8. 2012-H TDOCP Motion (Simon Ong)

[Michael von Keitz]

-After reading again, I agree with Mr. McKim and Mr. Craver that licence fees might not be a good idea.

Simon, are you moving to amend the motion by removing this clause, or musing?

[Simon Ong]

Simon, are you moving to amend the motion by removing this clause, or musing?

Based on the recent discussion, it seems like governors are in favour of the idea but not the licence fees as they would like to see the title to be permanent. I would like this motion to pass so we can update our list of active t.d's and organizers and give them recognition.

So, yes, Mr. Von Keitz, I would like move to amend the motion by removing the part mentioning licence fee. Do I need someone to second?

Thanks everyone for giving their opinions/suggestions. Look forward to more suggestions

[Simon Ong]

If implemented, previous titleholders would not see their credentials stripped. Instead, under proposed regulation 20.5, it would fall to the TDOCP Committee to determine whether to consider them current (likely on a case-by-case basis and only for those that choose to apply). That's how I'm reading it.

Great idea, Mr. von Keitz!

Also, we can have a separate list of "inactive" T.Ds/organizers. Some of the previous titleholders might fall on that list. Any thoughts?

Should we have a rule for previous titleholders to "recertify" and be on the "active" T.Ds/organizers list? But, we always have the proposed regulation 20.5 such that the TDOCP Committee can make some of these decisions.

[Lyle Craver]

Just as long as you are aware that people may be holders of multiple titles.

FIDE didn't take Abe Yanofsky off the International Arbiter list for nearly 5 years after his passing - they took him off the International Grandmaster list as soon as they heard the news but didn't check for other titles...

But then until I got Hal to go to bat for us last year, FIDE thought Lynn Stringer was male and yours truly female so what can I say?

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

There should be definitions for "national and/or international event"s.

A recently finished Hart House Holidays Open had five international players (federations) and some came from other provinces.
Can it be called a national and international event?

[Simon Ong]

There should be definitions for "national and/or international event"s.

A recently finished Hart House Holidays Open had five international players (federations) and some came from other provinces.
Can it be called a national and international event?

Very good point, Mr. Zeromskis!
I am thinking of the following definitions-

National event- CFC/FIDE rated event which include players from 3 different provinces/territories.

International event- CFC/FIDE rated event which include players from 3 different federations.

Initially, I was thinking of defining the national event to include only the official CFC championships- i.e. Canadian Open, Canadian Closed, Canadian Youth Chess Championship, Canadian Junior Chess Championship, Canadian Amateur Chess Championship, etc. Then, I think it might not be a good idea.

Any suggestions on defining the terms "National event" and "International event"

[Christopher Mallon]

International event should definitely be FIDE rated - that puts some extra requirements on it as far as the TD/TO candidate having formal assistance and monitoring from an already-certified person.

[Pierre Dénommée]

This is a private discussion, but when this will go public, I will certainly get a call from Richard Bérubéé. He will ask me if the FQE certified arbiters will be required to also become CFC certified arbiters in order to access the FA and IA titles.

The FQE has been certifying arbiters continuously since the 1980s, The actual FQE list can be found here http://www.fqechecs.qc.ca/cms/story/arbitres but there are many more certified individuals who are either inactive or whose FQE membership has lapsed.

Because the FQE has its own Tournaments Rules, different from our's and from FIDE's, recognition should not be automatic. Furthermore, the FQE Official Rules of Chess book has suffered a tremendous delay and the written version is still the 2005 Laws of Chess event though the 2009 version is actually used in their tournaments.

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't see why we should be supporting the FQE's certification process... what do they ever do to support us? So I would say the FQE certifications should be ignored as far as CFC rules go.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Two levels are clearly insufficient. Other sports have 4 levels: local, regional, provincial and national.

I agree that the CFC should certify only the highest two levels. The other levels of certification should be left to the affiliated provincial organisation where they exists and to a group of arbiters of the province where they don't.

I disagree with the absence of restrictions for directing tournaments. National Events and all their qualifiers should be restricted to CFC Certified Arbiters. This should have little impact on the normal activities of the CFC and it will grant some values to the titles.

The Grandfathering problem is what has caused the last attempt to fail. Now that we have a list of Certified Arbiters here http://chess.ca/cfc-arbiters I tough that this debate was over. Are we reopening it?

Licensing fees for Arbiters is not a good idea. We should fight it at the FIDE level and not implement it at our level.

SwissSys should not be mentioned by name. Parings software endorsed by FIDE or the CFC should be uses instead. Did we forget that we are trying to move to SwissManager?

I am volunteering for the TDOCP and for writing the French examinations.