Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil

[Rob Clark]

I feel disgusted about this. The Pan Am conflict should have constituted an extraordinary circumstance for the top 3 players by rating in each age group. Since they would have to pay 300$ to the CFC Youth Program fund if they skip the CYCC anyway, why not just use that money to ensure that there was adequate funding to ensure the flights were paid for etc? Imo, this would have generated more revenue for the CYCC since if these kids chose to go to the Pan Ams anyway, then the CYCC would have lost their entry fee regardless. Furthermore this would allow youth outside the top 3 to have a chance to have an all expenses paid for trip to the WYCC and a national title. It seems this would have promoted more chess for Canadian Youth.

Furthermore it seems ridiculous that a rule that was created to allow for more juniors to be able to play in the WYCC, is restricting one of our promising youth players from participating. It really irks me when the CFC gets in the way of things like this, especially when the player was representing our country at another youth venue.

Therefore since the deadline for registration for the WYCC has been extended until the 25th of September, I feel that the exec should quickly re-examine this case assuming that Jiaxin (Dora) Lui still wishes to play and will conform to the rules regarding 1012.Participation in the World Events section e.

[Ken Craft]

The executive are falling all over themselves to address your concerns, Rob, and to discuss the matter with the Governors.

[Hal Bond]

Hey Rob;

I am a little surprised by your post after our email exchange. Let's look at 10(e) Some text has been bolded by me.

(e) 3 top CFC rated players in each category (by January 1st of the current year) if not able to participate at CYCC due to extraordinary circumstances, and wishing to participate at WYCC, are eligible to submit to CFC their applications for participation at WYCC before the start of CYCC. CFC Executive has the right to reject the application at their discretion if applicant's circumstances are not valid and/or exceptional. All players whose applications are approved will be eligible to participate at WYCC using their own funds plus paying extra fee of $300 to CFC Youth Program fund.

Exactly who of the top 3 per category was not able to attend the CYCC? A few people chose to play elsewhere. None was obliged to do so. As FIDE Rep I struggle with this rule, particulary in light of the circumstance being the PanAms, but the rule itself clear. Of the three players who may have tried to apply for an exemption, only one has - one who was well aware of the consequences of her choice in the first place.

The Executive has exercised its right to uphold our rules. Shame on us!!

[Ken Craft]

The executive have used the rules in an arbitrary and heavy-handed manner, Hal. I agree, shame on them. The forced choice between the Pan Ams and the WYCC was/is clearly coercive.

I'm not debating the CFC executives' right to reject this application. I'm saying they weren't right when they did so. The argument that the exec had the right to reject the application is a red herring at best.

[Rob Clark]

Hal,

I truly do value your opinion a lot and look up to you as a member of the chess community and as a person. I don't think I have to convince you of that. It's the reason I decided to email you.

However, I slept on it and thought about it, and I still don't think that disallowing a junior to play when they offer to pay their way and will contribute to the CFC youth fund is right in this circumstance. There were other options here and they were not exercised.

As for your bolded text, there are multiple ways to interpret that as well. "Not able to participate due to extrordinary circmstances." I personally see the Pan Ams as an extraordinary circumstance and therefore while attending them someone is certainly not able to attend the CYCC. (Also, the Pan Ams are one of the only tournaments I would consider extraordinary.)

The exec had no idea about the date of the Pan Ams and I understand that, but why couldn't something be worked out where our top players would be able to attend and represent Canada without jeopardizing their shot at the WYCC?

I realize the exec and yourself were well within your right to make this decision, but I feel I'm also within my right to express my displeasure and disagreement with your decision.

I just feel that this was a bad situation and at this point, right in front of us now, there's an option to allow a talented junior to represent Canada and have a great experience on the world chess stage. I think allowing her to do so is the better decision for chess in Canada.

[Patrick McDonald]

We have rules.
We often get criticized for not following those rules that we put in place.

The rule clearly states that an application needs to be made BEFORE the CYCC for exemption from needing to attend the CYCC to be allowed to attend the WYCC.

The application in question only came to me AFTER the CYCC ... in fact almost 2 months after.

IF the rule needs to be changed, then we need to change it, but right now, that is the rule.

[Christopher Mallon]

I basically see talk of a Governor's motion as a moot point already.

Certainly the Governors could make a motion "Player A,B,C are granted permission to represent the CFC and Canada at the 2011 WYCC despite not being otherwise eligible."

However, the deadline is the 25th. The Exec are under no obligation under CFC rules to allow it to come to a vote before the upcoming October meeting, which will be two weeks too late. And even if there WAS an obligation, we have several examples in the past of executives refusing to allow motions to be voted on even when they legally are required to.

Basically, if you can't convince the Exec to change their minds, there's no real point in going with a motion as it's doomed to failure.

[Christopher Mallon]

Incidentally, I looked up the voting record on this motion. Most of the votes from that meeting had 28-31 votes, however there were more governors present. Just as a point of order, anyone "present" for the meeting who does not cast a vote SHOULD be listed as having abstained from the vote. As long as you are present at the meeting, you do not have to actually state that you abstain.

For example, I refused to vote on any of the motions, in protest of the Exec ignoring the rules of the meeting and conducting the votes via email. I should still have been listed as abstaining on each motion, since I was present for the meeting, and each motion should have the same number of votes including abstentions listed.

[Fred McKim]

We have rules.
We often get criticized for not following those rules that we put in place.

The rule clearly states that an application needs to be made BEFORE the CYCC for exemption from needing to attend the CYCC to be allowed to attend the WYCC.

The application in question only came to me AFTER the CYCC ... in fact almost 2 months after.

IF the rule needs to be changed, then we need to change it, but right now, that is the rule.

I think this is another important point, that nobody is choosing to mention.

[Ken Craft]

The executive informed people that they would not be be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC. This was a de facto rejection of an application for an exemption prior to one being filed. Such a statement compltely prejudiced any forthcoming application.

Why would anyone choose to file a request for exemption prior to the CYCC when they were informed that a request for exemption based on the attendance at the Pan Ams would be rejected even before they requested one?