6. Officer and Committee Reports

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

Last month I was called upon to investigate a complaint that several tournaments played on one of the internet chess servers were submitted to the CFC and had been rated. One of the players involved in all of the tournaments gained hundreds of rating points.
A search of the CFC Handbook did not reveal any policy regarding internet chess.
It was determined that there was no continuous supervision of the players by an independent TD/Arbiter/Witness.
I recommended to the CFC President that the events be annulled and he accepted my recommendation.
Two analogies came to mind - postal chess, which does not qualify for CFC rating and matches, which generally do not involve a TD but which are accepted for rating with certain conditions.
I propose to create a policy on rating internet events for the CFC Handbook and am seeking input from the governors.

Thanks for handling this matter. NO Cyber / Postal / Correspondence or ANY non IN PERSON formats should EVERY be rated. Our CFC Rating system is for Regular Games (greater than 1 hour per player) played IN PERSON -- over the board.

We need to preserve the "integrity" of the OTB regular rating system and stop trying to include formats that fail to meet our requirements (example Junior events with less than 1 hour per player or other Internet forms of chess playing for example). My input is to leave it (our system) alone and create 'other' ratings where necessary (Blitz, Active, Internet, Correspondence and REGULAR).

[Lyle Craver]

Google Docs is a wonderful tool suited for all sorts of documents and I've used it for lots of things besides chess stuff. It's especially good for Word or Excel type documents and can be used either to allow a specified list of people to alter your document or to post it with viewing either restricted to a group of people or public to anybody who has the link.

I commend it highly.

Unfortunately when I clicked the link given above I did not have permission to see the document so was unable to view it.

[Kevin Pacey]

Google Docs is a wonderful tool suited for all sorts of documents and I've used it for lots of things besides chess stuff. It's especially good for Word or Excel type documents and can be used either to allow a specified list of people to alter your document or to post it with viewing either restricted to a group of people or public to anybody who has the link.

I commend it highly.

Unfortunately when I clicked the link given above I did not have permission to see the document so was unable to view it.

Hi Lyle

One other person emailed to me that they can't view the pdf in the link either, even though I can.

It may be because I'm lacking certain skills, but at the moment I can only think of offering an improvised table of my own as a substitute for Gerry's 1 Jan 2012 CFC Membership Stats pdf (see 1 May 2011 membership stats on the CFC website for what Gerry means by 'F','H',etc.):

...........F.....H.....J.....L.....O.....Total
Total...32....71...419.376.954.....1852
..AB......1......3....32...26.143......205
..BC......2......9....53...70..97.......231
..MB......1......-....11....4...50........66
..NB......1......-....12.....7..30........50
..NL.......-......-.....1.....6..11........18
..NS......-......-......1...15..24........40
..NT......-......-......-.....-....-.........0
..NU......-......-......-.....-....-.........0
..ON....27....35...279.176.525.....1042
..PE......-......-......4.....2..10........16
..QC......-....18....19...24...41......102
..SK......-......-......2...14....3........19
..YT......-......-......-.....1....1.........2
..US......-......3......3...25...16.......47
..FO......-......3......2.....6....3.......14

[Kevin Pacey]

At the time, I suggested I preferred Vlad's angle. As Chair of our Long-Term Planning Committee, I'd recommend that discussion be deferred to him and his fellow committee members.

Hi Michael

At the time I took your liking of Vlad's idea as commentary (with further possible thought or investigation by the Executive to follow), rather than a suggestion for the membership drive committee to take action. That's because I thought our committee had (at least as yet) no authority to sign deals on behalf of the CFC with any chess website, based on my memory and interpretation of the CFC Handbook.

A task the membership drive committee was assigned by yourself at the October online meeting, I recall, was to investigate advertising strategies the CFC might use, so I felt Vlad's and Rob's suggestions belonged in my report.

If my memory and interpretation of the Handbook is correct, the Long-Term Planning Committee might devote more discussion to the matter of sharing banner space with other chess websites, but in the end actually inking any deal would need to be left to the Executive, still, unless that committee were given the authority to sign.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

stats

         F       H     J      L     O     Total
Total    32     71   419    376    954      1852
  AB      1      3    32     26    143       205
  BC      2      9    53     70     97       231
  MB      1      -    11      4     50        66
  NB      1      -    12      7     30        50
  NL      -      -     1      6     11        18
  NS      -      -     1     15     24        40
  NT      -      -     -      -      -         0
  NU      -      -     -      -      -         0
  ON     27     35   279    176    525      1042
  PE      -      -     4      2     10        16
  QC      -     18    19     24     41       102
  SK      -      -     2     14      3        19
  YT      -      -     -      1      1         2
  US      -      3     3     25     16        47
  FO      -      3     2      6      3        14

Can we get a number of new members who joined the CFC recently?

[Hugh Brodie]

How about the number of tournament memberships? Montreal has had several FIDE-rated events over the last year, and I believe that lots of tournament memberships were sold.

[Kevin Pacey]

Sorry Hugh and Egidijus, but that's the info Gerry sent me, other than a rehash of the 1 May 2011 totals. Thanks for the new table, Egidijus.

I'd suggest asking Gerry directly (or through an Executive member, as I did) if he'd be able to provide you or other Governors the info. I consider myself fortunate that Gerry was able to send me the figures that he had for 1 Jan 2012 as it was. As it is, I'm not sure these figures are to be released in the minutes of this meeting to the public. I'll leave that up to Lyle and the Executive.

[Fred McKim]

How about the number of tournament memberships? Montreal has had several FIDE-rated events over the last year, and I believe that lots of tournament memberships were sold.

Tournament memberships don`t count toward membership totals.

[Bob Armstrong]

It would be helpful if the official designation in the Handbook was used by everyone for this fee: tournament playing fee ( " tournament membership " is nowhere in the Handbook; it is a popular misnomer ).

Bob A

[Christopher Mallon]

Since I've had no response to multiple requests to have reports separated out, I'll just have to post here and hope the thread doesn't get too confusing.

I propose to create a policy on rating internet events for the CFC Handbook and am seeking input from the governors.

All players should be constantly supervised by a certified TD of some level, the exact level TBD...

The incorrectly submitted events have caused considerable work to undo. Due to the exigencies of the CFC office contract there is no quality control of events submitted for rating. Errors that I have pointed out and corrected have incurred “overtime” expenses. Finally, the time control information is missing in most events submitted for rating so the CFC office accepts all events submitted for Regular rating without any ability or mandate to cross-reference the time controls.

Almost every single email I've received from the CFC office in the last 6 months has had some variation of "This isn't in our contract" or "We'll have to charge extra for this" in it and now especially that I hear about it happening to others I am really starting to find it a bit disgusting. They are treating us like opponents out to get them rather than team players.

I'm sorry, but an email to the CFC office asking why my chess.ca address stopped working should not have been responded to with a threat of extra charges. Do they respond this way to non-Governors?

If an event is rated incorrectly due to incomplete information, that is at least partly the fault of the office for not doing minimal diligence in making sure all the data is filled out; for them to charge overtime to fix the problem later seems a little dishonest at best!

Gerry once told me the procedure for retroactively rating or derating a tournament, and I got the distinct impression that it was along the lines of a 5-minute job at most, even with our awkward ratings software.