opportunity for the new rule to be tried. If others think the issue can be raised again earlier, they will have to convince a lot of people, I think, that they are not just trying to again win a vote they just lost.



Bob A

Well said, I think.
We have all seen how the old system failed to work. Let's give a chance to the new one - and come back to the topic in 2014 if necessary.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 07:44 PM
Of course, it would be best decided by consensus, but generally it is quite normal people vote for people they know well. Canada is a big country, and Ontarians don't get to see Albertans very often for example. I don't believe a consensus would be possible. Having the executive decide is like having a neutral person decide. In strong chess nations, the "executive" are usually people with a lot of knowledge of chess, and the people in chess, so they are very much qualified to decide. Its different in Canada. Also, the executive are a group of people, and they would have to vote as well (with concensus being just as unlikely) - so why not just let the players decide?

Yes, it would be a pity if such an important and difficult issue was decided on so fast.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 07:47 PM
Edward, in 2012, if there would be only two captains to vote for, we would still likely have the same captain.

Edward Porper
01-30-2013, 07:56 PM
Edward, in 2012, if there would be only two captains to vote for, we would still likely have the same captain.

True, Nikolay - in that case it would be a choice of 3 out 5.
As you yourself said, Ontarians don't know people from the West too well - so they would always prefer someone from the East.
The opposite might be true as well.
In other words, the current system provides for a situation when the captain would ALWAYS come from the same province as a slight majority of the players - and he would know this majority much better than the rest of the team. Besides he would owe them his nomination.
Are you trying to convince me or anybody that he would treat everyone the same under those circumstances? :-)
In reality, it's possible only in case if the whole team comes from the same area - which effectively turns it into a provincial rather than national team. I don't think that's what we want to end up with...

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 09:12 PM
I know democracy isnt perfect, Edward. Is it going to be different if the executive votes? It consists of 7 members. Not a very big difference, and no guarantee they are any less biased. If the players vote, at least the majority will get what they want. If the executive votes, the opposite might happen. Is that what you want?

I see nothing wrong with a 5 man team from Alberta, or Ontario, as long as they are the best ones to represent Canada. It would still be a national team - they are the best players, after all. The way it is, it has not and will not happen.

I think, Team Captain is a very serious and nerve wrecking position, especially for the mens team, and it by no means is a vacation. The captain stays in the playing hall every single playing day, until the games are finished. That - among other things, of course.

Edward Porper
01-30-2013, 09:32 PM
I know democracy isnt perfect, Edward. Is it going to be different if the executive votes? It consists of 7 members. Not a very big difference, and no guarantee they are any less biased. If the players vote, at least the majority will get what they want. If the executive votes, the opposite might happen. Is that what you want?


Anything is better than the majority getting what it wants while the minority doesn't, Nikolay - for a simple reason, that it's one Team.
As I was advised today, The captain should not play favourites. The team is like a hand, the players like fingers, you cannot expect the hand to perform if you break or sprain one of the fingers. And that's exactly what happened in Turkey :-(
If all 5 agree on their choice, it's indeed perfect - if not, a neutral body or person should decide. This way the captain won't owe his position to anybody and will have no reason to favour some over the others.
Besides, what is it that you want, to be honest? You are a strong player, no doubt about that - so how come that you don't care about the quality of your captain? How can you be satisfied with a captain who hasn't touched a chess board for the whole duration of the Olympiad, wasn't able to give a single advice? Is captain a clerk who enters the squad into the system and signs protocols? I personally don't think so.
In my opinion, Captain is first and foremost a coach/second/assistant. That's the case with many teams, and that's how i should be!
I see nothing wrong with a 5 man team from Alberta, or Ontario, as long as they are the best ones to represent Canada. It would still be a national team - they are the best players, after all. The way it is, it has not and will not happen.


IF they are the best players, Nikolay - and that's a big IF.
Surely, it's not the case right now

I think, Team Captain is a very serious and nerve wrecking position, especially for the mens team, and it by no means is a vacation. The captain stays in the playing hall every single playing day, until the games are finished. That - among other things, of course.

