PDA

View Full Version : 10.2 Olympiad Selection Rules



Vladimir Drkulec
08-21-2016, 11:01 AM
This thread is for discussion of proposed modifications to the Olympiad Selection Rules as proposed by masters representative Victor Plotkin.

Victor Plotkin
08-21-2016, 01:14 PM
I would like to propose 2 separate motions.

I. Selection of the players.

a. The National Team shall consist of 5 players, as follows:

1). The winner of the last Canadian Closed that has not been used as a qualification for a previous Olympiad; and
2). The 4 highest ranked players as determined by rating.
3). If no tournament described in a1 took place, then the five highest ranked players as determined by rating.

b. The Women Team shall consist of 5 players, as follows:

1). The winner of the last Canadian Women Championship that has not been used as qualification for a previous Olympiad; and
2). The 4 highest ranked female players as determined by rating.
3). If no tournament described in b1 took place, then the 5 highest ranked female players as determined by rating.

c. If a player declines their invitation, a replacement player will be selected according to rating.

II. Selection Procedures.

a. The composition of the Teams shall be determined by rating determined by this procedure 5 months before the start of Olympiad.

b. Selection of players for the National Team and the Women Team, other than the Canadian Champion and Women Champion respectively, shall be determined by the addition of the following, rounding to the nearest 1. (0.5 will be rounded to 1).

1). For the National Team, the player's last FIDE rating; for the Women Team, the average of the player's last FIDE rating and last CFC rating
2). Bonuses/penalties for performance in the last Canadian Closed or last Canadian Women, respectively, that has not been used as qualification for a previous Olympiad:
+20 points for 2nd place
+10 points for 3rd place
-10 points if the player did not participate or withdrew.
3). Bonuses/penalties for performance in the last Olympiad determined by this formula:
(Points won subtracted by the expected number of points according to rating) multiplied by 10.
0 points if the player did not participate.
4) Bonuses for young players: 5 points for every full year of age under 23.

c. If two or more players have the same rating after the calculation, then younger age will be used as the tie breaker.

David Gordon
08-21-2016, 02:21 PM
I would be in support of eliminating subjective criteria such as a selection committee

Fred McKim
08-21-2016, 04:37 PM
I think we have to determine how close the Canadian Closed would be to the Olympiad - 5 months like the selection rating ?

Michael Barron
08-21-2016, 09:52 PM
I think we have to determine how close the Canadian Closed would be to the Olympiad - 5 moths like the selection rating ?

I think, Canadian Closed should take place every year.
In this case at any decision point (be it 5 or 6 months before Olympiad) there always will be relatively recent Canadian Closed...

Fred McKim
08-21-2016, 10:52 PM
I think, Canadian Closed should take place every year.
In this case at any decision point (be it 5 or 6 months before Olympiad) there always will be relatively recent Canadian Closed...

The wording has to reflect that the Canadian Closed is held at various time of the year and not every year.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-21-2016, 11:20 PM
I think, Canadian Closed should take place every year.
In this case at any decision point (be it 5 or 6 months before Olympiad) there always will be relatively recent Canadian Closed...

It should take place every year but there are a limited number of people who are capable of organizing a Canadian Closed and convincing them to do so is not always easy or necessarily financially feasible.

Vlad Rekhson
08-22-2016, 10:59 AM
I would like to propose 2 separate motions.

I. Selection of the players.

a. The National Team shall consist of 5 players, as follows:

1). The winner of the last Canadian Closed that has not been used as a qualification for a previous Olympiad; and
2). The 4 highest ranked players as determined by rating.
3). If no tournament described in a1 took place, then the five highest ranked players as determined by rating.

b. The Women Team shall consist of 5 players, as follows:

1). The winner of the last Canadian Women Championship that has not been used as qualification for a previous Olympiad; and
2). The 4 highest ranked female players as determined by rating.
3). If no tournament described in b1 took place, then the 5 highest ranked female players as determined by rating.

c. If a player declines their invitation, a replacement player will be selected according to rating.

II. Selection Procedures.

a. The composition of the Teams shall be determined by rating determined by this procedure 5 months before the start of Olympiad.

b. Selection of players for the National Team and the Women Team, other than the Canadian Champion and Women Champion respectively, shall be determined by the addition of the following, rounding to the nearest 1. (0.5 will be rounded to 1).

