PDA

View Full Version : 4c) Motion 2013-U Olympic Regulations (Zeromskis/Mallon) - discussion only



Michael von Keitz
01-20-2013, 04:15 AM
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).

Bob Armstrong
01-25-2013, 11:19 PM
I agree with this motion. I think we want our Olympiad team members to be " active " players - it helps keep them sharp, and having them play in more tournaments, both here and abroad, helps to promote chess.

Bob A

Félix Dumont
01-26-2013, 12:23 PM
Didn't we already have lots of difficulties finding strong women for the team? I'm afraid this motion would just make it worse...

Fred McKim
01-26-2013, 01:18 PM
Didn't we already have lots of difficulties finding strong women for the team? I'm afraid this motion would just make it worse...

I would support leaving the Women's Qualification at 10 games. This will be even more difficult if the motion using only FIDE ratings passes.

Christopher Mallon
01-26-2013, 06:50 PM
Michael, if it's okay with Egis as well, can we split the motion and have a vote on extending from 10 to 20 games for National and Women's be separate? I'd hate to see the motion fail on the National side due to concerns about inactive players on the women's side.

Alternatively, I will propose an amendment, "that the number of games to qualify for the women's team remain at 10" and perhaps Fred or Felix can second that.

Hal Bond
01-26-2013, 07:54 PM
I do not understand this at all. Have the top players complained about team members being inactive and too rusty? Once again we are imposing an amateur viewpoint on our elite players.

Fred McKim
01-26-2013, 09:14 PM
Hal. You've known for 3 weeks that these votes were coming. What professional CFC players have you attempted to contact ?

Hal Bond
01-27-2013, 12:21 AM
Fred - none of the players I have talked to believe this rule change is necessary or good.

Aris Marghetis
01-27-2013, 04:28 PM
I agree with Hal. Generally speaking with many of the Olympic ideas, why are we second-guessing the inputs of our non-Amateur IMs/GMs? I'm humbly confused.

Ilia Bluvshtein
01-27-2013, 07:55 PM
The Bluvshtein's 2 cents:

1. The proposed rule of 20 games.
This rule would practically eliminate adults that have "normal" jobs. Case: National team, a non-chess related professional. For a heat-up with ratings 2400-2700, he would need to play in 3 tournaments over a year. No guy would sacrifice his vacations to have an honour to represent Canada for free for another 2+ weeks at the Olympiad (and take another vacation for that matter). Examples: Pascal C, Igor Z, Yan T, Thomas RR, Mark B.
2. Elimination of the Selection Committee.
The original idea of this Committee was to open the door to youngsters. As far as I know, Kevin S promoted this idea and made this happen. The idea was fruitful. Youngsters selected by the Selection Committee (and otherwise did not make a team by rating) performed well above average. Examples over last 10 years: Thomas RR, Nikolay N, Mark B. The problem is controversy around the Selection Committee and too big power for the Selection Committee (they pick 3 candidates in accordance with current regulations). So...if we just want less problem in the selection process, then the way is to eliminate the Selection Committee. If we strive to send the strongest team, we need the Selection Committee. As I stand to the latter, I would suggest to keep the Selection Committee. To mitigate inevitable problems related to the power of the Committee, I would suggest the Selection Committee to choose only 1 player for the National team and 1 player for the Women's team. No substitutions...meaning if the selected player rejects invitaion, next player would be chosed by rating.

Ilia Bluvshtein

Bob Armstrong
01-27-2013, 08:46 PM
I agree with this motion. I think we want our Olympiad team members to be " active " players - it helps keep them sharp, and having them play in more tournaments, both here and abroad, helps to promote chess.

Bob A

On hearing further debate on this, especially those who have some information about how our elite players feel about this change ( "neither necessary nor good" - Hal Bond's post above), I am going to reconsider, and now will NOT support this change from the activity rule being 10 games, to 20 games ( for either the National or Women's Teams ).

Bob A

Vladimir Drkulec
01-27-2013, 10:02 PM
I am not in favour of a 20 game rule. It seems to me that players can stay sharp with internet play and playing private matches. Particularly in this day of widespread databases where games are widely disseminated immediately it might be wise to allow players the opportunity to prepare in private. We have to be careful about the natural or perhaps unnatural urge to pass new rules just because we can.