Frankly, Nikolay, I would absolutely love to have this privilege of watching the best players in the world every single day for 2 weeks while having all my expenses paid and not a real duty to perform!
Why on Earth is it a nerve-wrecking position NOW? It will become so after the motion has passed because then the Captain would have to actually work every single day and be responsible for the end result. So far there is no connection whatsoever between the results and the reception at home as we see. One can bungle everything, blame it on players and still be regarded as a real asset to the national program...

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 09:46 PM
You have not answered why you think the Executive would make a better decision then the actual players.

That appears to be the main change, the other being "3) 913 Add (b) Aiding with game analysis and preparation for upcoming opponents. Reorder other sections." - which gives the captain another official job, a job of a coach. On the last two olympiads I recieved suggestions from both captains. Not that it changed anything, its my decision after all. I don't think serious work can be done even by one grandmaster - preparing 5 players in the few hours there are before a game. Openings should be prepared before the olympiad, not before games.

Edward Porper
01-30-2013, 09:55 PM
You have not answered why you think the Executive would make a better decision then the actual players.

I have, Nikolay - because there will be no ground for favouritism, to start with.
More important, the position should be actually deserved - that is given on merit of the applications
I believe, you haven't answered what is it that you actually want from the Captain - if not chess/coaching skills?
What was your choice based on?


That appears to be the main change, the other being "3) 913 Add (b) Aiding with game analysis and preparation for upcoming opponents. Reorder other sections." - which gives the captain another official job, a job of a coach. On the last two olympiads I recieved suggestions from both captains. Not that it changed anything, its my decision after all. I don't think serious work can be done even by one grandmaster - preparing 5 players in the few hours there are before a game. Openings should be prepared before the olympiad, not before games.

It's not _another_ job, Nikolay, it's THE job the very position exists for. All the rest can be done by any literate person.
And of course, preparation and team strategy goes well beyond the openings...

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-30-2013, 10:06 PM
I guess, there is no answer.

Since 3) 913 Add (b) is being voted on only now, the position did not exist for that before. The captain had no obligation to analyse previous games, and help prepare for future opponents - although it did happen, mainly for the women's team. The men's team consists of people that play better and know more about chess then the captain. So it doent work as well.

Preparation and team strategy goes beyond openings, of course. The captain gave suggestions to play safe, or more openly for a win. Perhaps, there could be more of that.

Christopher Mallon
01-30-2013, 10:14 PM
It's not _another_ job, Nikolay, it's THE job the very position exists for. All the rest can be done by any literate person.


Actually you are 100% incorrect here. The captain's job has nothing to do with analysing games as far as FIDE is concerned; they do have a number of other responsibilities though. If they are able to help out in this regard then I think that is great, however as Nikolay says, that's the job of a "Coach" and to say something like "it's THE job the very position exists for." is a little ridiculous.

Edward Porper
01-31-2013, 01:30 AM
I guess, there is no answer.

Since 3) 913 Add (b) is being voted on only now, the position did not exist for that before. The captain had no obligation to analyse previous games, and help prepare for future opponents - although it did happen, mainly for the women's team. The men's team consists of people that play better and know more about chess then the captain. So it doent work as well.


But that' s my very point, Nikolay - people that play better and know more about chess than THIS captain.
That's why it couldn't work.
With a proper captain it definitely would work - as it does in many other teams.

Preparation and team strategy goes beyond openings, of course. The captain gave suggestions to play safe, or more openly for a win. Perhaps, there could be more of that.

Do you really believe that's a way to speak to titled players - like they were inexperienced kids? :-)

Edward Porper
01-31-2013, 01:40 AM
Actually you are 100% incorrect here. The captain's job has nothing to do with analysing games as far as FIDE is concerned; they do have a number of other responsibilities though. If they are able to help out in this regard then I think that is great, however as Nikolay says, that's the job of a "Coach" and to say something like "it's THE job the very position exists for." is a little ridiculous.