1). For the National Team, the player's last FIDE rating; for the Women Team, the average of the player's last FIDE rating and last CFC rating
2). Bonuses/penalties for performance in the last Canadian Closed or last Canadian Women, respectively, that has not been used as qualification for a previous Olympiad:
+20 points for 2nd place
+10 points for 3rd place
-10 points if the player did not participate or withdrew.
3). Bonuses/penalties for performance in the last Olympiad determined by this formula:
(Points won subtracted by the expected number of points according to rating) multiplied by 10.
0 points if the player did not participate.
4) Bonuses for young players: 5 points for every full year of age under 23.

c. If two or more players have the same rating after the calculation, then younger age will be used as the tie breaker.

I like the first motion for sure; however, I don't like the idea of having an arbitrary rating period where the ratings suddenly become important, as that can cause some players to stop playing if they are on a cusp of making a team. I believe that a better system is: best achieved rating based on 3-6 rating periods or the average rating.

Aris Marghetis
08-22-2016, 11:20 AM
I like the first motion for sure; however, I don't like the idea of having an arbitrary rating period where the ratings suddenly become important, as that can cause some players to stop playing if they are on a cusp of making a team. I believe that a better system is: best achieved rating based on 3-6 rating periods or the average rating.

I like Victor's "objectivizing" proposal, and I think there's some merit to Vlad's concerns above. Stepping back for a sec, do we need to FINALIZE the new method during this AGM, or can we just decide to let Victor and a team go off and study this more thoroughly? For example, they could work through historical data for the last few Olympiads, to get a better feeling of the impact of some the proposed formulas. Then Victor could bring back his final model at our next meeting, for final approval. Victor, what do you think?

Fred McKim
08-22-2016, 11:25 AM
I like Victor's "objectivizing" proposal, and I think there's some merit to Vlad's concerns above. Stepping back for a sec, do we need to FINALIZE the new method during this AGM, or can we just decide to let Victor and a team go off and study this more thoroughly? For example, they could work through historical data for the last few Olympiads, to get a better feeling of the impact of some the proposed formulas. Then Victor could bring back his final model at our next meeting, for final approval. Victor, what do you think?

I think we vote on this at the next quarterly meeting, with the understanding that it will be in effect for the 2018 Olympic Teams.

Lyle Craver
08-22-2016, 11:28 AM
I think we vote on this at the next quarterly meeting, with the understanding that it will be in effect for the 2018 Olympic Teams.

I agree with Fred - obviously we're not going to impact the Olympiad in two weeks so the priority is that we have things right for the next Olympiad. We should not feel under 'time trouble' on this one.

Victor Plotkin
08-22-2016, 12:53 PM
I don't see the advantage if the have voting after Olympiad. Recently, I got a supporting e-mail from a National Team player. I believe, majority of his teammates also support this proposal.

I want to explain more about using the last rating (FIDE or average) and not the last year average or maximum rating.

I guess, maximum rating (we use it now) is the worst possible solution, while any other (last or 12-month average) is much better. The difference between the last and the average is not that big; if governors like average, we can change it. However, after spending some time on this issue, I believe that using the "last" one is the best solution.

1. 2 possible scenarios there last rating is much better than the average.
a). Player was inactive for very long time. 2 months before the deadline he starts playing, plays 20 games and thus meets the minimum game requirement. He performs much lower than his initial rating and loses 20 points a month. Looks very possible. Let's say his rating was 2500. His "last" would be 2460. His average would be (2500*10 + 2480 + 2460)/12= 2495. Sure, "last" is more useful in this example.
b). Player gains a lot of points for very short period of time. In the past E.Hansen, A.Hambleton and others gained 100 points or more in less than 12 months. Eric gained 123 points (from May 2012 to May 2013; from 2454 to 2577). Aman gained 242 points (from May 2012 to May 2013; from 2226 to 2468). Which rating reflects better the real strength of a player? Sure, the "last".

2. Indeed, the "last" sometimes is too volatile, but with k-factor of 10, the volatility is low. In many cases, it's not just random fluctuation, but a part of long-term trend.

3. I guess, many people highly overestimate the scenario, there a certain player stops playing. Olympiad is definitely an interesting and important tournament, but the life must go on. I do not see how professional chess player would miss many tournaments because of Olympiad. Also player, who does not play last few months, may lose his spot as a result of the progress of other players.

