PDA

View Full Version : 7b.Creation of a National Youth Coach position (Fred McKim / Vladimir Drkulec)



Lyle Craver
03-31-2013, 04:17 PM
Moved McKim / Drkulec. A National Youth Coach position be established in accordance with the terms of the proposal from IM Edward Porper, below. Governors:

The proposal below will allow us to produce many WYCC medalists over the next few years and eventually allow us to have a program leading all the way to GM players.

1. Players would be accepted into the program relative to their ability to be top 5 (approximately) players in their respective age / gender groups.

2. It is estimated that this restriction could be expanded as time goes on. It is expected that the National Coach could handle up to 50 players. Should the program gain more popularity, more coaches can be brought on-board.

3. In connection with 2 above Coaching seminars would be provided to interested individuals.

4. Funding for the program would come from the players/families and external funding. Depending on levels of external funding achieved, it is expected that a monthly charge could vary from $100-200 per participant.

5. The CFC would provide advertizing for the National Coach program and provide encouragement for players to join.

6. Part of the program will be group lectures over Skype. Typical plans in different openings, special skills etc. Kids from the same geographical area could come together and listen to a 2 hours' lecture once every couple of weeks or so. IN ADDITION to private lessons. E-mail contact with all students and homework. Multi-level lesson plans have already been developed.

7. Coach to administer player's fees, with a quarterly accounting to the CFC Office. External funding to go directly to CFC Youth Chess, with dispersal to the coach based upon agreed upon levels spelled out at program start up. For example a formula will be developed to work out monthly payments by students, based on numbers in the program, and amount of external funding available.

8. Contact to be in place for a three year period from the time of actual start up.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-01-2013, 06:13 PM
This is what I wrote on this proposal in the governors forum for those of you who are just starting to look at this issue.

I think the keys to this are that no one else has proposed this idea in this particular form. We hinted at some similar ideas in the CFC long term plan submitted last year but absent anyone willing to do the work on a national basis, such a program is unlikely to get off the ground. I don't think that the CFC is absolutely necessary for an individual to be able to launch such an idea but the CFC's endorsement of the idea might give the program credibility in the eyes of potential sponsors.

Without successful fundraising there is no program even if the governors vote to give this project the green light. The program will also require recruiting of potential students. As mentioned there will be challenges in finding those students as most already have coaches and teachers who they are happy with. Kids and their parents are not going to change what is working. The program is going to need some real success stories for it to succeed in the long term. There are probably half a dozen kids in Windsor who might be eligible for this program but all are taking lessons already in some cases with multiple instructors with some excellent success stories. Fifty students is more a suggestion of the maximum capacity with one instructor and realistically I think if twenty students are found to sign up for the program and sponsors are found to help pay for the lessons then the program will be a raging success.

Suggestions that someone else might be chosen to head such a program will require a significant ability on the part of that individual to raise money from sponsors. What the governors are being asked to do is endorse the idea and give Edward Porper the chance to run with it. While there are certainly others qualified to teach chess in such a program, none of them have made such a proposal to the CFC and none have offered to attempt to raise money to make such a program a reality.

If the CFC or some portion of the CFC is ever going to return to charitable status it will have to undertake such educational projects to pave the way. This is very much what Tennis Canada and Soccer Canada did and are continuing to do to reach the success that they currently have in Canada which can only be described as light years ahead of where we find ourselves as a chess federation.

We are doing such things in Windsor minus the CFC involvement or endorsement and even absent (mostly) the corporate sponsorship. Sobeys and the local libraries give us a place to play and train and hold tournaments and really at this point that is all the sponsorship we need. Teach kids how to play chess and surprisingly or not they tend to play chess and improve in a noticeable way which excites other kids and parents and eventually leads to more kids playing chess. Once you get above a critical mass of players then other players start to spontaneously arise from among the friends and acquaintances of the kids who are involved in organized chess and before you know it you have a self sustaining cycle of growth and increased involvement. I think that we can all agree that this would be a good thing. Lets start taking some steps down this road. Good things should happen if we do.

