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

[Vladimir Birarov]

Vlad - I disagree. Are you not be definition excluding 50% of the players from being official representative?
That can't be good.

Sorry, Bob, I'm not sure if I got your point correctly - which 50% of the players we're excluding? Those who are now in different age category?

[Fred McKim]

Sorry, Bob, I'm not sure if I got your point correctly - which 50% of the players we're excluding? Those who are now in different age category?

That would be what he was referring to.

They would not have the chance to be the official representative as defending CYCC champion, even in those cases where they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older.

[Vladimir Birarov]

That would be what he was referring to.

They would not have the chance to be the official representative as defending CYCC champion, even in those cases where they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older.

Thank you, Fred, for trying to explain this to me but ... I'm even more confused now . This motion comes to resolve situation when we have NA or PanAm YCC prior to CYCC in the same calendar year. The motion says that, in this case, previous CYCC winners (places 1-3) who remained in the same age category have priority to be chosen as official players. And this seems the best we can do. In all other cases we'll use rating to determine the official player.

And, if I understand correctly, in your post "they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older" refers to players who were in their junior years in the previous CYCC, which means this year they may be representatives in the same age category.

[Fred McKim]

Thank you, Fred, for trying to explain this to me but ... I'm even more confused now . This motion comes to resolve situation when we have NA or PanAm YCC prior to CYCC in the same calendar year. The motion says that, in this case, previous CYCC winners (places 1-3) who remained in the same age category have priority to be chosen as official players. And this seems the best we can do. In all other cases we'll use rating to determine the official player.

And, if I understand correctly, in your post "they were clearly stronger than the person who was one year older" refers to players who were in their junior years in the previous CYCC, which means this year they may be representatives in the same age category.

I'm talking about a 2010 senior year winner who would not be able to exercise his ability to represent in 2011 NA YCC, even though he's obviously stronger than an incumbent junior winner from the year before who is still in the age group.

[Bob Gillanders]

I'm talking about a 2010 senior year winner who would not be able to exercise his ability to represent in 2011 NA YCC, even though he's obviously stronger than an incumbent junior winner from the year before who is still in the age group.

Thanks Fred. That is precisely my concern. If it is still confusing, then consider this hypothetical case (any resemblance to actual kids is purely coincidental):

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011, so she can't be official player?

[Vladimir Birarov]

Thanks Fred. That is precisely my concern. If it is still confusing, then consider this hypothetical case (any resemblance to actual kids is purely coincidental):

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011, so she can't be official player?

Bob, I think for your case to be real concern it should be completed this way:

1. Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
2. Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011.
3. There is at least one winner of 2010 CYCC U12 who still eligible to play in U12 in 2011.
4. Sally's rating is higher than of the winner above.

Only in case when all 4 are true, original motion will pick Sally and Michael's motion the winner from point 3. But if all 4 are true, are you sure it should be Sally?

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, I think for your case to be real concern it should be completed this way:

1. Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
2. Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011.
3. There is at least one winner of 2010 CYCC U12 who still eligible to play in U12 in 2011.
4. Sally's rating is higher than of the winner above.

Only in case when all 4 are true, original motion will pick Sally and Michael's motion the winner from point 3. But if all 4 are true, are you sure it should be Sally?

Yes. If all 4 are true, I would pick Sally. That is my point.

[Michael Barron]

Thanks Fred. That is precisely my concern. If it is still confusing, then consider this hypothetical case (any resemblance to actual kids is purely coincidental):

Sally (now age 10) - winner 2010 CYCC (U10) last year when she was age 9.
Sally now is too old for U10 group in 2011, so she can't be official player?

Bob,

Of course, Sally is a good player worthy to represent Canada internationally - nobody denies that!
For her victory at 2010 CYCC she got a ride to 2010 WYCC (~$2500 worth) and 2010 PAYCC (~$500) - as the only Canadian player.

Of course, she CAN be official player and this year too.