Fred McKim
08-22-2016, 02:37 PM
I think the final rating at the deadline is fine. As Victor says players who are afraid of losing rating points should also be afraid of players catching them.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-22-2016, 03:03 PM
In general we have better participation at an AGM rather than a quarterly meeting. I also do not see any advantage to a delay. Do we like the system as it is currently arranged? Yes or no. If we like the system then there should be no change. If we don't like the current system here are two possible ways to change it. The problem with the current system is that it introduces a very subjective element into the Olympiad selection process. Having to find people willing to serve on the selection committee can be challenging at times. When the decision comes out there will be calls for the directors to intervene if the decision does not go the way some would have expected. At some point we will have a president and board of directors which might be inclined to intervene. Problems will ensue. I see these two proposals as a good way to head off that scenario.

We are not changing a bylaw with this change if we make a change. There is no place in our bylaws where such a bylaw would fit. We are changing our policy for choosing the olympiad teams. One of the things that we need to accomplish in the next few months is to codify a new set of policies to replace the handbook which only currently holds force because the directors have accepted the idea that we should hold to the handbook until we can rebuild an acceptable alternative way of codifying the policies that we have put in place over many years. This will likely be contained in a series of web pages. Peter McKillop and others are working on getting the handbook up to date. Once that happens we can then go through it and remove the things which no longer make sense or are inconsistent with the NFP act.

Michael Lo
08-22-2016, 03:48 PM
I believe that a better system is: best achieved rating based on 3-6 rating periods or the average rating.

I like Vlad's idea of best achieved rating or the average rating. Preferably the average rating seems more accurately reflects the real playing strength.

Victor, thank you for preparing the draft.

Richard Bérubé
08-23-2016, 04:25 PM
I agree with this. There is no necessity to rush a decision. Better take some time to arrive at the best formula.

Victor Plotkin
08-24-2016, 09:34 AM
Let's see what would have happened, had we used this system. I checked last 4 campaigns.

2010. Champion: Hebert (declined). Spraggett declined 2010, 2012, 2014. The Team: Bluvshtein - Roussel-Roozmon - Gerzhoy - Noritsyn - Samsonkin.

Bluvshtein: 2583 + 20 (2nd place) - 1 (previous Olympiad) + 10 (age) = 2612.
Roussel-Roozmon: 2488 - 10 + 3 + 10 = 2491.
Gerzhoy: 2469 + 5 = 2474.
Noritsyn: 2403 + 9 + 25 = 2437.
Hansen: 2415 - 10 + 30 = 2435.
Porper: 2431.
Panjwani: 2401 + 20 = 2421.
Samsonkin: 2406 + 15 = 2421.

So we have Hansen ahead of Samsonkin, while Porper and Panjwani (tie-break!) also above Samsonkin. According to proposed system, the Team would have been: Bluvshtein - Roussel-Roozmon - Gerzhoy - Noritsyn - Hansen.

2012. Champion: Sambuev. Bluvshtein and Spraggett declined. The Team: Sambuev - Gerzhoy - Noritsyn - Hansen - Porper.

Gershoy: 2489 + 10 (3rd place) - 1 = 2498.
Hansen: 2454 + 20 (2nd place) + 20 (age) = 2494.
Noritsyn: 2475 + 3 + 15 = 2493.
Porper: 2438 - 10 = 2428.
Panjwani: 2416 + 10 = 2426.

Porper still has 2 points advantage over Panjwani. In this case we have exactly the same Team.

2014. Champion: Sambuev. Spraggett declined. The Team: Kovalyov - Hansen - Sambuev - Gerzhoy - Hambleton.

Kovalyov: 2636 + 20 (2nd place) + 10 (age) = 2666.
Hansen: 2587 - 10 + 25 (last Olympiad) + 10 = 2612.
Gerzhoy: 2468 + 8 = 2476.
Noritsyn: 2449 + 10 (3rd place) + 9 + 5 = 2473.
Hambleton: 2455 - 10 + 10 = 2455.

We have Noritsyn above Hambleton. The Team would have been: Kovalyov - Hansen - Sambuev - Gerzhoy - Noritsyn.