On balance I don't think the Selection Committee is a good idea when through an arbitrary criteria by a member of the committee someone like Eric Hansen could have been excluded from the Olympiad team if he had not had someone from his province on the selection committee strongly advocating for him.

Vladimir Drkulec
CFC Masters Representative

Michael Barron
01-27-2013, 10:51 PM
On balance I don't think the Selection Committee is a good idea when through an arbitrary criteria by a member of the committee someone like Eric Hansen could have been excluded from the Olympiad team if he had not had someone from his province on the selection committee strongly advocating for him.


Vlad,
someone like Eric Hansen can't be excluded from the Olympiad team by any Selection Committee - he would qualify by rating.

Someone like Aman Hambleton should be selected by Selection Committee, if the Selection Committee would do its job properly - instead of strongly advocating for a player well after his prime based solely on rating earned many years ago.

Félix Dumont
01-27-2013, 11:04 PM
Vlad,
someone like Eric Hansen can't be excluded from the Olympiad team by any Selection Committee - he would qualify by rating.

Someone like Aman Hambleton should be selected by Selection Committee, if the Selection Committee would do its job properly - instead of strongly advocating for a player well after his prime based solely on rating earned many years ago.
If the selection was only based on CFC rating, Eric would have good chances of not being qualified... I guess it shows how FIDE ratings are more accurate.

Edward Porper
01-27-2013, 11:17 PM
Michael, it's NOW that Eric Hansen would qualify by rating - before the Olympiad it was not the case.
And someone like Eric Hansen is not necessarily Eric Hansen himself - there will be other deserving players who might be overlooked because of a biased committee member or two. Once you let subjectivity in, it will never leave on its own will. And if the committee has to choose between, for instance, Aman Hambleton and Richard Wang, you will be guaranteed the next can of big, fat worms because everything will depend on "who grew where and who likes whom" - which might not necessarily be appreciated by the NOT chosen player. Eventually, you'll get the next Kevin Spragett case - with a lot of bitterness and spite.

Finally, about the player "well after his prime".
Apart from thanking you for the compliment, I'll provide a suggestion. Why don't we go with a rating change in close cases? That is, if the rating difference between the two candidates is no more than X (and you are most welcome to suggest how big the X should be), we'll check their relative rating/rating change for the last year. Surely, a fair formula can be worked out along these line - and unlike the committee's considerations, this formula will remain transparent and objective. Because judging who is past his prime and how far is a treacherous and slippery ground which borders on discrimination by age way too close!

Vladimir Drkulec
01-27-2013, 11:42 PM
Vlad,
someone like Eric Hansen can't be excluded from the Olympiad team by any Selection Committee - he would qualify by rating.

Eric Hansen can't be excluded now but he could have been excluded at the time of the last selection of an Olympiad team.



Someone like Aman Hambleton should be selected by Selection Committee, if the Selection Committee would do its job properly - instead of strongly advocating for a player well after his prime based solely on rating earned many years ago.

Aman Hambleton will most likely make it on the basis of rating given his current trajectory of improvement especially if we adopt the FIDE rating or even a blended FIDE and CFC rating as the main criteria. Lets keep the conversation focused on the future and avoid picking at the scabs of past decisions while wounds are still fresh.

Christopher Mallon
01-28-2013, 06:57 AM
... especially if we adopt the FIDE rating or even a blended FIDE and CFC rating as the main criteria.

Do we not already use a blended formula?

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-28-2013, 09:52 AM
I don't see much interest to support players who would come just to play in Olympiad. That why I proposed to increase number of required games. Other (main) reason: the motion was an additional to a motion proposing elimination of the Selection committee. Though it was upgraded to a separate motion.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-28-2013, 11:33 AM
Do we not already use a blended formula?

Yes we do use a blended formula. The problem this part of the motion solves is the removal of a need for conversion between FQE and CFC ratings. It would not make a difference to the next Olympiad selection if the top four players by rating along with the Canadian Champion choose to play.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-28-2013, 02:36 PM
On the portion of this motion dealing with the team captain I am going to support the motion. I am sure that the Executive will appropriately weigh the opinions of team participants in coming to an choice for team captain. It has been some time since a Canadian team as a whole has had an outstanding result in an Olympiad. There have been individual successes of course but ultimately as a team we have not achieved beyond obtaining a result matching our ranking. Whether we have team chemistry or not the results seem to line up the same.

