Item # 14 - 2010-11 Provincial YCC Qualifiers to the 2011 CYCC

[Fred McKim]

Michael - can someone confirm that a province can hold a regular Provincial YCC event (old style) and remind me what the commitment was to the CYCC. Shouldn't this still be in the rules ?

The issue in PEI is that we've had a total of 3-4 players over the history of the CYCC attend that event. That could change in the future.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

One question: using the international time control is important. It gives our players experience with it, including those who will represent Canada. I do not think that a one-day option at 30 minutes per player should be included. At least a full week-end or equivalent is more appropriate. I don't think players travelling a long distance, many with their parents, will appreciate a one-day rushed event.
I agree with Christopher, even not in major provincials like Ont, BC, and Albert still need take seriouse for the CFC tournament. 30 minutes per player looks like chess&math that only hold in their field. If we prepare players who are going to world chess stage already need follow FIDE Rules from YCC.
As Michal Barron said YCC still important to let all players of their age section participate in serious chess with experience that no possible to have in Open tournaments. His four point could cover all questions. Increase the number players of CYCC should begin with local chess club who lead youth players in CFC rated. There still very few tournaments for Youth players in Canada. Keep more YCC tournaments and give more qualifiers from YCC.

BCYCC is a 2 days event running under the same rules as CYCC. There are no 30 minutes games at this level.

[Michael Barron]

Michael - can someone confirm that a province can hold a regular Provincial YCC event (old style) and remind me what the commitment was to the CYCC. Shouldn't this still be in the rules ?

The issue in PEI is that we've had a total of 3-4 players over the history of the CYCC attend that event. That could change in the future.

Fred,

I can confirm that a province can hold a regular Provincial YCC event (old style).
As Ellen mentioned, the commitment to the CYCC fund is $4 per player.
Yes, this still should be in the rules, but for some reason I can't find it...

[Lyle Craver]

Definitely a full description of the CYCC and subsidiary events should be in the Handbook revision now underway.

Both you and Ellen would be ideal people to write it.

[Michael Barron]

Definitely a full description of the CYCC and subsidiary events should be in the Handbook revision now underway.

Both you and Ellen would be ideal people to write it.

Lyle,

It's written already.

Could you please advise:
What is the procedure to update the Handbook?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

As Chair of the Procedures' Committee, supervising the Handbook Updating Subcommittee ( Kerry Liles ), it is my opinion that any changes to the wording of the Handbook have to be made by motion ( unless it is grammatical, for consistency, etc. ie. technical in nature ).

Bob

[Michael Barron]

Hi Michael:

As Chair of the Procedures' Committee, supervising the Handbook Updating Subcommittee ( Kerry Liles ), it is my opinion that any changes to the wording of the Handbook have to be made by motion ( unless it is grammatical, for consistency, etc. ie. technical in nature ).

Bob

Hi Bob:

Now in the Hanbook we see (http://www.chess.ca/section_10.shtml):

"1003. Players: {Motion 2009-13 2009 AGM Nadeau/Lavin}

The following players shall be eligible to participate in each Youth Tournament provided they comply with the formal entry requirements of Article 1007:

(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.

(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.

(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}

(d) The proof of qualification will rest with the applicants to the CYCC.

(e) The host organizer may nominate three players for each category from the host location. {Amendment of Original Motion Barron/Langer}"

I hope, you would agree that paragraph (d) should be removed from the list.

How could we do that?
Is it technical in nature?
Or a motion is needed?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

Maybe I do not understand the section, but doesn't ( d ) mean :

the onus of showing qualification is on the player seeking to play. In other words, if there is any ambiguity about the qualification of a player, or any uncertainly, and the organizer is unsure whether the player indeed qualifies, then it will be decided AGAINST the player if they fail to come up with sufficient proof to satisfy the organizer that they do in fact qualify.

If my interpretation is right, then why is the section not proper and important?

And if I am right, what is wrong with the section, that you think it should be removed?

Bob

[Michael Barron]

Hi Michael:

Maybe I do not understand the section, but doesn't ( d ) mean :

the onus of showing qualification is on the player seeking to play. In other words, if there is any ambiguity about the qualification of a player, or any uncertainly, and the organizer is unsure whether the player indeed qualifies, then it will be decided AGAINST the player if they fail to come up with sufficient proof to satisfy the organizer that they do in fact qualify.

If my interpretation is right, then why is the section not proper and important?

And if I am right, what is wrong with the section, that you think it should be removed?

Bob

Hi Bob:

The section
"1003. Players:"
lists 4 categories of players who are eligible to participate in CYCC:
(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.
(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.
(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}.
(e) Three players for each category nominated by the host organizer.

The paragraph
"(d) The proof of qualification will rest with the applicants to the CYCC."
just doesn't belong to this list.

Does it matter?
I don't know...

I just don't want to waste my and your time on such things.
If somebody believes that something should be changed in the Handbook revision, they are welcome to submit a Motion...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Michael:

You raise a valid point - ( d ) does not describe a class of player. I think it should stay in the Handbook though, for the interpretation I gave it above.

Is it technical in nature - I think so - it is a good statement of burdent of proof , but in the wrong place. It could for instance become s. 1004, referring back to s. 1003, with some technical wording surrounding it.

I will take this up with Kerry and Bob G, to see whether they think we can avoid a motion to make this correction.

Thanks for raising it. If anyone feels this would be a " substantial " amendment, and requires a " Motion ", please let me know.

Bob