But let's continue your example:

Molly (now age 11) - 3rd place winner 2010 CYCC (U12) last year when she was age 10.
She wasn't official player at 2010 WYCC (since winner got it), she wasn't official player at 2010 NAYCC (since 2nd place winner got it), she couldn't go to 2010 PAYCC (since her family had other plans for the summer).
But her parents took her to 2010 WYCC for their own expense, where Molly performed well and got FIDE rating higher than Sally.

Molly now is just in the right age for U12 group in 2011, so she can show her best at 2011 NAYCC.

The question:
Could the CFC somehow reward Molly for her 3rd place at 2010 CYCC and dedication to chess?

Just to remind you:
The Motion 2011-B, just passed at the January Online Meeting, says:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?t=1381

(a) Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) is a qualifier to international youth chess competitions.

Top 3 finishers in each section are qualified to become official representatives for:
1) World Youth Chess Championship (WYCC);
2) Pan American Youth Chess Championship;
3) North American Youth Chess Championship.

Thank you for your consideration!

[Bob Armstrong]

I don't think the ball should just be passed to the Executive. I think the CYCC parents deserve clear rules on how their children are to be treated re prizes and interntional playing opportunities.

I am voting for the original motion. It is clear and simple. It may not be best, and maybe Michael's rules are more sophisticated, but there is a problem with Michael's rules - there is NO Consensus yet among the Youth Committee, as far as I can see, and it seems, as far as Bob G can see, despite Michael and Vlad's assertions to the contrary. I have been working behind the scenes with Anna, Bob G, Michael, and Xuekun Xing ( she has been collaborating with Anna and me on the Motion 2011-M, and is active on the Youth Committtee ). Both Anna and Xuekun have been putting forward behind the scenes possible amendments to Michael's rules to close holes they perceive in it. Though some negotiations may be going on still, I do not see them reaching agreement before it is time for us to vote. Bob G has already informally delayed the start of voting to accomodate these negotiations, hoping a new consensus motion could arise to be voted on. Voting should have started last night, April 4 @ 9:00PM EDT. Once Bob G calls the voting, then there can be no more amendments, nor even debate on the motions under vote.

In terms of the Youth Committee situation, and the lack of review of Michael's rules by the whole Youth Committee, here is a letter from Xuekun on the issue on Monday afternoon:

" Bob G comments: There is no consensus opinion on the Youth committee yet.

Vlad comment: I think this is not exactly the case. From how I see it, after Michael posted first version of the rules above, it is only the wording which is discussed but most of the committee members agreed on general approach.

Evidence based conclusion:

Bob G is correct. Michael's new rule rolled out on page 15 of the Youth Discussion board, afterword Vlad provided a list according to Michael's new rule and Victor provided a list too.

Fact: two lists are different, then Michael explained whose list is right and why.

The rest of the post are maily done by Micheal and Victor about changing the wording. That's true. But we did not hear voice from other members since then.

But before page 15, all members expressed their thoughts and I gave a summary on page 16 about everyone's thoughts.

Only before Michael rolled out his rule, all members expressed thoughts, after Michael's new rule, only Victor clearly expressed support, majority memebrs keep silience.

So There is consensus opinion on the Youth committee before Michael's new rule (67.5% support to use rating) and There is NO consensus opinion on the Youth committee yet after Michael's new rule.

Thanks

Xuekun "

In the light of this letter, and the ongoing behind the scenes negotiations still going on because all are not satisfied with Michael's rules, I wrote to Anna, Michael, Bob G and Xuekun as follows a few minutes ago:

" Hi Anna & Xuekun::

I’m sorry but I am having great difficulty understanding the legislation being proposed – likely because I have not lived with it for months as all of you have ( not member of the Youth Committee ).

But what I do understand is that the Youth Committee has reached NO CONSENSUS yet – everyone is still trying to improve Michael’s rules. And what about the silent rest of the Youth Committee? What are there views? And do they have yet again different proposals to improve Michael’s rules??