One problem we have is that the compensation for the team captains is quite low amounting to not much more than a plane ticket as I understand it.

Michael Barron
01-28-2013, 09:38 PM
Eric Hansen can't be excluded now but he could have been excluded at the time of the last selection of an Olympiad team.


Vlad,
Sorry, but it's simply not true.
I can't understand why you (and some others) repeat the same false statement again and again... :confused:

The facts are the following:
At the time of the last selection (March 2012) were selected the following players:
Bator Sambuev - as Canadian Champion,
Leonid Gerzhoy, Nikolay Noritsyn, and Eric Hansen - by rating.
There were no any other available candidates.

The selection process was open and transparent - everybody could check the old thread:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2354-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-(Final)-National


Lets keep the conversation focused on the future and avoid picking at the scabs of past decisions while wounds are still fresh.

I would agree with you, but to focus on the future we need to understand - what went wrong in the past and why?

The problem was with the 5th player selection.
The Selection Committee selected Edward Porper - despite of strong opposition of the only Committee member with Olympiad experience.
Hopefully, we all agree now that this was a mistake - Olympiad results and publicly available reports show that.
Nobody get wounded, but the end result was not good.

What could we do to avoid the same mistake in the future?
I have a couple suggestions:
1) The 5th player should be selected by the Team Captain after consultation with already selected 4 players;
2) The 5th player should be selected from young improving players under 25 years old.

Edward Porper
01-28-2013, 09:58 PM
Vlad,
Sorry, but it's simply not true.
I can't understand why you (and some others) repeat the same false statement again and again... :confused:

The facts are the following:
At the time of the last selection (March 2012) were selected the following players:
Bator Sambuev - as Canadian Champion,
Leonid Gerzhoy, Nikolay Noritsyn, and Eric Hansen - by rating.
There were no any other available candidates.

The selection process was open and transparent - everybody could check the old thread:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2354-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-(Final)-National



I would agree with you, but to focus on the future we need to understand - what went wrong in the past and why?

The problem was with the 5th player selection.
The Selection Committee selected Edward Porper - despite of strong opposition of the only Committee member with Olympiad experience.
Hopefully, we all agree now that this was a mistake - Olympiad results and publicly available reports show that.
Nobody get wounded, but the end result was not good.

What could we do to avoid the same mistake in the future?
I have a couple suggestions:
1) The 5th player should be selected by the Team Captain after consultation with already selected 4 players;
2) The 5th player should be selected from young improving players under 25 years old.

Sorry to interfere, Michael, but since my name was mentioned...
Hopefully, many of us agree that a mistake was to choose an incompetent individual for a Captain because a Captain who doesn't touch a chess board for the whole duration of the Olympiad (apart from indulging in endless blitz games) is nothing but a joke. It would be half a problem if he were a harmless joke but this individual was peculiar enough to tell his player "You are a mediocre IM and too old to improve"! I don't know if you can imagine a sane person behaving like that - I just hope that an absolute majority of those present at this Forum can't. In your other post you suggested that the Captain should be everybody's buddy - great. I fully agree with that but...either that or nobody's! Because there is nothing worse than favouritism when a team is concerned.
As for the Olympiad results proving anything, I suggest that you imagine yourself depending on a boss who tramples on you in every possible way. I would like to see you performing under those conditions before judging anybody else.
As for the only Selector with an Olympiad experience, I already mentioned IM Teplitsky's motives and reasons. Hopefully, everybody who is not blinded by bias will come to his own conclusions.
Finally, I would advise you to think twice before making suggestions such as "The 5th player should be selected from young improving players under 25 years old". To the best of my knowledge, discrimination by age has not yet been recognized as a legal practice in Canada - and that's a public Forum...

Fred McKim
01-28-2013, 10:39 PM
Nikolay, Eric, and Edward were all chosen by the selection committee as two players selected by rating (Spraggett and Bluvshtein) declined their spots. At present the selection committe picks the 5th players and two reserves.

Félix Dumont
01-28-2013, 10:51 PM
Vlad,
Sorry, but it's simply not true.
I can't understand why you (and some others) repeat the same false statement again and again... :confused:

The facts are the following:
At the time of the last selection (March 2012) were selected the following players:
Bator Sambuev - as Canadian Champion,
Leonid Gerzhoy, Nikolay Noritsyn, and Eric Hansen - by rating.
There were no any other available candidates.