Unless we find a very large and generous sponsor it is unlikely that we can launch a fully formed and perfect program. What this does is start us down the road. Perhaps we make it a few steps down the road and decide that this idea is not workable but we won't really know until we try. This is really a proposal to take a few steps down that road and see what opportunities lie there. Its about giving serious kids more options, a wider variety of choices and I don't see why anyone would really be against that. At the very least we will gain some experience and learn what challenges we need to overcome to make such a program work.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-01-2013, 06:59 PM
Everyone already has powers to prepare anyone from across the country. The CFC is not necessarily essential for this program. The fact is that when we give individuals the endorsement to make them official CFC coaches at the WYCC we are not doing anything all that different than this program proposes. My students (from my classes and also individual students) have received individual solicitations from individuals who have acted as our CFC national coaches at this competition. Individuals have even gone on to take lessons though I have not lost any students as a result (as far as I know). While I did have some slight irritation at some johnny come latelys soliciting my students, I reflected that the individuals doing the soliciting were stronger players than I was and if the children or parents felt that they could make faster progress with another chess instructor then who was I to object? The overall goal in my mind is that these kids get much better at chess. It is not necessary that they get better with me in charge of their training.

If anyone lacks for chess students come to Windsor please! I welcome the competition and may even send you students. I have limited availability and have had some excellent students and parents who needed training on specific days that I could not do because of prior commitments. Most of the people teaching chess work together and share training tips and help each other out. I have huge respect for the other instructors like Zoltan and Istvan Kiraly, John Coleman, Alan Baljeu, Herb Alice and Frank Lee who do chess training in Windsor. There are others who I do not know very well but who I might endorse if I became familiar with them and their methods.

If you are going to vote against this because of an antipathy for increased competition then I suspect that you should abstain and declare a conflict of interest. This really is about giving more choices to kids who do not have all the options that are available to kids who live in areas with a well defined chess program or multiple chess programs. Good chess students are not scarce in my experience. Good chess instructors are scarce. Even average chess instructors are scarce. Average chess instructors are better than no chess instructor. Lets encourage more people to teach chess. Lets focus on growing the pie rather than looking at the pieces of the pie right now and coveting what someone else might earn.

Félix Dumont
04-01-2013, 09:32 PM
I was hoping for a more detailed proposition.

More than anyone else I wish a national coaching program, but the last time I voted without much details, I really regretted it.

I would like to suggest an amendment. We should go in RFP for this. Ideally, a committee formed by experienced teachers and organizers should evaluate the different applicants (if other people are interested). This way, we would have a good idea of what we are really going into.

I don't like the mentality of just "try and see". The CFC reputation is not very good among many players these days, and such a program, should it fail, would surely not help.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-02-2013, 12:28 AM
I was hoping for a more detailed proposition.

More than anyone else I wish a national coaching program, but the last time I voted without much details, I really regretted it.

Hello Felix, you have spoken of this previously also without giving details. It is quite possible that this situation is not like that one. The problem with providing too many details at this point before there is a general agreement that the overall idea as a worthy objective is that people will seize on this or that little detail that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions of how this should be done and the idea will be stillborn.



I would like to suggest an amendment. We should go in RFP for this.

I believe Chris Mallon suggested that originally on the governor's forum but later recanted it as a joke that he didn't intend seriously.



Ideally, a committee formed by experienced teachers and organizers should evaluate the different applicants (if other people are interested).
This way, we would have a good idea of what we are really going into.


I have a problem with this as there are opportunities for conflicts of interest and perhaps misuse of proprietary ideas and methods if someone is required to describe in too much detail his proposed training methods. I would look at what results the applicant has achieved before.

In any case, these voting booths give opportunities for multiple options.



I don't like the mentality of just "try and see".

I totally agree with you on this. A mentality of "just try and see" will most likely translate to nothing will happen.

