15. 2012-O Rating of Junior Events (Vlad Rekhson)

[Lyle Craver]

Moved Vlad Rekhson / Seconded Simon Ong

That Junior only events will be rated with a regular rating provided that the time control is at least 30 minutes per side, or equivalent, based on 60 moves when increments are used.

(Editorial note: there has been a second motion by Field / Jensen saying

I move, seconded by Ken Jensen, that Junior events of at least G30 be regular rated, retroactive to December 1, 2011.

Governors should refer to the discussion on this motion in the President's Message for further details)

[Paul Leblanc]

The current policy was put in place by the following motion (read carefully to take in the torturous language):

GL 9 of 2005/2006:

Motion 2006-12 (Moved Christopher Mallon / Seconded by Patrick McDonald)
To remove from the CFC Handbook section 711.2 concerning Junior Ratings:
"711.2 Rating of Junior Events.
All pure Junior and Scholastic tournaments will be regular rated unless 50% or more of the participants
have regular ratings over 1500, or the time control is less than 30 minutes per player per game. [See GL2
1999-2000, October 1999]"
Votes Yes (13) Barron, Bluvshtein, Craft, Craver, Dénommée, Dutton, Farges, Friesen, Nikouline, Pacey,
Smith, Stockhausen, Thorvardson
Votes No (0)
Abstentions (3) Ferner, Gauer, Wu

[Christopher Mallon]

I don't think it's a good idea to go back to this. One group of players should not be using different rules for the same rating system.

Certain people have threatened or hinted about threatening to stop organizing events if we enforce our existing rule, but it makes no sense to govern based on threats.

[Lyle Craver]

Moved Field / Jensen to add the phrase

"retroactive to 1 December 2011" to this motion

Please vote yes, no or abstain

[Paul Leblanc]

I recommend governors reject this motion. Some of the reasons are:

1. It treats one group of chess players differently from the rest;

2. It distorts the rating system because many younger players who play twenty five 30 minute games against weak opposition get permanent ratings that are far below their actual playing strength. Then, instead of starting over with Provisional ratings when they start playing in serious tournaments, they bring artificially acquired low ratings with them. This impacts eligibility for class prizes and fosters ill will between juniors and experienced players;

3. The 30 minute events are likely violating other CFC rules. Are the moves recorded? Are games adjudicated at the end of a one hour round and if so what criteria is used to award a win? Are clocks used at all? I attended a junior event a couple of years ago where the TD's only instruction was that anyone making 3 illegal moves would forfeit the game.

4. There is a very viable alternative. Some organizers have adapted to my audits by giving the strongest players 60 minute each time controls and using Active rating for the less experienced kids. There is a separate initiative led by Bob Armstrong to rejuvinate the CFC Active rating system to make it more appealing to a wider audience.

[Bob Gillanders]

I will be voting No on this motion. Games rated regular need to be 1 hour, there should be no exemptions for junior tournaments. We voted on this back in 2006, and it was a decisive vote in favour of stopping the practice of rating active junior tournaments as regular. I shared my views with a few others in an email recently, here it is:

Hi Guys,

I was going to wait for the governors meeting before joining the debate of this issue, but I will say the following beforehand:

1. Paul is on the right track. Enforce the rules on the books. Games from junior only tournaments should not be rated regular unless they are at least game in 1 hour.

2. When I became ED in 2007, I asked the question, "should these junior tournaments (it was obvious they were not long games) be regular rated?". Former ED David Gordon told me "all junior only tournament games are regular rated." I recall mentioning this to other CFC people at the time and nobody contradicted him, nor did I have a reliable handbook to consult. I was not aware of the motion in 2006 that should have stopped this practice, so sadly I continued to rate them regular. It is only now in 2011, with our new rating auditor Paul Leblanc, that we realize that we haven't been following our own rules. If somebody else brought it up earlier, I don't recall. Perhaps they were drowned out from all the noise.

3. When tournaments are submitted the default is regular rated. So unless the TD specifies active, it gets rated regular. I am happy to hear that Gerry is at least contesting some TD's about this.

4. Yes Virginia, unless you are talking about CYCC (OYCC, etc), most junior tournaments are played without clocks. Smaller tournaments maybe have clocks, or sometimes for just the top (older) boards, but school tournaments with 50-100+ kids, no way. And yes, most of the games are over quickly.

This is a big topic, and making any changes will be met with resistance from some junior organizers. Not so much because they think they are correct, but more that they get pressure from parents and kids for a rating. Everybody loves a rating. We need to sell the fact that our active (quick, whatever you call it) rating is worthy of existence.

At the Mississauga junior club we have our own rating system. It allows me some flexibility for assigning rating for new kids. We also have some logistical reasons that make using the CFC rating system problematical. However, I am planning for 2012 to CFC rate some of our top boards to get the juniors acquainted with CFC and encourage them to participate beyond our club. My narrative will simply be that the active (quick) rating is their junior rating, and when they start playing in adult tournaments, they can look forward to getting a real adult CFC rating.

Cheers,
Bob G.

[Lyle Craver]

Two main points here:

(1) Do Governors agree with the whole idea in the first place of rating junior events "regular" that are not played at regular time controls

(2) Do Governors in general agree with the whole concept of 'ex post facto' motions - that is, motions that are to have retroactive effect.

The first question is a question of junior administrative policy.

The second is at the root of it a question of philosophy and jurisprudence which touches on matters across the board - not just involving juniors. Is it reasonable or just to change the rules after the game has been played? Are there circumstances where this is warranted?

These two issues are quite separate issues here and voting one way to #1 does not imply you should or should not vote the same way on #2

Regardless of how the amendment goes, Governors should carefully discuss the philosophical issue raised by it and retroactive motions generally.

[Gordon Ritchie]

I failto see the rationale for this proposal and further agree with Lyle that retroactivity is bad practice.

[Bob Armstrong]

I also will be voting against the motion to rate less than Game/60 all junior tournaments, as " regular rated ", for the reasons given by others. We need to keep the " regular " and new " quick " systems totally separate, and maintain the integrity of each.

Bob A

[Chris Felix]

Retroactive is a terrible idea, and can cause many problems.

I will vote no to this, as I think treating players differently inside the same rating system will skew the rating system as a whole.

If Junior players are underrated, the problem is that they're not playing enough regular rated events, the solution should be to get them more involved somehow, change the time of the scholastic events or another solution that does not involve skewing statistical data.