The selection process was open and transparent - everybody could check the old thread:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2354-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-(Final)-National



I would agree with you, but to focus on the future we need to understand - what went wrong in the past and why?

The problem was with the 5th player selection.
The Selection Committee selected Edward Porper - despite of strong opposition of the only Committee member with Olympiad experience.
Hopefully, we all agree now that this was a mistake - Olympiad results and publicly available reports show that.
Nobody get wounded, but the end result was not good.

What could we do to avoid the same mistake in the future?
I have a couple suggestions:
1) The 5th player should be selected by the Team Captain after consultation with already selected 4 players;
2) The 5th player should be selected from young improving players under 25 years old.

If the qualification is based on CFC rating :
1 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2673
2 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638
3 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2588
4 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2586
5 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2571
6 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2571

Eric Hansen has only 17 rating points of advance (it was even less not so long ago). It would not be surprising to see Aman or Leonid play in some tournaments in order to gain these points and take his spot... They are very strong players, but definitely not of his strength. This is why we can't rely on CFC rating for the Olympiads.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-29-2013, 12:25 AM
Vlad,
Sorry, but it's simply not true.
I can't understand why you (and some others) repeat the same false statement again and again... :confused:

I am repeating the statement because I know it to be true as Fred has confirmed. Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett were the players that qualified by rating ahead of Eric Hansen, Nikolay Noritsyn and Edward Porper.



The facts are the following:
At the time of the last selection (March 2012) were selected the following players:
Bator Sambuev - as Canadian Champion,



Leonid Gerzhoy, Nikolay Noritsyn, and Eric Hansen - by rating.
There were no any other available candidates.

You have accused me of making false statements. I will accuse you of having poor reading comprehension since the proof that you gave shows that you are wrong.


The selection process was open and transparent - everybody could check the old thread:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?2354-Olympiad-Selection-Ratings-(Final)-National

If you had read and understood the thread which you yourself had quoted you would have noted




Thus far the following players make the team:

Sambuev Bator - Canadian Champion,
Bluvshtein Mark - by rating,
Spraggett Kevin - by rating,
Gerzhoy Leonid - by rating.

I do not see either Eric Hansen nor Nikolay Noritsyn as players identified as being the ones who were selected by rating. Before citing some proof it would be helpful if you could read it first so as to avoid subsequent embarrassment.



I would agree with you, but to focus on the future we need to understand - what went wrong in the past and why?

The problem was with the 5th player selection.
The Selection Committee selected Edward Porper - despite of strong opposition of the only Committee member with Olympiad experience.
Hopefully, we all agree now that this was a mistake -

I can't say that we all agree, since I don't agree and we can leave it at that.

Pierre Dénommée
01-29-2013, 03:21 PM
It should be 20 games but I am not sure that everybody in Canada, including Nunavut and Yukon, has access to 20 games of quality. Also, the number of games is irrelevant. An unscrupulous player could pay a friend to play a 20 games match et voila! If you are an Olympic Stretch player, your 10 games should be played against worthy opponents. This is the negative side of a selection by rating only : the player with the highest rating may be tempted to play abroad to protect his rating. When you do not play, your rating remains fixed.

Michael Barron
01-30-2013, 12:56 AM
I am repeating the statement because I know it to be true as Fred has confirmed. Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett were the players that qualified by rating ahead of Eric Hansen, Nikolay Noritsyn and Edward Porper.

You have accused me of making false statements. I will accuse you of having poor reading comprehension since the proof that you gave shows that you are wrong.


Vlad,
Thank you for improving my reading comprehension! :)

Could you please clarify:
Who was trying to exclude Eric Hansen from the Olympiad team? Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett?
Or do you believe that Eric Hansen should have been selected ahead of Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett? :confused:



I don't think the Selection Committee is a good idea when through an arbitrary criteria by a member of the committee someone like Eric Hansen could have been excluded from the Olympiad team if he had not had someone from his province on the selection committee strongly advocating for him.


Vlad, do you realize:
If we have 10 players like Eric Hansen, half of them inevitably will be "excluded"?
And it doesn't matter if they all had someone from their province on the selection committee strongly advocating for them... :p



I can't say that we all agree, since I don't agree and we can leave it at that.

Well, we could agree to disagree...

