Straw Poll on Selection of Olympiad Team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin

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.

---

The following straw poll is on the question of the Olympiad Selection Committee. The results will apply to 2018 and beyond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

The following straw poll is on the question of the Olympiad Selection Committee

---

I don't get to access a poll question ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis

I don't get to access a poll question ...

---

Probably because I was still creating the poll when you posted.

Two things: 1) We're asked to vote on whether we want to maintain the "current system with selection committee". I'm certain this is explained somewhere but can someone please post the current system here for a quick review ? 2) Victor, in the last sentence, when you post: "If two or more players have the same rating after the calculation, then younger age will be used as the tie breaker.", do you mean that the "younger" person would be chosen over the older, likely more experienced, player ?

I chose option one in the straw poll but wanted to emphasize that I don't strongly object to Victor's suggestions. I just chose the most simple option.

Vlad. There is a problem with the Straw vote choices.

Option I and II are mutually exclusive. So really you need the following choices

1. Eliminate selection committee, but do not want rating modifications
2. Eliminate selection committee, and would like at least one of the rating modifications.
3. Retain selection committee player but like at least one of the rating modifications
4. Don't like either motion
5. Change but something else (comment in this thread).

At the time of my writing this the vote is 3 for elimination of selection committee and 3 for Victor's "second" proposal. I assume these 3 all want the elimination of the selection committee - but I think you need to fix this. When the vote is done some analysis will be required. You probably should have just had two separate polls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fred McKim

Vlad. There is a problem with the Straw vote choices.

Option I and II are mutually exclusive. So really you need the following choices

1. Eliminate selection committee, but do not want rating modifications
2. Eliminate selection committee, and would like at least one of the rating modifications.
3. Retain selection committee player but like at least one of the rating modifications
4. Don't like either motion
5. Change but something else (comment in this thread).

At the time of my writing this the vote is 3 for elimination of selection committee and 3 for Victor's "second" proposal. I assume these 3 all want the elimination of the selection committee - but I think you need to fix this. When the vote is done some analysis will be required. You probably should have just had two separate polls.

---

I think if we split it too finely then the two options with modified ratings split the vote. I think we see which one everyone likes and then next meeting we either refine II or simply ratify I if either of those wins.

2 motions = 4 possible choices.

1. I like motion I (Selection of the players). I like motion II (Selection Procedures).
2. I like motion I. I do not like motion II.
3. I like motion II. I do not like motion I.
4. I do not like motion I. I do not like motion II.

What option should I pick if:

a) I like motion I.
b) I like the idea of motion II but want refinement.
c) I want to keep the selection committee for 2 reasons:
- to have more than one person to verify the final selection (even if it is the result of an objective system)
- the selection committee should have the authority to make exceptions (possibly with the approval of the President). If there is a system, people will figure out ways to break it, I want to see some safeguard.

I am seriously asking for what option should I pick. Is it option 4?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael Lo

What option should I pick if:

a) I like motion I.
b) I like the idea of motion II but want refinement.
c) I want to keep the selection committee for 2 reasons:
- to have more than one person to verify the final selection (even if it is the result of an objective system)
- the selection committee should have the authority to make exceptions (possibly with the approval of the President). If there is a system, people will figure out ways to break it, I want to see some safeguard.

I am seriously asking for what option should I pick. Is it option 4?

---

You should probably vote to keep the selection committee in that case and propose an amendment for next meeting on how the selection committee works. The three options are somewhat mutually exclusive. If motion II wins then next meeting we will work on refining it. If motion I wins it seems self explanatory and will simply be adopted. There may still need to be a housecleaning motion in the case I wins. If option III wins someone will have to take the lead on proposing any changes. It might be more difficult to get people to serve on the selection committee if their decision is easily reversible by the president.

The president and directors could always overturn a decision of the selection committee BUT doing so would set a very dangerous precedent and could lead to costly litigation. I would certainly need to explain why the reversal decision was made and ask the voting members to ratify the decision if possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin

2 motions = 4 possible choices.

1. I like motion I (Selection of the players). I like motion II (Selection Procedures).
2. I like motion I. I do not like motion II.
3. I like motion II. I do not like motion I.
4. I do not like motion I. I do not like motion II.

---

The question is which one we like better. It is possible to like all of the alternatives but we have to proceed with one or another or continue with the status quo or if none of the above wins go back to the drawing board.