2016. Champion: Krnan. The Team: Bareev - Kovalyov - Hansen - LeSiege - Krnan.

Bareev: 2675 - 10 = 2665.
Kovalyov: 2608 -10 + 9 = 2607.
Hansen: 2580 + 20 (2nd place) = 2600.
Sambuev: 2544 + 6 = 2550.
Preotu: 2462 + 35 = 2497.
LeSiege: 2497 - 10 = 2487.
Noritsyn: 2476.

We have both Sambuev and Preotu above LeSiege. The Team would have been: Bareev - Kovalyov - Hansen - Sambuev - Krnan.

Aris Marghetis
08-24-2016, 10:39 AM
This is good stuff Victor, thanks for your efforts, and it implies that we are closing in on a complete solution. I am pleasantly surprised at most of the effects so far. My only cognitive struggle is how to numerically give more "credit" for obviously shooting-up junior stars who are within acceptable "striking distance" of the 5th person on the team.

Nikolay Noritsyn
08-24-2016, 10:55 AM
Aris, but the juniors are already given preference, with the extra points they get for being younger than 23. The number could be changed from 5 to 6 or 7 maybe, but I personally like it the way it is suggested.

I see no point in waiting for the olympiad to finish to vote on this. There is enough data already. Both "last rating" and "average rating" are much more fair and work better than the current "top rating", even with the mentioned downsides.

Fred McKim
08-24-2016, 11:40 AM
One possible issue of waiting until after the Olympiad is that the Olympic + and - points will be known and could affect people's voting - but perhaps no more so than people's bias towards giving credit for young players

We could vote now on
1. Change to rating system for Open (CFC/FIDE to FIDE)
2. Removal of selection committee (4 players by selection rating)
3. Change from highest rating
3a. Final rating
3b. Average of 12 monthly ratings.

and leave the three components of the Victor's adjustment to continued discussion, although generally people seem positive.

As for the age bonus, I could see an even more radical shift. 5 points for every year 20-24, 10 points for every year under 20. In other words that would be 75 points for a 15 year old. I think this might be even more pertinent on the womens side, where we have seen cases of ladies with realative inactivity getting in ahead of active youth.

Victor Plotkin
08-24-2016, 12:05 PM
About juniors. Our current system does not give any priority to young players. Actually, the opposite is the truth. In 2012 (Porper) and now the oldest possible player was selected. By proposed system, juniors would have 2 (actually, 2.5) advantage.

1. Bonus 5 points/year. In many cases in the past this bonus would have been very important.
2. Using "last" and not "average" is in favor of juniors.
3. Tie-break (younger age). Sure, it's unlikely, but still can happen (example 2010, there Panjwani has advantage over Samsonkin).

I still believe, that the best chance to change something in current selection system - is to vote now.

Victor Plotkin
08-24-2016, 12:18 PM
Fred, if we significantly increase age bonus (from proposed 30-40 points to something like 60) we can create situation, there a junior would be much lower rated then the rest of the team. In this case it would be somewhat uncomfortable for a junior. I believe, Olympiad is a tournament for best players.

Hal Bond
08-24-2016, 01:05 PM
I wonder if 5 points per year is too generous for juniors. They have many more opportunities per year to represent Canada because of all the age based competitions. We should always be sending our best team to the Olympiad.

Fred McKim
08-24-2016, 01:15 PM
I wonder if 5 points per year is too generous for juniors. They have many more opportunities per year to represent Canada because of all the age based competitions. We should always be sending our best team to the Olympiad.

Hal it is always possible to vote on the formula and have the number of points = X - and tweak X later in a second vote. As well Y could be the age - maybe it should be 20 or maybe 25 and not 23.

Aris Marghetis
08-24-2016, 01:26 PM
I wonder if 5 points per year is too generous for juniors. They have many more opportunities per year to represent Canada because of all the age based competitions. We should always be sending our best team to the Olympiad.

Yes, I have come around to what Hal and Victor are saying, we always want to send our best or almost-best or best-enough. I know those phrases might seem weird, but what I'm trying to get at is that I would give even more weight to a shooting-star junior if he was "close enough" to 5th place as a choice. I know what I mean in my mind, but I'm having trouble expressing it here. I have zero interest in sending someone for experience if it hamstrings the current team, but as any gap for 5th place shrinks, then more and more I want the shooting-star junior. Note that I am NOT in favour of advantage due just to younger age, but rather advantage to a very rapidly improving junior. There is a difference, in my opinion. I guess I would be more in favour of any shooting-star improvement, but I have only seen it with youngsters like Razvan. Hope it makes sense.

