I would feel more comfortable if we at least attempted to get a concensus from our strong players regarding the issue of FIDE/CFC ratings for qualifying to the Olympic team. Likewise I would prefer to see the players vote on a Captain rather than have one appointed by amateurs.
I prefer to see the Selection Committee remain in place.
So, you are fine with what Vlad Drculec defined as "inevitable personal, regional and what not biases", Hal? You are not bothered by the fact that Eric Hansen wouldn't have even made it to the 2012 Olympiad had the Selection Committee as represented by Yan Teplitsky had it its way?
It's ok to select a Captain who has no program, no plan, no idea how to help the players - and, consequently, is of no use to the team whatsoever - only because he happens to be several players' buddy?
If so, you should undoubtedly vote against this motion. Canada will keep oscillating between places 40 and 50, and everybody will be happy...
Sorry, there was a double posting.
Our results would be quite impressive too if we cheated and used an engine during the olympiad as the French have indicated at least one of their players and two of their trainers have done. To their credit, they were the ones who brought this to the world's attention despite the embarrassment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée
It should be noted that the current system of blended ratings will yield the same team as going to the all FIDE system would (or at least that was the case as of the last quarterly CFC meeting less than one month ago). This motion will not really affect the picking of this year's team as long as most of the top rated players decide to participate. This motion does make it easier to allow members of the FQE to participate in teams without having to create a conversion formula between CFC and FQE ratings. If FIDE undertakes actions which make relying on their ratings problematic we can always go back to a blended approach again by reversing this decision at a future date. I do understand the sentiment to continue to respect CFC ratings. My understanding based on conversations with individuals beyond the NM level of strength is that most are concerned with their FIDE rating and obtaining FIDE titles. There are few incentives and no titles beyond the NM title which a strong player can vie for within the Canadian rating system. When we discussed CFC titles most of the governors were not in favour of titles beyond that of NM. This action is consistent with that previous decision.Quote:
In this case, the integrity of this single person is paramount.
I could also support parts of this motion if it was separated. With the FIDE licence for players in mind, the number of FIDE rated tournament in Canada could be decreasing sharply.
On the team captain question, it would be great if we could send a strong GM who could make a significant contribution to team performance. Given our fiscal realities this is unlikely to be the case in the near term future. It is not clear to me that this change is better or worse than the current system.
I have little sympathy for the idea that the involvement of a selection committee will make the team selection more flexible. Selection by rating is more fair especially if everyone knows the rules going into the process. Politics and regional bias should be minimized as much as possible in such decisions. The best way to do this is to eliminate the committee.
Vladimir Drkulec
CFC Masters Representative
I suspect that if the move to FIDE only ratings are used, the FQE may be within their rights to have some potential alteration to their CFC and/or FQE rating used.
I agree with Hal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Bond
I am nowhere close to being an elite player, but at the last Olympiad, there in person, I observed/listened to the players/Captains/etc. In my humble opinion, there are certain risks to doing stuff like forming teams just by rating (for example). I respectfully suggest we are under-estimating the value of a built TEAM.
Edward,Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Porper
There could be different opinions, but I completely agree with you on one point:
a Captain shouldn't be selected by players!
The Captain should select players - not other way around!
ALL selected players should be Captain's buddies - or at least willing to work together for the benefit of the TEAM, putting their personal ambitions aside.
In that case the end result could be much better... ;)
I could well agree with you on that, Michael - provided we dig a bit deeper into the topic.
Every player's buddy? Wonderful! That's really a perfect case scenario.
But what should we do if several objectively strongest players do not happen to be the Captain's buddies - disregard them?
And if so, what is the Captain's responsibility? Who is he accountable to - and to what degree?
I hope you don't disagree with me that rights and responsibilities must go hand in hand - the more you are entitled to decide, the heavier is your responsibility.
In our case, what happens to the Captain who did handpick every player, played and seated them as he saw fit - and failed big time?
A pat on the shoulder and "good job" like it was the last time? A resignation from an UNPAID job after he has effectively gone on vacation with everybody around him being a buddy at the CFC expense? If that's the case, quite a few would love to captain!
Only a professional contract with clear-cut defined responsibilities (including financial rewards for a success and punishments for a failure) would justify vesting such a tremendous power into the Captain - and we clearly don't have the means to provide for that. And even in this case, one question would remain: WHO and HOW will choose the Captain, to start with? In my opinion, that should be done strictly on merit of a competitive program presented by the aspiring candidates. The Captain should prove that he knows how to help EVERY player on the team to produce his very best - let alone his understanding of possible team strategies based on the players' personal strength and weaknesses
And the choice should be made at the very top - either by the President or at least by the Executive.
Finally, about personal ambitions.
If a knowledgeable Captain presents his motives in a distinct way, and those motives are FAIR (which necessarily means that everyone is treated equally, as a valuable team member - and the same principles apply to everybody to the same extent), ambitions would cause little trouble in most cases as it would be relatively easy to sacrifice them for the Team. Yet, when an incompetent amateur (who is totally unable to help anybody chess-wise) uses the power he hasn't deserved by any objective criteria (like a competitive program approved by those in charge of the Federation) to trample upon some to make life easier for the others, it hardly contributes to anything like a Team spirit. A team is one body - and as in a body, if you abuse even the smallest finger, the whole body is going to suffer!
And humans aren't fingers - that's why one's bias is poisonous and lethal for any team. And bias is inevitable where subjectivity rules...
The FIDE only ratings will yield the same team as blended FIDE and CFC ratings if everyone near the top of the standings is able to play.
CFC and FQE play would still count towards the current ten game activity rule and the proposed twenty game activity rule? If not, then I would have a problem with this especially if FIDE has made it much more difficult to run FIDE rated tournaments.
I'll be voting "no". I do not support removing CFC ratings from the equation.