Seems to me bringing in Michael’s rules is premature at this point. I think the Youth Committee needs to do a lot more homework on this one. Of course, if you and Michael can agree to something in the dying days of the meeting, all to the good. But it doesn’t look to me from here that you are going to make it, and voting has already been delayed by Bob G beyond the 9:00 PM EDT, April 4 start time in the CFC Handbook. So it has to start soon, and then there can be no more amending motions nor even debate on the motions.

So I am going to vote against Michael’s amending motion, because it obviously still needs to be fine tuned. And we can’t have a law in place for selection for the 2011 NAYCC and 2011 Pan-Am YCC, that people disagree with, and which maybe many do not even understand.

I was able to second Anna’s “ ratings “ motion ( Motion 2011-M ) because it was clear and I could understand it. So I will vote for it.

But I think it requires one amendment, which Anna and Xuekun and I were discussing yesterday. I attach a proposed amending motion ( Motion 2011-M1 ), which requires Anna to tell me which option she wants in the amending motion. Once she advises me, I will go to the meeting and file it on her behalf, and mine.

Hope this is helpful to the ongoing debate “ off the meeting board “.

Bob "

I am still awaiting replies to this letter, and to the request for instructions on the proposed amending motion 2011-M1.

I felt I should share this with the govenors, so that they will understand the background to my intended voting at this point ( unless Michael, Anna, Bob G and Xuekun reach some agreed wording in the next few hours ).

Bob

[Vladimir Birarov]

Bob A.,
As a member of Youth Committee who actually read all 18 pages of this discussion, I can see many "inaccuracies " in your post and very few correct facts.

From Xuekun's e-mail:

"The rest of the post are maily done by Micheal and Victor about changing the wording. That's true. But we did not hear voice from other members since then.

Your conclusion based on this:

... there is a problem with Michael's rules - there is NO Consensus yet among the Youth Committee ...

From how I see it, your conclusion is completely wrong - lack of responses from "other members" just shows lack of opposition to Michael's rules. If "other members" would want to disagree they would do it - after all they did it on 15 pages prior to last version of Michael's rules.
What is true, from other side, that there is no consensus on Anna's rules. In fact, she decided to put her motion without knowledge of Youth Coordinator and most of committee members.

Dear Governors,
Please, excuse me for another long post but to make it clear for all I have to include two last posts from Youth Committee board. One is from very active and respectable member Victor Itkin (one of 2011 CYCC organizers as well):

I can not gurantee you that we have consensus among all members, but majority of the members who took active part in this discussion accepted Michael's proposal.

The worst thing in this story is the way how all this have happened:
1. Anna sent an email to Michael, proposing to revoke her initial motion (I have a copy) and substitute it with the new rules proposed by Michael.
2. Michael agreed by return email (I have a copy).
3. Bob A. drafted the new motion (I have a copy).
4. I proposed one small correction (copied it on the Forum).
5. Michael accepted the correction.
6. Bob A. sent email to Anna and Michael (with copy to me) with the final version of the motion.
7. Michael posted this motion at Governor's Forum and asked Anna to support it as it was agreed.
8. As far as I understand (I do not have access to the Governor's Forum) Anna did not support it as she promised.
9. Bob Gillanders made his post today in the morning.

My opinion: Anna was acting in this situation not in a good faith.

And the second one is from Ana herself where she in fact acknowledges agreement with Michael's rules and just asks for small correction:

I did compromise with Michael's motion, as I have no access to board whole day, I ask Bob A help me to amend, Now we come to final step which I only want to add c/ for Junior players who really have good performs during the year.
Qualified players are chosen to be official representatives by following order:
a. 1st place in the same age category
b. 2nd place in the same age category
c. 3rd place in the same age category or 1st place in the proceeding age category whoever has the higher CFC rating.

I will assist Michael's correction move motion M forward. hope will help our players come to NAYCC and Pan-American with CFC gaols: Acknowledge and award excellent, fairness to all players and promote chess in Canada .