Nikolay Noritsyn
08-24-2016, 05:59 PM
I think the whole point is to avoid subjective criteria, and replace all with mathematics..a "very rapidly improving junior" is subjective. Also, I do agree its important to send the strongest possible team (and that favouring juniors with Victor's suggestions is likely to achieve that).

I don't see how 5 points per year can be too generous. I would support a (very) unlikely case of a 13 year old who is 50 (that is, relatively, a small rating difference..consider how many people support Razvan to play on the olympiad..when Sambuev was ~80 fide rating points higher) points lower rated then another candidate to play on the team.

Aris Marghetis
08-24-2016, 08:43 PM
I think the whole point is to avoid subjective criteria, and replace all with mathematics..a "very rapidly improving junior" is subjective. Also, I do agree its important to send the strongest possible team (and that favouring juniors with Victor's suggestions is likely to achieve that).

I don't see how 5 points per year can be too generous. I would support a (very) unlikely case of a 13 year old who is 50 (that is, relatively, a small rating difference..consider how many people support Razvan to play on the olympiad..when Sambuev was ~80 fide rating points higher) points lower rated then another candidate to play on the team.

I agree Nikolay with Victor's "objectivizing" plan. However, I don't know offhand how to QUANTIFY "very rapidly improving". All in all, I like this change we are building.

Garland Best
08-24-2016, 09:30 PM
It is possible to quantify "very rapidly improving". One example would be to add/subtract 1 point for every 5 points that the player's rating has improved/declined over the rating period.

By the same token, one could put in an activity score of (for example) one point per game played.

Victor's original motion has great merit, and he has done good work. I would support a motion where his system is accepted, subject to the creation of a committee to come up with a better formula. Said committee would submit their ammended formula to the VM within 6 months to vote on. If the committee fails to come up with an alternative formula by then, or if the VM members do not approve the submitted formula, then Victor's formula would be used to decide the next Olympic team.

Richard Bowes
08-24-2016, 10:13 PM
I like motion #1 but not motion #2. The idea of using objective criteria to select the team has much merit and should eliminate most of the questioning and criticism that follows the announcement of the team’s selection. I don’t like the idea of bonuses for performance in a particular event or tournament. One bad event could assume an importance all out of proportion to the player’s strength. I don’t agree with age based discrimination for the National Team. The CFC should send the strongest team possible based purely on rating. An up and coming youngster will have ample opportunity of legitimately earning a spot on the team in the years ahead of him/her.

Victor Plotkin
08-25-2016, 03:36 PM
I like motion #1 but not motion #2. The idea of using objective criteria to select the team has much merit and should eliminate most of the questioning and criticism that follows the announcement of the team’s selection. I don’t like the idea of bonuses for performance in a particular event or tournament. One bad event could assume an importance all out of proportion to the player’s strength. I don’t agree with age based discrimination for the National Team. The CFC should send the strongest team possible based purely on rating. An up and coming youngster will have ample opportunity of legitimately earning a spot on the team in the years ahead of him/her.

Richard, I absolutely understand your position. I hope that after many years with problems around Selection Committee, VMs are ready to more objective approach.

Now about motion 2. By changing many parameters from the current rules, I tried to keep balance. Eliminating CFC rating from the consideration and giving some bonuses/penalties for Canadian Closed. Eliminating Selection Committee and giving significant bonuses for young players. Many people proposed here and on chesstalk higher bonuses, many people do not like bonuses at all. That means, my proposal is somewhere in the middle.

We have more than 50 VMs and hundreds active players. Each one has his own opinion. It's really impossible to create a system, which would be 100% for everyone. I guess, by voting for this change or against it, you should answer a very basic question: "Is this proposal better than the current rules?"

Fred McKim
08-25-2016, 05:16 PM
Actually the best way to identify rapidly improving young player is to measure the improvement in the 12 month period leading up to the deadline. Consider two juniors both at 2475 at the deadline. One started the year at 2450, the other at 2350/ It is quite likely that the player who started the year at 2350 is presently the stronger player.

In any case fielding the strongest team possible probably means that player #5 only plays 4 or 5 rounds.