SIGH! In my humble opinion, this was another reason not to rush this. We've cobbled together an allegedly only straw poll, and yet we're committing ourselves to the voting, when I'm sure more than Michael and I aren't sure which way to vote. Why not take one more meeting and get all aspects of this done right? We're like speeding to a stop sign.

I think, the only question Victor wants to clarify now, before Olympiad, is:
Will we use 2016 Olympiad performance for 2018 Olympiad selection?

And according to current poll results and discussion in this thread, the definite answer is NO.

All other decisions could be made after Olympiad, and for clarity we need to discuss every proposed change separately, one by one.

If the vote remains so close between the two alternatives and no one seems to be voting for the selection committee we will probably have to revisit this as a proper motion in the next meeting. We can also work out some of the details beforehand on the voting members forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

You should probably vote to keep the selection committee in that case and propose an amendment for next meeting on how the selection committee works. The three options are somewhat mutually exclusive. If motion II wins then next meeting we will work on refining it. If motion I wins it seems self explanatory and will simply be adopted. There may still need to be a housecleaning motion in the case I wins. If option III wins someone will have to take the lead on proposing any changes. It might be more difficult to get people to serve on the selection committee if their decision is easily reversible by the president.

The president and directors could always overturn a decision of the selection committee BUT doing so would set a very dangerous precedent and could lead to costly litigation. I would certainly need to explain why the reversal decision was made and ask the voting members to ratify the decision if possible.

---

Vlad, thanks for the detail explanation. I am going for option 4 (basically "abstain") since none of options 1 to 3 comes close to what I wanted. Thanks again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

If the vote remains so close between the two alternatives and no one seems to be voting for the selection committee we will probably have to revisit this as a proper motion in the next meeting. We can also work out some of the details beforehand on the voting members forum.

---

Good decision. I like practically all of Victor's calculations except notably prior Olympiad performance. This might be the best improvement we've made in years! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis

Good decision. I like practically all of Victor's calculations except notably prior Olympiad performance. This might be the best improvement we've made in years! ;)

---

Thank you Aris. Probably, the meeting is over, or almost over, so I want to share a couple of points.

1. About Olympiad performance. To be honest: among many different suggestions I wanted to propose, I was less sure with this one, than with every other proposal. However, I do believe, it's a good idea to take this performance into account.

Some players consistently play better for the team. The best example could be Armenian performance (3 Olympiad wins). Aronian many times performed above 2900 in team events.

Some players play much worse for the ream. One example is Svidler. Last Olympiad, he lost 20 rating points, which had a huge impact on general performance of Russian team. Unfortunately, it was not the only disastrous team event for him. As a result, he was not included into Russian team for this year. 2 low-rated players made the team instead of Svidler. Sure, I do not know what exactly happened, but it looks very possible, that Peter's last performance was taken into account.

Great results like Roussel-Roozmon in 2010, Hansen in 2012, Kovalyov in 2014 should be taken into account. The same, of course, about the negative side. I want to say again: my proposal does not give any disadvantage to a new player. One may win bonus points, another one may lose. The total impact is usually around 0. Sure, as a team captain, I want the total impact to be as great as possible.

2. The most important result of the straw pool: we have some minor chances to get rid of selection committee. That's why I separated between motion 1 and 2. Maybe, I had to make 6 different motions:
a) No selection committee
b) No CFC rating for National Team
c) Use the last rating instead of the highest
d) Bonus/penalties for last Canadian Closed
e) Bonus/penalties for the last Olympiad
f) Bonus for young age and tie-break.

However, b) and d) connected with one another. a) and f) are also connected. That's why I wanted to have less motions. Probably, it was too ambitious.

I have mentioned, that I got a supportive e-mail from on of the current team members. In my reply to him I wrote, "...even with some positive replies, I am not sure that CFC governors would accept my proposals."

I find it a weird situation when the potential Olympiad participants support the suggested proposals, and CFC governors do not.

I don't think its fair to say that the voting members don't support the proposals. I think they are evenly divided between the two. No one is voting for the selection committee so we are safe to say that it will be eliminated.

Until there is a solid motion on the floor, we don't know what the voting members support. Any motion is likely to go through some potential amendments. They call it democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec

I don't think its fair to say that the voting members don't support the proposals. I think they are evenly divided between the two. No one is voting for the selection committee so we are safe to say that it will be eliminated.

---

Some governors see it different. One of them has already decided about proposal for Olympiad bonus/penalty.