My mentality on this is not "try and see." My strong belief is that if you want to accomplish something, or start a new venture that you should start to do things that help you accomplish your goals and head in the direction that you want to go. Once you accept some venture or program as a worthy objective at that point it is a good idea to start doing the things that will help to bring the new venture into reality. There are always intermediate steps that need to be accomplished in order to move along towards your ultimate goals. Once you set out on that road of trials, it is quite likely you will obtain additional information and feedback, meet allies and gatekeepers, which will allow you to accomplish your objectives or will block your path forward either temporarily or permanently. I have seen this described in my undergraduate business and graduate business courses as well as in business publications as the Corridor principle. The key message is that don't wait for the perfect opportunity because it will never come. Start now and begin making your way down the corridor and as you pass along the corridor you will see things that are not visible at the beginning of the journey. Those things may be new ideas for other ventures or larger opportunities which you never dreamed existed and never would have discovered if you didn't start moving towards your goals.


The CFC reputation is not very good among many players these days, and such a program, should it fail, would surely not help.

The bigger risk to our reputation is not so much in trying and failing but rather in failing to try. In the long run that will sink us faster.

Fred McKim
04-02-2013, 09:34 AM
This whole idea has been in the works for quite some time now (going back to the Fall). Michael V-K and Edward had some extensive discussions on it during that time period. While there were many ways to try and put this forward for acceptance, it has fallen on the Governors to now decide as to whether this is a worthwhile project. I don't think the details are needed at this point in time. From everything that we are hearing, most Coaches out there in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and Ottawa are probably fully occupied, and in any case likely aren't interested in trying to partially fund a program through fund-raising. To think that somebody else is chomping at the bit to put in an RFP proposal for such a task is a bit rose-coloured.

Ken Craft
04-02-2013, 09:51 AM
Netiquette normally means that someone does not reproduce a posting from a private board on a public board. Did you have permission Vlad to reproduce Valer's comments?

Vladimir Drkulec
04-02-2013, 10:52 AM
Netiquette normally means that someone does not reproduce a posting from a private board on a public board. Did you have permission Vlad to reproduce Valer's comments?

You are correct. I have removed Valer's comments though I have left up my comments which does make my comment lack a bit of context. I do believe that all comments and objections belong here in the public discussion but for the sake of those who feel differently I have removed his comments until such time as he says that it is okay to put them back in. I have posted the response with his comments quoted on the same governors forum.

Ken Craft
04-02-2013, 02:01 PM
Thanks, Vlad. I am happy to see the governors' Forum made public, however, until that time those posting there have an expectation of privacy.

Christopher Mallon
04-02-2013, 09:03 PM
I'm not sure why we're discussing a borderline "hiring" in public rather than in private.

In any case, none of my points from the private forum have been addressed satisfactorily. The proposal is bad from both of the angles you can look at it - the program itself is poorly designed, and the person proposing to run it (exclusively for 3 years!) has a bad track record.

The argument that it costs the CFC nothing and therefore has no negative potential is not a good one either. The person in question has already in the recent past used his official position with the CFC for personal reasons - something that should have gotten him removed immediately.

Mr. Porper is supposed to be fundraising for the CFC. What has he raised so far? I haven't heard about anything. I don't see a report from him. Now, before even doing anything with that fundraising job to benefit the CFC, he wants to switch his fundraising efforts to this project, which would have financial benefits for him personally.

If he really believes in the program, let him resign as CFC Fundraising Coordinator, and start the program on his own. If it is working out after a time, let him THEN apply for official CFC recognition. Exactly the same route the Ontario High School Chess Championships took with the OCA.

Fred McKim
04-02-2013, 11:01 PM
I'm not sure why we're discussing a borderline "hiring" in public rather than in private.

In any case, none of my points from the private forum have been addressed satisfactorily. The proposal is bad from both of the angles you can look at it - the program itself is poorly designed, and the person proposing to run it (exclusively for 3 years!) has a bad track record.