Did I mention FIDE, Chris?
FIDE doesn't care how Canada fares at an Olympiad - so, of course, FIDE is fine with ANY choice of a Captain for Canada (or any other country).
But the CFC does care how we do - and it's from the CFC's point of view that I meant "the very job the position exists for". That is, to help the players to do their very best.
As for the other responsibilities, literally anybody could perform them. It's not worth 1500 dollard to send on a trip a protocol signer!
A Captain must be a coach/second to justify his existence in that particular capacity

Christopher Mallon
01-31-2013, 05:43 AM
Did I mention FIDE, Chris?
FIDE doesn't care how Canada fares at an Olympiad - so, of course, FIDE is fine with ANY choice of a Captain for Canada (or any other country).
But the CFC does care how we do - and it's from the CFC's point of view that I meant "the very job the position exists for". That is, to help the players to do their very best.
As for the other responsibilities, literally anybody could perform them. It's not worth 1500 dollard to send on a trip a protocol signer!
A Captain must be a coach/second to justify his existence in that particular capacity

... Nevermind, I'll just have to add you to my short list of people who are impossible to have a discussion with because they will only ever see their own point no matter how flawed.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-31-2013, 03:33 PM
Do you really believe that's a way to speak to titled players - like they were inexperienced kids? :-)

I don't differentiate between titled and untitled players. We are talking about things revolving chess, but not chess. Regardless, I think I am quite correct with my language.

People on the team play better then any captain, because they are the best in Canada. In 2006, Canada had both a coach (Lev Psakhis) and a captain. I did not participate, so I have no opinion if it was helpful or not. Judging by the result - not really.
Russia has won olympiads from 1992 to 2000 when the captain was Boris Postovsky, who is pretty much a chess amateur, with a lot of knowledge of psychology and people on the team. Thats how it works in many other teams.

Edward Porper
01-31-2013, 03:53 PM
I don't differentiate between titled and untitled players. We are talking about things revolving chess, but not chess. Regardless, I think I am quite correct with my language.

People on the team play better then any captain, because they are the best in Canada. In 2006, Canada had both a coach (Lev Psakhis) and a captain. I did not participate, so I have no opinion if it was helpful or not. Judging by the result - not really.
Russia has won olympiads from 1992 to 2000 when the captain was Boris Postovsky, who is pretty much a chess amateur, with a lot of knowledge of psychology and people on the team. Thats how it works in many other teams.

Nikolay, in my opinion, a coach is needed to improve the team results.
We don't have the resourses to send both a captain and a coach - so logically the captain should be the coach.
As I suggested earlier, let's see how the new system will work - and come back to discussing it in 18 months, if necessary.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-31-2013, 05:14 PM
Nikolay, in my opinion, a coach is needed to improve the team results.
We don't have the resourses to send both a captain and a coach - so logically the captain should be the coach.
As I suggested earlier, let's see how the new system will work - and come back to discussing it in 18 months, if necessary.

We are not in a big disagreement here. Personally, I think pre-olympiad training camp with a strong coach is much more important, but any help from a good coach should amount to some slight improvement. However, we do not have such an individual in Canada. If we had a 2600 non playing grandmaster, if he had a lot of coaching experience, if he was willing to volunteer to be captain and coach, that would be great. There are just too many "if's" in that sentence.

Lets try to at least imagine in advance (18 months is a lot of time to wait) how you want the new system to work...Who do you think could serve as captain+coach?

Edward Porper
01-31-2013, 05:59 PM
We are not in a big disagreement here. Personally, I think pre-olympiad training camp with a strong coach is much more important, but any help from a good coach should amount to some slight improvement. However, we do not have such an individual in Canada. If we had a 2600 non playing grandmaster, if he had a lot of coaching experience, if he was willing to volunteer to be captain and coach, that would be great. There are just too many "if's" in that sentence.

Lets try to at least imagine in advance (18 months is a lot of time to wait) how you want the new system to work...Who do you think could serve as captain+coach?