Just a few questions to make your position clear:
Do you believe that the selection process was perfect and we selected the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad?
If so, why do you want to change the rules? Why do we have all these Motions?
And do you support all those defamatory comments by the selected 5th player with less than stellar Olympiad performance which he published in the newsletter and on this board?

Michael Barron
01-30-2013, 01:08 AM
If the qualification is based on CFC rating :
1 Sambuev, Bator Montreal, QC 2673
2 Kovalyov, Anton Verdun, QC 2638
3 Hansen, Eric Calgary, AB 2588
4 Noritsyn, Nikolay Richmond Hill, ON 2586
5 Gerzhoy, Leonid Toronto, ON 2571
6 Hambleton, Aman Ottawa, ON 2571

Eric Hansen has only 17 rating points of advance (it was even less not so long ago). It would not be surprising to see Aman or Leonid play in some tournaments in order to gain these points and take his spot... They are very strong players, but definitely not of his strength. This is why we can't rely on CFC rating for the Olympiads.

First, Anton Kovalyov can't play for Canada - because he registered with FIDE under different Federation.

Second, for Eric not to be selected by rating all 3 of his rivals - Nikolay, Leonid and Aman - should play in some tournaments in order to gain extra points and take Eric's spot. And it's not easy at this level... :cool:

And the most important:
Isn't it what we need to develop chess in Canada - to encourage our best players to play in some tournaments? :confused:

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-30-2013, 11:01 AM
First, Anton Kovalyov can't play for Canada - because he registered with FIDE under different Federation.

What is his transfer status? I thought that he would be eligible for 2014 Olympiad. Antoehr strange thing that he is not rated at this moment :/
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=114987 (Didn't ARG pay FIDE dues? )

Fred McKim
01-30-2013, 11:13 AM
What is his transfer status? I thought that he would be eligible for 2014 Olympiad. Antoehr strange thing that he is not rated at this moment :/
http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=114987 (Didn't ARG pay FIDE dues? )

Anton will be eligible for the 2014 Olympic team. I beleive there may be some problem with Argentina dues at the moment (he is still listed with them until the two year period is up).

Fred McKim
01-30-2013, 11:25 AM
Vlad,


Vlad, do you realize:
If we have 10 players like Eric Hansen, half of them inevitably will be "excluded"?
And it doesn't matter if they all had someone from their province on the selection committee strongly advocating for them... :p



Well, we could agree to disagree...

Just a few questions to make your position clear:
Do you believe that the selection process was perfect and we selected the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad?
If so, why do you want to change the rules? Why do we have all these Motions?
And do you support all those defamatory comments by the selected 5th player with less than stellar Olympiad performance which he published in the newsletter and on this board?


I realize this was directed at Vlad, but lets try and recap:

These are my opinions:

1) All members on the selection committee should be considered equal
2) The selection committee could have been easily replaced right now, but it seems the vote is not going that way
3) Having a third person should avoid any future ties, but not necessarily controversy
4) Of the two committee members, one has spoken publicly about their negotiations, the other has not
5) Love it or hate it, Edward wears his heart on his sleeve, so to say. It's not clear that his over the board performance at the Olympiad makes his selection to the team good or bad. He bared his soul to the country explaining his performance. This, too has led to a motion concerning selection of the captain, which appears to being passed by the governors.

Michael, certainly you are willing to mix it up with anybody, and certainly that is your right - but in this case let's finish the voting and move on from this, with lessons learned.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-30-2013, 01:13 PM
Vlad,
Thank you for improving my reading comprehension! :)

You are welcome.



Could you please clarify:
Who was trying to exclude Eric Hansen from the Olympiad team?

From what I have seen posted here Eric Hansen was not considered a suitable candidate by at least one of the committee members. My own opinion was that once Mark Bluvshtein and Kevin Spraggett declined inclusion of Eric Hansen was a no brainer given his results in the previous year (notably tying for first in the Canadian Closed) and his rating.



Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett?
Or do you believe that Eric Hansen should have been selected ahead of Mark Bluvstein and Kevin Spraggett? :confused:

No but once they declined Eric Hansen and Nikolay Noritsyn should have been selected without the need for a committee based on their rating.



Vlad, do you realize:
If we have 10 players like Eric Hansen, half of them inevitably will be "excluded"?

If we had ten players like Eric Hansen we would have a pretty good Olympiad team.



Well, we could agree to disagree...

