21. 2011 Provincial YCC Qualifiers to the 2011 CYCC

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I think my position was that outside of Ontario and Quebec, I'm not sure if the other provinces receive considerable support from CMA (perhaps moral support).

In PEI we have a group of committed volunteers that only operate on the CMA side of the fence, and I suspect that is the same elsewhere.

Was this the fault of the CFC ? I don't know if it reallt matters. We could use our eneregy a lot better to try and get these kids playing CFC tournaments.

I find active tournaments (games are a maximum of one hour) are a good equalizer for mixing adults and kids.

Fred,

When myself - one and the same person - and the other BC volunteers manage to have over 200 players playing in regional qualifications and provincial finals for the CMA cycle, BUT cannot convince more than maybe 60-70 players to play directly at YCC (forget regionals where there would be no interest...) how can you tell me to spend my energy bringing the missing ones to CFC tournaments? Maybe you have some magic solution we did not think about and then I am all ears...

It is plain and simple logic there's something else rotten when they come in numbers for the CMA tournaments, while the opposite happens for the CFC tournaments!

P.S. Nobody is really interested to get an active rating! All want a true CFC rating!

[Stuart Brammall]

Fred,

When myself - one and the same person - and the other BC volunteers manage to have over 200 players playing in regional qualifications and provincial finals for the CMA cycle, BUT cannot convince more than maybe 60-70 players to play directly at YCC (forget regionals where there would be no interest...) how can you tell me to spend my energy bringing the missing ones to CFC tournaments? Maybe you have some magic solution we did not think about and then I am all ears...

It is plain and simple logic there's something else rotten when they come in numbers for the CMA tournaments, while the opposite happens for the CFC tournaments!

P.S. Nobody is really interested to get an active rating! All want a true CFC rating!

I think it is clear that the CFC and CMA cater to different markets. Kids in general don't have the patience to play long chess, and that is why CMA gives them short games.

There are, of course, many exceptions... these are the individuals that the CYCC, and the Canadian Junior is for. This is not the Chess Challenge, where only the top boards have clocks-- this is the big leagues. I think it has been clear all along that we have not, and likely will not appeal to the average eight year old... nor do I think we should try.

I don't see what is wrong with having one event per year where the best of the best youth play each other, without having to waste time pummelling 4 or 5 players rated below 1000 along the way.

I understand that B.C. has issues with kids being under-rated, but even in the fall Jason Cao was number 6 on the list for his age group...

[Fred McKim]

We all have the same problem with CFC vs CMA. I had to stop holding CFC Youth events 10 years ago as I couldn't get enough players.

I held a few CMA events, but thank goodness there is a separate group doing that now.

I don't see that CMA has much to offer grades 7-12 other than the Nationals. Those are the players we neeed to try and bring on.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

We all have the same problem with CFC vs CMA. I had to stop holding CFC Youth events 10 years ago as I couldn't get enough players.

I held a few CMA events, but thank goodness there is a separate group doing that now.

I don't see that CMA has much to offer grades 7-12 other than the Nationals. Those are the players we neeed to try and bring on.

HERE lays the whole issue! My argument is that we need to concentrate of players from K to 12 and not only 7-12

[Ken Craft]

And my argument is we need to do it in cooperation with the CMA not in competition with them.

[Fred McKim]

That is all well and good Ken, but Michael had no luck when he contacted the 4 Atlantic CMA Co-ordinators regarding holding a YCC.

At present there is no incentive for CMA to have any of their events CFC rated or to serve as qualifiers for any CFC events.

CMA's holding the North American Youth last year was a first step, but there is a long way to go, before the CMA grip is loosened on lower grades.

This brings us back to rating issues, as again we have young players active in 2 rating systems, causing deflation.

Most pre-teen kids I ever talk to can't grasp the concept of a chess organization other than one they play in (CMA). Same as ratings......