The argument that it costs the CFC nothing and therefore has no negative potential is not a good one either. The person in question has already in the recent past used his official position with the CFC for personal reasons - something that should have gotten him removed immediately.

Mr. Porper is supposed to be fundraising for the CFC. What has he raised so far? I haven't heard about anything. I don't see a report from him. Now, before even doing anything with that fundraising job to benefit the CFC, he wants to switch his fundraising efforts to this project, which would have financial benefits for him personally.

If he really believes in the program, let him resign as CFC Fundraising Coordinator, and start the program on his own. If it is working out after a time, let him THEN apply for official CFC recognition. Exactly the same route the Ontario High School Chess Championships took with the OCA.

I hadn't thought of the public / private thing on this Motion. You may have a point, but we've gone far enough now, that we continue in public.

I think the vacant Fund-raising position was a way to have Edward become a Governor mid-term. As Editor he had expressed an interest in many possible Nation-wide initiatives. He was elected near-unanimously. There was little expectation on at least my part that he had any fund-raising ambitions in this term. I'm sure he'd be willing to resign the Governor position, if asked by the Executive.

The question here is Edward's ability to launch this initiative and be an effective National Coach. The closest thing to this he has done in Canada was to act as a coach at the 2012 WYCC. So maybe dissatisfaction should be expressed towards his performance there.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-03-2013, 01:15 AM
It seems to me that it is a bit unfair to criticize Edward for not being successful in the fundraising coordinator position he just started when it is difficult to argue that anyone has been entirely successful at fundraising for chess recently aside from a few youth oriented initiatives that achieved government funding or a few recent YCCs. Efforts like this might have the potential to change that dynamic by again tapping the appeal inherent in youth chess.

If he successfully launched such a program on his own I am not sure why he would then need official CFC recognition. As far as I recall the Ontario High School has been held quite successfully and almost continuously since at least the late 1960s and certainly by the early 1970s when I participated in four of them.

Bob Armstrong
04-03-2013, 02:15 AM
I was hoping for a more detailed proposition.

More than anyone else I wish a national coaching program, but the last time I voted without much details, I really regretted it.

I would like to suggest an amendment. We should go in RFP for this. Ideally, a committee formed by experienced teachers and organizers should evaluate the different applicants (if other people are interested). This way, we would have a good idea of what we are really going into.

I don't like the mentality of just "try and see". The CFC reputation is not very good among many players these days, and such a program, should it fail, would surely not help.

I very much appreciate Edward presenting to the CFC a kind of model of what the job description of the CFC National Chess Coach might look like (even if it might be fleshed out with more details). I also appreciate Edward volunteering for such a position, if CFC would create the position, according to his model. CFC should never lightly dismiss volunteers, even where there may be some benefit also to the volunteer, as well as to CFC.

However, as I have stated previously, even if this position is a "commission" one, it is in my view, clearly a CFC "contract position", no different than our ED contract position, and our CCN contract position. CFC would be granting the individual the right to advertise that they are approved and supported ( even if not financially, directly) by the CFC - this is worth something, and CFC must be careful granting it. We clearly saw that these two new positions required a RFP. I clearly see that we should use the RFP process for this position - it is a matter of CFC transparency.

What are the benefits of RFP? One is that if more than one applicant applies, we may see a very different model to consider, whereas now we are just presented with one. Secondly, if we have more than one applicant, then we will have a choice of deciding who actually presents the best package for CFC purposes. Thirdly, Edward, with his proposal, can apply, and if it is true that not one other chess person in Canada is interested in the position, Edward will likely get it.

What are the downsides of an RFP? It takes some time and effort - a committee must be formed. Advertising for applicants must be done. The sytem takes some time to bring to conclusion. Where there are competing bids, an accurate analysis is required, which takes some work. The actual functioning of the position gets delayed 'til the end of the process, and any possible successful applicant notice period required for their exisitng job. All I can say about all this is that it is standard and transparent, and we just went through three RFP's in good time, and with good results.