Just a few questions to make your position clear:
Do you believe that the selection process was perfect and we selected the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad?

I don't believe that the selection process was perfect. When have we ever fielded the best possible team that achieved the best possible result at the Olympiad? The process followed this year showed itself to be flawed. If the reports are correct, and I have heard the same reports from more than one source then Eric would have been excluded based on arbitrary bias regarding his playing style and ability and we would have been deprived of one of the good things that came from this year's team, a new Canadian grandmaster.

With regard to the other controversies surrounding the team captain situation and playing assignments I believe that we have two fundamentally decent individuals who had very different rules about the roles of players and team captain. These rules clashed and led to the acrimony. This is an area of psychological study which has seen many studies and books authored.



If so, why do you want to change the rules?

I want a fair and transparent process where players know the rules going in, the results can be determined with mathematical precision and we don't have an opportunity for petty and officious individuals making decisions in an arbitrary way to compensate for unresolved conflicts in their own personality. A very tall order on my part but we can all dream.



Why do we have all these Motions?

I presume we have these motions because the authors are not enamored of the current process.



And do you support all those defamatory comments by the selected 5th player with less than stellar Olympiad performance which he published in the newsletter and on this board?

A rules upset is a very powerful and emotional situation. It can have very profound and dangerous consequences. In everything I have observed Victor Plotkin has shown himself to be a kind, thoughtful and fundamentally decent man over several years of meeting him at chess tournaments where either he or his son, or both were playing. In this situation he had different rules of how a team captain should operate than Edward Porper had. I fear that it would take the intervention of someone with the people skills of Tony Robbins to unravel this Gordian knot of conflicting rules and hurts based on perceived violations of the proper rules. Unlike you, I prefer not to inflame the situation. I see no profit in fighting and dissension. It is wasted energy that could be used to build chess instead of tearing each other down. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Aris Marghetis
01-30-2013, 08:53 PM
... A rules upset is a very powerful and emotional situation. It can have very profound and dangerous consequences. In everything I have observed Victor Plotkin has shown himself to be a kind, thoughtful and fundamentally decent man over several years of meeting him at chess tournaments where either he or his son, or both were playing. In this situation he had different rules of how a team captain should operate than Edward Porper had. I fear that it would take the intervention of someone with the people skills of Tony Robbins to unravel this Gordian knot of conflicting rules and hurts based on perceived violations of the proper rules. Unlike you, I prefer not to inflame the situation. I see no profit in fighting and dissension. It is wasted energy that could be used to build chess instead of tearing each other down. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

In my humble opinion, it is not fair to imply something to the effect that Mr.Plotkin and Mr.Porper simply had differing approaches. Nor is it fair to excuse inappropriate behaviour with cute lines like "he wears his heart on his sleeve". Every one of us is responsible for his level of professionalism, ESPECIALLY in challenging situations. Every one of us is responsible for how much grace we do or do not show under fire. Mr.Plotkin was the Team Captain, period. He had "his hands full", and again in my humble opinion, he performed admirably under the conditions. But regardless of anyone's opinion regarding his performance, I have a tremendous problem with people not respecting position. And maybe I missed it, but I never had the feeling Mr.Plotkin ever "put out fire with gasoline". Even under incredibly public criticism FOR DOING THE JOB HE WAS ASKED TO DO, he maintained his dignity. Mr.Plotkin is one of those timelessly experienced people that we should be trying to keep associated with our programs. I regret not having spoken sooner, but I can no longer take the imbalanced unwillingness of many of us to tell it like it is. I agree with Vlad that it is no longer worth keeping this dissent going, but please, surely Mr.Plotkin deserves clearly more respect from us?!

Edward Porper
01-30-2013, 09:06 PM
In my humble opinion, it is not fair to imply something to the effect that Mr.Plotkin and Mr.Porper simply had differing approaches. Nor is it fair to excuse inappropriate behaviour with cute lines like "he wears his heart on his sleeve". Every one of us is responsible for his level of professionalism, ESPECIALLY in challenging situations. Every one of us is responsible for how much grace we do or do not show under fire. Mr.Plotkin was the Team Captain, period. He had "his hands full", and again in my humble opinion, he performed admirably under the conditions. But regardless of anyone's opinion regarding his performance, I have a tremendous problem with people not respecting position. And maybe I missed it, but I never had the feeling Mr.Plotkin ever "put out fire with gasoline". Even under incredibly public criticism FOR DOING THE JOB HE WAS ASKED TO DO, he maintained his dignity. Mr.Plotkin is one of those timelessly experienced people that we should be trying to keep associated with our programs. I regret not having spoken sooner, but I can no longer take the imbalanced unwillingness of many of us to tell it like it is. I agree with Vlad that it is no longer worth keeping this dissent going, but please, surely Mr.Plotkin deserves clearly more respect from us?!

