Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: Presidential Debate: Should we go to FIDE rated

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default Presidential Debate: Should we go to FIDE rated

    This debate is "restricted" to the presidential candidates for comments and possible interaction for the first 24 hours. It is now Monday, 7:45 EDT.

    Should we continue with the CFC rating system or should we start the migration of events to the FIDE system ?

  2. #2

    Default

    Hi Fred:

    From Pierre's post that he is moving, it seems we won't be hearing anything from him 'til after Thursday.

    Bob

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    594
    Blog Entries
    3

    Post CFC rating system

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge Archambault View Post
    The short answer is: Of course we should continue with the CFC rating!!! Actually I don’t see both systems as opposites. I see them as working well together as their purpose is to identify different things. Of course I’d like to see more FIDE rated tournaments and would like to explore ways of making it easier to tournament organizers. We’re all for virtue.

    Based on the question, though, I’m not sure if it has more to do with the relevance of the CFC rating or the way the rating SYSTEM works at the CFC. But one thing is for sure, I think I’ve made it clear not so long ago, I’m absolutely against tempering with any kind of rating system. Even though in some cases the rating doesn’t show the appropriate immediate strength of a player. I know for a fact they are all based on a mathematical formula that is designed to balance itself out over a short period of time.

    One very good question I’ve always found is: Why have a rating system ? What good does it do to the average chess players or even only for casual players ? Only bragging rights ? To be honest, I’m not sure I can give a complete answer to the question. But a few things can be identified to answer part of it.

    First, clearly ratings have interested players for as long as I can remember. In some parts of the country, even chess clubs maintain a local rating for their players. The way I’ve always seem the rating (today being a bit different with FIDE lowering their minimum rating over the last decade) is some kind of motivation for players to not only compare themselves to others, but to follow their progression (in fact, I believe FIDE lowered its rating floor exactly for that reason, trying to get a hold of all tournament players on the planet). I believe that if more chess clubs were to maintain a regular rating, very often we would see some kind of progression in CFC rated events as well. And this would lead to a renewed interest for tournaments from all chess players of every class all across Canada.

    I do remember when I was younger getting a club rating first, then, when I felt I was strong enough I started to play in FQE rated tournaments more regularly, that’s also how I got to eventually play in CFC rated events (the first one being in North Bay 98 I believe). Again, when I thought I just wasn’t a complete patzer in CFC rated events (ok, ok, to this day I consider myself only to be a wood pusher still), I allowed myself to participate in a FIDE rated event (2001). In fact, my first performance result with a FIDE rated tournament was over 200 points higher than my FQE or CFC rating.

    From my point of view, a CFC rating is absolutely a must. Not only is it generating at least some revenue, but also it reunites people all over the country in some way. That the Maritime rating is lower than, say, the Ontario one (there can be so many reasons for it), that a junior’s rating has less reliability than an adult one (in most cases anyway) , shouldn’t lead to the conclusion that the CFC rating system doesn’t work. It just doesn’t mean the same thing. At the same time, I see the CFC rating as a way to guide our tournament players.

    In general, I believe the CFC, by offering less and less service to its members, by trying to lower its prices on everything as much as possible, by trying to cut down on everything, is cheapening the value of chess in general. It should be the other way around. After all, the way I see it, offering more, supporting all players, beginners, Elite and all there is in between, providing resources to all players, arbiters and organizers should be the CFC primary goal and “raison d’être”.

    Serge
    Hi Serge,

    The problem is the CFC rating system has not been very reliable, nor Canada wide imposed to stick with it so decisively. The only strong argument for keeping it is the fact of being one of the very few incentives left offered to any CFC member; when this argument will also be solved, I see little reason to keep a system in place when better ones are available probably at better costs.

    What happened when we were juniors has very little relevance. Since those days there are hundreds of rating systems available around us, offered by individuals or organizations more or less important. You need to accept that and adapt. Not sure the current CFC rating system has always been adapted the right way...

    That it the problem! How do you see it solved?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    [QUOTE=Serge Archambault;12914]I say: "I see little reason to keep the CFC in place if we decide to drop our national rating[/QUOTE]

    Who would pay a fee to FIDE just to participate in Olympiad?
    .*-1

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    [QUOTE=Egidijus Zeromskis;12930]
    Quote Originally Posted by Serge Archambault View Post
    I say: "I see little reason to keep the CFC in place if we decide to drop our national rating[/QUOTE]

    Who would pay a fee to FIDE just to participate in Olympiad?
    The CFC is a member of FIDE as is just about every country in the world. At the moment, I would suppose the most tangible profits from this are the ability to participate in official FIDE functions.

