31 Motion 2011-M – Pan-American YCC and North American YCC Representatives

[Ken Craft]

Maybe the Governors should be given full access to the Youth Committee's discussions. It feels like a vote by the Governors on a motion is being held up by discussions we as Governors do not have access to.

[Daxin Jin]

Here is Natalia Khoudgarian WIM post in Youth commitee

I agree with Bob. According to Michael's rules the kids who are changing the age category will be "non-priority" compare to players who are staying in the same category. And how about players who did not compete in CYCC of previous year? They might be top Canadian players and just because of some circumstances missed the event.
In regards of Youth Committee consensus: how many members do we have? How many members voted? Did we have a final vote? Are there any alternatives to Michael's rules that we can consider?

[Bob Armstrong]

So we now have 3 members of the Youth Committee who have reservations about the exact wording and operation of Michael's attempt to capture the various positions put forward over pages and pages of posts in the Youth Committee ( Governor Anna Jin, WIM Natalia Khoudgarian ( former Canadian Women's Champion ), and CYCC parent Xuekun Xing ). How many more Youth Committee members would have reservations if they were given a chance to vote? - which they have not been.

Natalia has now added her voice to those of Anna and Xuekun, who say there is not yet a Youth Committee consensus.

Bob

[Bob Armstrong]

The Cooperative Chess Coalition would like to confirm that it understands that the Youth Committee is only an advisory body to the Youth Coordinator.

But members volunteering should be given clear voices. And one of the ways of determining issues among competing positions is for there to be a vote. That way the majority will of the advisory body is clearly and firmly established. Otherwise someone is making subjective judgments about what the position of the advisors is.

Of course, the Youth Coordinator is always free to do as he wants in terms of his final decsion, but it is hoped that volunteer CFC member opinions will have some weight.

Bob Armstrong, CCC Coordinator

[Vladimir Birarov]

Thank you Vlad. If I am understanding your last post correctly, the two competing motions maybe more similar than they appear. They appear to be miles apart, but maybe not. Maybe I am just wishful thinking?

• Original motion suggests to solely use ratings in qualification process.
• Michael's motion suggest to use results of the recent CYCC when possible, and only then ratings.

So, the difference is small but important.

The main idea of amending motion:
Within period of time between consecutive CYCCs (called "cycle") winning places 1-3 in the recent CYCC gives priority during the qualification process regardless of the fact if the event under consideration happens to be scheduled the same year as recent CYCC or next year. The only problem with "next year" event is that some (or maybe most) of the winners will change age categories but this is beyond our ability to fix. What we aim to is to give the winner of the recent CYCC who remained in the same age category his/her earned right to represent Canada.

I'll be happy to answer any question regarding Sally/Molly example I gave in my previous post.

[Stuart Brammall]

The Cooperative Chess Coalition would like to confirm that it understands that the Youth Committee is only an advisory body to the Youth Coordinator.

Did the CCC have an in depth discussion to reach this consensus? It appears to me that perhaps the CCC supports Bob A.'s opinion in the same way the youth committee supports Michael B.'s.

It is difficult for me to accept there is consensus in either of these groups, and I will not be taking recommendations from either anymore seriously then I would a recommendation from their respective cheifs.

[Lyle Craver]

I oppose any motion that would replace use of ratings with a subjective selection criteria.

I freely acknowledge that particularly with rapidly improving juniors ratings are an imperfect tool. This has never NOT been the case even back when I was a junior (in the late 1960s) and ratings were done on 3"x5" file cards well before Jonathan Berry's first rating program!

However barring a consistent national championship cycle (and I understand the current dilemna is not of the CFC's making) replacing ratings with a selection board pretty much guarantees cries of unfairness from one part of the country or another. (Particularly from the parent of some kid who was not selected) Where I come from that is called "asking for it"

I agree we've got a tough decision to make and that nobody in this country is to blame. All we can do is make a decision and get on with it. (This primarily means age, but could also mean FIDE status) Use of ratings is not perfect but it is less imperfect than any other selection criteria.

One thing I would say very strongly however - no junior should be eligible to play in a provincial or national championship if he/she is not eligible to take part in the event that winning that tournament would qualify him/her for. (This would normally mean age, but could also mean FIDE status)

[Vladimir Birarov]

I oppose any motion that would replace use of ratings with a subjective selection criteria.

Completely agree with you, Lyle! That's why we need some rules in place.

The facts are:

• original motion substitutes CYCC results with rating
• amending motion fixes it to be in accordance with "consistent national championship cycle" even in cases when international event happens to be prior to same year CYCC

[Bob Armstrong]

Did the CCC have an in depth discussion to reach this consensus? It appears to me that perhaps the CCC supports Bob A.'s opinion in the same way the youth committee supports Michael B.'s.

It is difficult for me to accept there is consensus in either of these groups, and I will not be taking recommendations from either anymore seriously then I would a recommendation from their respective cheifs.

Hi Stuart:

It might be helpful here if I give you some info on how the Cooperative Chess Coalition operates. I am authorized, as CCC Coordinator, to take positions for the group, where we have not had time for prior discussion. However, I must put all posts dealing with CCC in a " Weekly Posts Log ". Then every Friday, the group gets this Log. If they have any concerns about anything I've said, then it is immediately raised for group discussion. If I have spoken out of turn, then it is determined what public correction I should make. Seems pretty democratic to us.

I'm not sure Michael has gone back to his Youth Committee with his " rules " yet , to get their confirmation. I will be going on Friday to get the confirmation of my group, re my post here.

Bob, CCC Coordinator

[Bob Armstrong]

Unfortunately, I must now leave the meeting and it looks like I will totally miss the voting.

I have seconded the original motion for Anna. Should any opinion be required of the seconder in my absence, I am satisfied to have Anna speak for me, and I will support whatever she says or does.

Bob