I think an RFP is required here.

Bob A

Ken Craft
04-03-2013, 08:18 AM
The motion is ill-conceived and lacking in sufficient detail. I'll be voting "No".

Fred McKim
04-03-2013, 09:02 AM
The motion is ill-conceived and lacking in sufficient detail. I'll be voting "No".

I'm not sure why you call it ill-conceived, other than perhaps just not liking it. After extensive discussion with CFC President Michael V-K, Edward presented a proposal to the Executive. Now they could have simply approved it. In actual fact, I would say that other than Micahel and myself they were indifferent.

Michael then advised that the Governors could approve it (or not), so here we are. I am at least somewhat positive that a number of the negative voters, are in favour of the concept. An RFP would require the CFC to provide detail in terms of exactly what we are looking for. In any event I am still counting on a Yes vote to this motion from the Governors.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-03-2013, 09:14 AM
I have not seen any input from the current Youth Coordinator, nor previous ones regarding the motion or a coach position.

I move to amend (limit) the current motion to only "that the CFC establishes the National Youth Coach position to develop young Canadian chess talents."
Not sure, but the position is a non-officer type per CFC Constitution.


I move to create a committee to issue the RFP for the National Youth Coach position if the above motion passes.

Looking for a seconder(s)

Fred McKim
04-03-2013, 09:46 AM
I have not seen any input from the current Youth Coordinator, nor previous ones regarding the motion or a coach position.

I move to amend (limit) the current motion to only "that the CFC establishes the National Youth Coach position to develop young Canadian chess talents."
Not sure, but the position is a non-officer type per CFC Constitution.


I move to create a committee to issue the RFP for the National Youth Coach position if the above motion passes.

Looking for a seconder(s)

Presumably you will find a seconder. Yes, I would think that it is a non-officer position (in any event).

Bob Armstrong
04-03-2013, 12:04 PM
I have not seen any input from the current Youth Coordinator, nor previous ones regarding the motion or a coach position.

I move to amend (limit) the current motion to only "that the CFC establishes the National Youth Coach position to develop young Canadian chess talents."
Not sure, but the position is a non-officer type per CFC Constitution.


I move to create a committee to issue the RFP for the National Youth Coach position if the above motion passes.

Looking for a seconder(s)

Hi Egis:

This is what I proposed earlier, and so I am happy to second this amending motion.

Bob A

Hugh Brodie
04-03-2013, 12:16 PM
Also - a "National Youth Coach" should have some knowledge of French. A perfect person for this type of position would be Montreal's Lefong Hua - fluently trilingual (the third language being the mother tongue of many of the youths' families).

Félix Dumont
04-03-2013, 12:35 PM
Also - a "National Youth Coach" should have some knowledge of French. A perfect person for this type of position would be Montreal's Lefong Hua - fluently trilingual (the third language being the mother tongue of many of the youths' families).

This is why it might be a good idea to have different coaches for each province. However, I don't think any Quebec player would be interested in the proposed program (which is about 10 times more expensive then Team-Quebec).

Pierre Dénommée
04-03-2013, 01:40 PM
Before going forward with such a program, we must ensure that we can afford it for more then one year. We are not recognized as a sport yet, so we get nothing from the Federal Government for our coaches. We need a recurrent income stream to pay for those expenses.

Fred McKim
04-03-2013, 01:46 PM
Before going forward with such a program, we must ensure that we can afford it for more then one year. We are not recognized as a sport yet, so we get nothing from the Federal Government for our coaches. We need a recurrent income stream to pay for those expenses.

It's a commission position.

Kevin Pacey
04-03-2013, 04:02 PM
I fear that this motion, if passed, might not make any easier any email exchanges I have with any number of Canadian chess instructors (in my role as a volunteer Program Coordinator [for helping such instructors to be listed on the CFC website]). :(

I share Ken Craft's concern that this motion is ill-conceived. At least requiring an RFP would improve it, slightly.