    1) Olympiad & Women's Olympiad
    2) World Championship & Women's Championship
    3) World Junior & Women's Junior Championship
    4) World Youth Championship

    I can't see the CFC Governor's ever voting to drop out of FIDE. I could see developments at some time for us to go their way regarding ratings, but we'd have to have an income replacement, since we know that the cost to produce the ratings is probably only 1/2 - 2/3 what we bring in.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Serge Archambault View Post
    I agree with you Fred, being part of FIDE provides nice "profits". That's why I feel it's important to work on the CFC relationship with them.

    Talking about FIDE, recently some Govenors had a discussion (a motion ?)about the CFC membership fee. The subject of junior fees was brought up and it was said that juniors shouldn't pay as much as adults as they didn't have the same rights.

    Even though I'm not sure what rights were being compared here, one thing the CFC has to be very aware of, is the fact the Juniors cost a lot more than the adult do when comes the time to send our best players abroad. Our juniors just cost more than our adult members. In fact, even though I'm not aware of any specific "adult program", I know of at least one or two programs juniors can benefit from, with the CFC. I'm not sure, however, how much money (profit ?) the CFC is getting from those juniors.

    Long time ago, the CFC was very careful about its Junior program. "Junior" money coming in was considered separatly and was never to be mixed with anything else. Is it still the case ?

    Serge
    We have a Youth fund. It is held separate from the regular funds and receives it's revenue from the CYCC and dispenses money mainly to our players at the WYCC, but sometimes also to the reps at the Pan-Am YCC or NAYCC.

    The representatives to other World events are funded from their respective qualifying tournaments, although we did make a contribution of approximately $3000 to the Canadian Closed this year. We are hoping to make this an ongoing donation to the World Cup qualifying event.

    The Canadian Junior, Canadian Women's Championship, and Canadian Girls Junior are all self funded. This often will not pay the entire airfare but is the best we have been able to do.

    The representatives to the Olympiad are funded through donations to the Olympic Fund. Off the top of my head we donated from our general funds just over $1000 this past year, although I think we had budgeted for as much as $4000 depending on the campaign efforts.

    I was strongly opposed to the idea of charging one fee for juniors and adults, alike. I won't get into that argument, here.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    The representatives to the Olympiad are funded through donations to the Olympic Fund. Off the top of my head we donated from our general funds just over $1000 this past year, although I think we had budgeted for as much as $4000 depending on the campaign efforts.
    Thanks Fred. Our budget (approved by the governors) did allow for a donation of $ 4,000 to the Olympic teams. Fundraising efforts were better than expected, and the final donation was just $ 1,085.

    A special thanks to the women's team who paid their own way without any promises of reimbursement from the CFC. I am happy to say, at the end of the day, we were able to cover their airfares.

    It has been recently reported elsewhere, that we paid an extra $5k due to the airline scheduling problems caused by the organizers. I am happy to again report that this is not the case. FIDE/organizers took responsibility for the problem and we recovered all these extra costs thanks to the efforts of Hal. Don't believe everything you read on a blog.

    These savings did then allow us rescue the Closed with a contribution of $ 2,863.
    Last edited by Bob Gillanders; 06-20-2011 at 10:58 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post

    It has been recently reported elsewhere, that we paid an extra $5k due to the airline scheduling problems caused by the organizers. I am happy to again report that this is not the case. FIDE/organizers took responsibility for the problem and we recovered all these extra costs thanks to the efforts of Hal. Don't believe everything you read on a blog.
    "a blog" = "The Blog"

    I read it of course, but I know the facts from the fiction. I'll just say "buyer beware"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Gillanders View Post
    Thanks Fred. Our budget (approved by the governors) did allow for a donation of $ 4,000 to the Olympic teams. Fundraising efforts were better than expected, and the final donation was just $ 1,085.

    A special thanks to the women's team who paid their own way without any promises of reimbursement from the CFC. I am happy to say, at the end of the day, we were able to cover their airfares.

    It has been recently reported elsewhere, that we paid an extra $5k due to the airline scheduling problems caused by the organizers. I am happy to again report that this is not the case. FIDE/organizers took responsibility for the problem and we recovered all these extra costs thanks to the efforts of Hal. Don't believe everything you read on a blog.

    These savings did then allow us rescue the Closed with a contribution of $ 2,863.
    Just in case it wasn't clear from the comments Bob has made, the CFC covered the total extra air costs incurred by the 10 players and 2 captains in changing their flight arrangemnets. We later received full reimbursement from FIDE.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Mississauga ON Canada
    Posts
    509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    Just in case it wasn't clear from the comments Bob has made, the CFC covered the total extra air costs incurred by the 10 players and 2 captains in changing their flight arrangemnets. We later received full reimbursement from FIDE.
    Isn't that the sort of line item that should be featured prominently in an Annual Report? If not as a discrete item, at the very least a footnote? [admission here: I did not go back to check to see if it was highlighted in the GL somewhere... my apologies if it was]

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •