28h. CYCC Qualification rules - Brammall amendment

[Valer Eugen Demian]

...
I personally think that forcing players to play in events obviously below there skill level to "qualify" (when it is already clear who plays chess at the required level) is something akin to extortion.
...

I am not sure how much experience you have in dealing with juniors and their cycle up to CYCC, but your statement is absolutely not true! Having less players interested to play in provincial YCCs (because they are top rated...) is the exact opposite of what you actually need: more kids involved in chess.

One simple example of how one junior can be in top 10 and play only at CYCC year after year is the example of a junior who stops playing in junior tournaments and plays only in adult ones to keep their rating high.

Nowhere in the World what you propose is acceptable. Every junior player - except those finishing top 3 at the nationals and qualifying for the national team - MUST play in the national cycle year after year simply because that cycle decides which one is the best junior in the country.

It is truly disturbing to see one jump to all sort of conclusions and "great" ideas, coming up with all sort of motions based on "blitz" thinking. I am sorry, but we should not govern this way!

[Stuart Brammall]

One simple example of how one junior can be in top 10 and play only at CYCC year after year is the example of a junior who stops playing in junior tournaments and plays only in adult ones to keep their rating high.

Nowhere in the World what you propose is acceptable. Every junior player - except those finishing top 3 at the nationals and qualifying for the national team - MUST play in the national cycle year after year simply because that cycle decides which one is the best junior in the country.

Once again, as I stated earlier the initial motion has been pressed for by a number of concerned members.

But also I believe you are mistaken. The difference in rating between the top player's in an age group, and those who qualified through the NOSCC is on average 764 points. If what you say were the case we could have 2000 level players using events organised in basements to qualify for the world championship. If I was a 2700 I would be boycotting any qualification event of that type. I see no reason why our juniors should suffer such treatment.

On a seperate matter, you seem to view the junior and adult rating pools as completely seperate-- I know this is not the case, at least not in Ontario, though it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the rating pools intermingle.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Once again, as I stated earlier the initial motion has been pressed for by a number of concerned members.

But also I believe you are mistaken. The difference in rating between the top player's in an age group, and those who qualified through the NOSCC is on average 764 points. If what you say were the case we could have 2000 level players using events organised in basements to qualify for the world championship. If I was a 2700 I would be boycotting any qualification event of that type. I see no reason why our junior should suffer such treatment.

On a seperate matter, you seem to view the junior and adult rating pools as completely seperate-- I know this is not the case, at least not in Ontario, though it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the rating pools intermingle.

Well, what you say does not apply in BC. Here in order for a junior to get his rating above 1600 it would need to play in adult tournaments. That is the reason why most junior BC players are underrated. Our pools of players is different.

Junior players play each other and if you want to consider the top 10, the majority of them would need to play exclusively in adult tournaments since the junior ones would not put them over 1500.

Higher rated players (not only juniors...) have the natural tendency to avoid playing lower rated players; now your intended ammendment gives them extra incentive not to play in the local YCCs. Logically this could lead to less juniors playing in junior tournaments (against lower rated players) with a negative effect on participation!

[Stuart Brammall]

It is truly disturbing to see one jump to all sort of conclusions and "great" ideas, coming up with all sort of motions based on "blitz" thinking. I am sorry, but we should not govern this way!

And as to this all I can say is that the only way to have things discussed is to have a motion; otherwise we would have a silent meeting. I am open to change my opinion on any topic here... however on this issue specifically I see no reason why ensuring a minimum number of players can be a bad thing.

The fact is that in the past there have been very few YCCs... I see know reason why we should not guard against the possibility that we cannot find enough volunteer to organize them in any given year.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

And as to this all I can say is that the only way to have things discussed is to have a motion; otherwise we would have a silent meeting. I am open to change my opinion on any topic here... however on this issue specifically I see no reason why ensuring a minimum number of players can be a bad thing.

The fact is that in the past there have been very few YCCs... I see know reason why we should not guard against the possibility that we cannot find enough volunteer to organize them in any given year.

And what I said is why do you get involved in this when there's a Youth Committe having people with experience in this area who can take care of things?

ON, BC, AB and QC always have YCCs. The point is to get all provinces to have YCCs. Without those, you are just patching CYCC. We do not want that! We want a truly workable solution at provincial level and a widening of the base of the pyramid!...

[Stuart Brammall]

Higher rated players (not only juniors...) have the natural tendency to avoid playing lower rated players; now your intended ammendment gives them extra incentive not to play in the local YCCs. Logically this could lead to less juniors playing in junior tournaments (against lower rated players) with a negative effect on participation!

That is why I suggested changing the motion... If each YCC qualifies three players per age group, the motion only has effect if less then 4 YCCs are held. I still think this is a compromise, since YCCs in areas besides the main centres generally qualify un-competitive players. We would only need 4 events like NOSCC and then all the good player would be forced to play in some weak event to qualify... even though they outrate those kids by some 650 points.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

That is why I suggested changing the motion... If each YCC qualifies three players per age group, the motion only has effect if less then 4 YCCs are held. I still think this is a compromise, since YCCs in areas besides the main centres generally qualify un-competitive players. We would only need 4 events like NOSCC and then all the good player would be forced to play in some weak event to qualify... even though they outrate those kids by some 650 points.

Again this has been discussed by the Youth Committee. You have also not considered the fact more YCCs per province destroy the value of an important junior achievement (at least in BC): provincial champion! For some juniors this is the highlight of their chess career. Holding more than 1 YCC per province eliminates this... Not a very good side effect if you ask me!

[Stuart Brammall]

And what I said is why do you get involved in this when there's a Youth Committe having people with experience in this area who can take care of things?

ON, BC, AB and QC always have YCCs. The point is to get all provinces to have YCCs. Without those, you are just patching CYCC. We do not want that! We want a truly workable solution at provincial level and a widening of the base of the pyramid!...

I understand what you are saying, but as I said the impetus for this motion comes from Victor Itkine, who if I am not mistaken is a member of the youth committee, also CYCC organizer; I imagine he simply got to tired of trying to make Barron see reason.... The top ten players motion is his child, and I am representing him here. The twelve player minimum is my way of trying to compromise between the two systems.

[Stuart Brammall]

Again this has been discussed by the Youth Committee. You have also not considered the fact more YCCs per province destroy the value of an important junior achievement (at least in BC): provincial champion! For some juniors this is the highlight of their chess career. Holding more than 1 YCC per province eliminates this... Not a very good side effect if you ask me!

In fact I argued exactly this point immediatly following the fall meeting, and agree with you completely on this point... I think having multiple YCCs is stupid. Of course more tournaments is great but why do they need to be qualifiers?

[Bob Armstrong]

For some juniors this is the highlight of their chess career. Holding more than 1 YCC per province eliminates this... Not a very good side effect if you ask me!

Hi Valer:

This is not the case in Ontario. There are many YCC's being held. But there is still the OYCC, which will determine our provincial champion. The elite players who want good competition, and want the title, will play in it and try to qualify in it.

Bob