It seems like we agree on major points, and that's a good opportunity to combine our efforts and work together for the sake of chess in Canada.
Let's summarize what we do agree upon
1) A training camp would be great (yes, we know that so far there is no money for it, but I hope to contribute to launching a number of programs that might change that to a degree)
2) Even a slight improvement is better than no improvement - so any reasonably strong player who is also an experienced coach might be useful to the team.
We should establish if we agree on a definition of "a reasonably strong player" - and by doing that I could answer your actual question concerning the coach.
So, 2600+ would be great, no doubt. Do we have anybody like that who would other requirements you mentioned as well? It doesn't seem to be the case right now. Even if we manage to convince one of our high-rated GMs to return to chess, he would probably prefer playing rather than captaining/coaching. And so will Eric and Bator who are our only active 2500+s so far
So, what we have in Canada is a number of 2400+ titled players some of whom have quite a lot of coaching experience. Let's take yourself, for instance - your current resume is marked with a commendable WYCC experience as well as private coaching. Fore sure, as a second, you could be quite useful to any of our team members, whoever they turn out to be. The problem is, of course, that you yourself have every reason to expect to be one of them - so, you'll prefer to play, I presume. But IF for some reason you don't make the team, I would consider you a solid candidate for position.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-31-2013, 06:08 PM
I would not be a good candidate at all. I have no experience training anyone my level or above. Moreover, it is a volunteer position, and I would be losing money (I do when I play as well, but at least I get to play...) Thats why I stated, that a reasonable coach would have to be a strong grandmaster with a lot of coaching experience. Such does not exist.

By the way, I forgot to mention, that the coach should probably be buddies with the players, or at least with the majority of them. As a player, I would not want to work with a coach I do not like. I don't think I am the only one. Which is the worst thing about the executive choosing the captain.

Edward Porper
01-31-2013, 06:35 PM
I would not be a good candidate at all. I have no experience training anyone my level or above. Moreover, it is a volunteer position, and I would be losing money (I do when I play as well, but at least I get to play...) Thats why I stated, that a reasonable coach would have to be a strong grandmaster with a lot of coaching experience. Such does not exist.

By the way, I forgot to mention, that the coach should probably be buddies with the players, or at least with the majority of them. As a player, I would not want to work with a coach I do not like. I don't think I am the only one. Which is the worst thing about the executive choosing the captain.

That's why I suggest to wait until the squad for 2014 has been established, and interested applicant for the captain/coach position step forward.
And that's why I suggested that the choice should be made on merit of the quality of the applications.
I am not saying, it will allow to choose the best in the world - but surely, the best _available_
We do disagree about the _majority_ while we agree on that having the coach _everybody's_ buddy would be great.
And I believe there is a difference between "not liking" and not being a buddy. If the latter is impossible, there is nothing wrong in a mutually respectful professional relationship.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-31-2013, 06:47 PM
Since very little will change until 2014, we can already start asking ourselves who could be this individual. You did not find an answer. Even those 2400's we have, you can count them on the fingers of one hand. I doubt they would be any benefit at all in the role of coach. I also doubt any of them (except, perhaps, you) would be interested.

Yes, there is a difference between not liking and not being a buddy.
If you have any plans, as you implied here, to be captain-coach, you can send out emails to the players likely to play for the team already now. Just asking if they would be willing to work with you or not. I guess, if there is just one that wouldnt, then it doesnt work.

Edward Porper
01-31-2013, 07:11 PM
Since very little will change until 2014, we can already start asking ourselves who could be this individual. You did not find an answer. Even those 2400's we have, you can count them on the fingers of one hand. I doubt they would be any benefit at all in the role of coach. I also doubt any of them (except, perhaps, you) would be interested.

Yes, there is a difference between not liking and not being a buddy.
If you have any plans, as you implied here, to be captain-coach, you can send out emails to the players likely to play for the team already now. Just asking if they would be willing to work with you or not. I guess, if there is just one that wouldnt, then it doesnt work.

I am not trying to find an answer before the time comes - and I believe a lot can change in more than a year.
As for benefits, there is only one way to find out - and that is, to try.
As for my personal plans - yet again, I'll decide when the time comes.
Finally, as for what does or doesn't work, I believe we have just passed a motion that regulates the procedure.

Nikolay Noritsyn
01-31-2013, 08:27 PM
Edward, you stated that you want every player to be happy with the captain/coach. So, according to you, if at least one of the players would not be willing to work with the coach, then it wouldnt happen.

So its clear (to me at least) that you have no answers to:

1. why the executive would make a better decision then the players on the team.
2. who exactly would be willing or able to work as captain/coach under the new rules.

By the way, motions are also passed by majority of votes. Like it or not.