Aris, would you mind to specify, what you mean by saying "Mr.Plotkin had his hands full"?
Full of _what_?

Christopher Mallon
01-30-2013, 09:38 PM
Seriously guys, what does this conversation have to do with the actual motion in question here? It's bad enough we have to read about it in one thread, we don't need more.

Michael Barron
01-31-2013, 01:10 AM
I realize this was directed at Vlad, but lets try and recap:

These are my opinions:

1) All members on the selection committee should be considered equal
2) The selection committee could have been easily replaced right now, but it seems the vote is not going that way
3) Having a third person should avoid any future ties, but not necessarily controversy
4) Of the two committee members, one has spoken publicly about their negotiations, the other has not
5) Love it or hate it, Edward wears his heart on his sleeve, so to say. It's not clear that his over the board performance at the Olympiad makes his selection to the team good or bad. He bared his soul to the country explaining his performance. This, too has led to a motion concerning selection of the captain, which appears to being passed by the governors.

Michael, certainly you are willing to mix it up with anybody, and certainly that is your right - but in this case let's finish the voting and move on from this, with lessons learned.

Fred,
Thank you for sharing your opinions!

Here are mine:
1) We can't learn any lesson until we assess selection committee's decision and understand why it was made.
2) It is clear that Edward's performance at the Olympiad - coupled with his behavior during Olympiad, his newsletter article and comments on this board - demonstrates that committee's decision was a mistake.
3) What is not clear - how this decision was made? What other candidates were considered? What information was collected? Which arguments presented? The formal report of the selection committee could answer these questions. If it contains sensitive personal information, such report should be presented on the private Governors Forum.
4) If the selection committee 2012 failed to perform its job properly, it doesn't mean we should abolish selection committee. It only means that we need to select committee's members more carefully.
5) The main change that could be easily implemented - the Captain should be a part of selection committee and select reserve player after consultation with base players selected by rating and Canadian Championship.

Michael Barron
01-31-2013, 01:22 AM
In everything I have observed Victor Plotkin has shown himself to be a kind, thoughtful and fundamentally decent man over several years of meeting him at chess tournaments where either he or his son, or both were playing. In this situation he had different rules of how a team captain should operate than Edward Porper had. I fear that it would take the intervention of someone with the people skills of Tony Robbins to unravel this Gordian knot of conflicting rules and hurts based on perceived violations of the proper rules. Unlike you, I prefer not to inflame the situation. I see no profit in fighting and dissension. It is wasted energy that could be used to build chess instead of tearing each other down. A house divided against itself cannot stand.

Well said, Vlad!
I agree with you - there is no profit in fighting and dissension.

Unfortunately, your previous posts did exactly that - inflamed the situation.
I will try to follow your advice not to inflame the situation and ask you - please, don't repeat one-sided defamatory comments, especially when other party doesn't have access to this forum to refute them.

Vladimir Drkulec
01-31-2013, 12:03 PM
Well said, Vlad!
I agree with you - there is no profit in fighting and dissension.

Unfortunately, your previous posts did exactly that - inflamed the situation.

You said that I made false statements which is equivalent of accusing me of lying. I responded by showing that you were mistaken in your understanding and reading of the evidence that you yourself provided which clearly showed that I was correct in my interpretation.



I will try to follow your advice not to inflame the situation and ask you - please, don't repeat one-sided defamatory comments, especially when other party doesn't have access to this forum to refute them.

Exactly what one-sided defamatory comments are you now claiming that I have repeated?

Vladimir Drkulec
01-31-2013, 12:08 PM
Seriously guys, what does this conversation have to do with the actual motion in question here? It's bad enough we have to read about it in one thread, we don't need more.

This has definitely gone off the rails. Are we following Robert's Rules?

Michael von Keitz
01-31-2013, 09:49 PM
This has definitely gone off the rails. Are we following Robert's Rules?

I have seen no violations.