Here's an idea: All CMA players receive complimentary "Participating" CFC Memberships. Once a year CMA sends us their rating file: with name, membership number, community, province, grade, rating, and number of tournaments. We have a process that takes this and updates their CFC rating or gives them a CFC rating.

This would be a win-win idea. They don't lose their players and we get to increase our membership and have more accurate ratings especially for the younger kids.

[Stuart Brammall]

Not to be negative, but I don't think it is possible for us to appeal to young kids with our current standards.
Kids are not going to play long chess in the way we think about it.
The reason chess and math is so successful is that they compromise on many aspects of the game to make it more appealing to kids... specifically they do not use clocks, and they also do not record moves (generally). They even sometimes adjudicate positions based on who has more material...
I think it be counter-productive to have games of that sort rated in the standard fashion.

This is not to say we should not be trying to reach out to younger kids, its just that the average CMA player is not CYCC material.

We would be better off giving lessons, and providing cheap tournaments (unrated or with some sort of junior specific rating) and only when the kids get to the appropriate level give them a standard rating. I should clarify that by standard level I mean that they use clocks and record games... not a specific skill level, though I imagine if a kid is capable of sitting at a board for an hour straight he's probably well on the way to 1000.

Fortunately, or Unfortunately, CMA already does all this.

[Michael Barron]

Here's an idea: All CMA players receive complimentary "Participating" CFC Memberships. Once a year CMA sends us their rating file: with name, membership number, community, province, grade, rating, and number of tournaments. We have a process that takes this and updates their CFC rating or gives them a CFC rating.

This would be a win-win idea. They don't lose their players and we get to increase our membership and have more accurate ratings especially for the younger kids.

Thank you, Fred!

It's a great idea!

The devil is, as usual, in the details...

First, sending rating files doesn't create new chess competitions.
What we need is - CFC rated tournaments for juniors in every province.
They could be organized by the same people who organize CMA tournaments, but better, if it will be different people.
We have Provincial Affiliates and CFC Governors in every province, and should encourage them to organize chess tournaments.

Second, there is an issue of CMA and CFC ratings conversion.
As you know, the CMA uses CFC ratings to adjust CMA ratings from time to time.
Now, if we will use CMA ratings to adjust CFC ratings, we create cyclic dependency.

Third, CMA tournaments and CFC tournaments - are competitions of different levels.
CMA could teach to play chess every kid in a school.
But not every kid is interested to study chess seriously.
But every kid who is interested to study chess seriously, should be able to find a local chess club, where he could play in a serious CFC rated tournament - with recording moves, with clocks and long time control.
The goal of Provincial Affiliates and CFC Governors should be to create such opportunity for every kid and encourage kids to make this step to the next level in chess development.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

...
We would be better off giving lessons, and providing cheap tournaments (unrated or with some sort of junior specific rating) and only when the kids get to the appropriate level give them a standard rating. I should clarify that by standard level I mean that they use clocks and record games... not a specific skill level, though I imagine if a kid is capable of sitting at a board for an hour straight he's probably well on the way to 1000.

Fortunately, or Unfortunately, CMA already does all this.

Maybe this discussion is finally going somewhere... Our chess club rates the tournaments CFC only. In the past previous partners such as Andrei Botez were inclined to rate his tournaments with CMA because it was far easier and faster to have them published.

Kids want to know their ratings. If we provide a system where all tournaments played across the country are rated no later than the following week, then we can stand a small chance!

The argument of CMA lowering the standards is valid only so much. You can easily rate with CFC tournaments for players without a rating or under 1000. Even if you give them the minimum 1 hour reflection time, they will still finish their games within the same time frame as under CMA. Their attention span is not very long...

For Ken Craft:

We are looking to cooperation with CMA from a weak position; that it is very unlikely to happen. There's work to be done to keep the balance equal and only then you could talk about cooperation. CMA will never give up on its own the grip they got for so many years on the grassroots of chess. Whoever gave them this opportunity, signed the decline of CFC to what it is today...

[Ken Craft]

As long as people see the CMA as competition, meaningful co-operation will not take place.