Lyle Craver
08-25-2016, 05:23 PM
Given the Olympiad is less than a month away it should be clear to all that we are talking about qualification for the 2018 Olympiad. I've heard several interesting ideas worth further discussion and while I'm definitely NOT interested in dragging out this process do not feel that we're mistreating the players if we arrive at new regulations in the next two quarterly meetings. There would be more immediate need if the Olympiad was less than a year away.

I haven't firmly decided how I feel on this but would welcome Paul Leblanc's view on this subject (CFC Ratings Auditor, long time Foundation member etc)

Last of all a warm welcome to Richard who has joined the incoming board and last time I talked to him was having difficulty getting access so I'm glad he's successfully in the meeting! LC

Victor Plotkin
08-26-2016, 07:14 AM
Given the Olympiad is less than a month away it should be clear to all that we are talking about qualification for the 2018 Olympiad. I've heard several interesting ideas worth further discussion and while I'm definitely NOT interested in dragging out this process do not feel that we're mistreating the players if we arrive at new regulations in the next two quarterly meetings. There would be more immediate need if the Olympiad was less than a year away.

I haven't firmly decided how I feel on this but would welcome Paul Leblanc's view on this subject (CFC Ratings Auditor, long time Foundation member etc)

Last of all a warm welcome to Richard who has joined the incoming board and last time I talked to him was having difficulty getting access so I'm glad he's successfully in the meeting! LC

Probably, I do not completely understand CFC rules, but I have a question. If a VM wants his motions to be voted this meeting, but CFC secretary does not, what are rules about it?

Ken Craft
08-26-2016, 08:18 AM
Ultimately the decision would rest with the VMs. A motion could be moved and seconded and ready to be put to a vote. A member could move to postpone the motion until a future meeting. The motion to postpone would take precedence and be voted upon first.

Victor Plotkin
08-26-2016, 08:51 AM
Ultimately the decision would rest with the VMs. A motion could be moved and seconded and ready to be put to a vote. A member could move to postpone the motion until a future meeting. The motion to postpone would take precedence and be voted upon first.

Thank you Ken. Is it possible to vote for 2 motions now? Vlad told me I do not need to have a seconder.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-26-2016, 09:33 AM
Thank you Ken. Is it possible to vote for 2 motions now?

In the normal course of events a member motion should have a very long lead time as outlined in the NFP act. I believe that this applies to motions that seek to change bylaws or the are looking to change the constitution or organization of the CFC. These motions are asking us to change how we organize the Olympiad team which is not covered in the bylaws at the moment and probably shouldn't be if we follow the intent of the NFP act. We are being asked to change the policy of how the Olympiad team is selected by the duly elected Masters Representative. Every post and private email that I have received from the executive, the voting members and the public supports making some kind of change. I believe either one of these proposals is better than the current arrangement. I believe that the correct timing of the vote should be one that allows the the youth coordinator and Quebec voting members to vote on the question.

We have three or four ways of proceeding. The first is to put the question on the ballot immediately but make sure that the voting is extended to give everyone a chance to vote. The second is to adjourn the meeting for three weeks to six weeks but not close it and to come back and deal with this question then. The third is to defer it to the next meeting which could come as quickly as four weeks to six weeks from now specifically to deal with this. The reason to extend it to six weeks would be to provide sufficient time after the Olympiad to give notice of this proposal to the new voting members. A fourth idea would be to vote now to determine which of the two mutually exclusive proposals we go ahead with and then work out the details for three to six weeks from now or for the next meeting which might be as soon as six weeks from now. I am open to each of these possibilities based on the consensus of the voting members on this question.

Fred McKim
08-26-2016, 09:42 AM
I think there may be some wording issues that have to be cleared up. For example in Motion 1, it doesn't indicate how close the Canadian Closed can be to the Olympiad - for example would a CC three months before the Olympiad be used ? an exact date has to be placed here. As well someone could argue that the last Canadian Closed that "wasn't used" was maybe in 199X, if we didn't have a Canadian Closed for 2 or 3 years (for some unknown reason).

Victor Plotkin
08-26-2016, 10:28 AM
I think there may be some wording issues that have to be cleared up. For example in Motion 1, it doesn't indicate how close the Canadian Closed can be to the Olympiad - for example would a CC three months before the Olympiad be used ? an exact date has to be placed here. As well someone could argue that the last Canadian Closed that "wasn't used" was maybe in 199X, if we didn't have a Canadian Closed for 2 or 3 years (for some unknown reason).

Good point, Fred. It should be: "The winner of the last Canadian Closed that took place 5-36 months prior to the Olympiad and that has not been used as a qualification for a previous Olympiad" and the same for the Women's Team.

Victor Plotkin
08-26-2016, 10:32 AM
In the normal course of events a member motion should have a very long lead time as outlined in the NFP act. I believe that this applies to motions that seek to change bylaws or the are looking to change the constitution or organization of the CFC. These motions are asking us to change how we organize the Olympiad team which is not covered in the bylaws at the moment and probably shouldn't be if we follow the intent of the NFP act. We are being asked to change the policy of how the Olympiad team is selected by the duly elected Masters Representative. Every post and private email that I have received from the executive, the voting members and the public supports making some kind of change. I believe either one of these proposals is better than the current arrangement. I believe that the correct timing of the vote should be one that allows the the youth coordinator and Quebec voting members to vote on the question.

We have three or four ways of proceeding. The first is to put the question on the ballot immediately but make sure that the voting is extended to give everyone a chance to vote. The second is to adjourn the meeting for three weeks to six weeks but not close it and to come back and deal with this question then. The third is to defer it to the next meeting which could come as quickly as four weeks to six weeks from now specifically to deal with this. The reason to extend it to six weeks would be to provide sufficient time after the Olympiad to give notice of this proposal to the new voting members. A fourth idea would be to vote now to determine which of the two mutually exclusive proposals we go ahead with and then work out the details for three to six weeks from now or for the next meeting which might be as soon as six weeks from now. I am open to each of these possibilities based on the consensus of the voting members on this question.

I would prefer the first one. We can extend the meeting by 1 or 2 days to allow a new governors to participate in voting.

Ken Craft
08-26-2016, 12:10 PM
I would rather vote after the Olympiad is completed.

Aris Marghetis
08-26-2016, 01:04 PM
I would rather vote after the Olympiad is completed.

Ditto. My opinion is that some people will get weird if we change things before this Olympiad is completed. That doesn't make sense, but some folk will act up publicly.

Victor Plotkin
08-26-2016, 03:39 PM
Ditto. My opinion is that some people will get weird if we change things before this Olympiad is completed. That doesn't make sense, but some folk will act up publicly.

Maybe. However, if we wait too long, some other people will get impression that CFC is absolutely unable to change anything. To be honest I care more about second group of people.

Lyle Craver
08-26-2016, 05:14 PM
If we settled 2018 regulations at the next quarterly meeting we shouldn't get the 'unable to change anything' gripes.

To be sure - I'm concerned about people with real concerns not the sort that would complain if the Exec and VM assembly took the pieces out of the box to put them on the board!

Gary Hua
08-27-2016, 07:19 AM
My personal view on the selection of the rules - I fully support Victor's suggestions and I think if we can make a decision/vote the sooner the better. It doesn't need to wait until the Olympiad is over.

I have seen many chess federations being bogged down by politics and the selections has been undermined by these politics and thus not selecting the best players for the country. I think we should have as objective as possible for the selection instead of relying on individual opinion ( aka selection committee ). This way, it is fair to ALL players and all players will know what they need to do to represent the country. Representing the country should serve as an HONOUR and thus it is must be fair and transparent to all and must go through the stringent process.

I for one do not like to drag on matters and leave the matter to another time for decision unless there is a GOOD reason for it.

Whatever had happened before - let's not brood over it and MOVING forward is more important.

Let's wish the best for the current contingent at the Olympiad ( next week ) and hope they can bring the best results for Canada. What is done is done. There is no need to prove who is right and who is wrong.
Let's also hope that ALL the VMs will vote in the best possible way for the Chess in Canada and I mean ALL VMs should vote.

Victor Plotkin
08-27-2016, 10:23 AM
As you know, one one my proposals is taking Olympiad performance into account. That's why makes more sense to vote before the tournament. Any rules should be known before the start of the campaign. In this case, 2018 campaign starts with 2016 Olympiad.

Sasha Starr
08-27-2016, 04:02 PM
I'd like to know why the vote couldn't be done right now, BEFORE this meeting is over?

Vladimir Drkulec
08-27-2016, 04:40 PM
I'd like to know why the vote couldn't be done right now, BEFORE this meeting is over?

It will be. See the thread straw poll with respect to the Olympiad teams.