CYCC Regional Qualifiers

[Michael Barron]

I'm not sure how it is related to the topic but the case was very simple - Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16.
So, we found no reason to register one of them in U18.

Vlad,

I prepared registration documents myself, so, I know first-hand that a younger player was registered to represent Canada in U18 Open section.

The question is:
Why the registration was changed?
Why Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16?
Did you ask them?

My impression is that international organizers encourage young players to play within their age groups.
If so, we should do the same on the local level, including CYCC qualifiers.

[Bob Armstrong]

I think it is most important, BEFORE the upcoming CYCC Qualifiers are held, that the CFC issue a statement to the public, giving notice of the current CFC policy on " Playing-Up at the CYCC/CYCC Qualifiers ". Parents must know clearly what they can and cannot do. So must organizers. We cannot let an inconsistent mish-mash of tournaments spring up around this issue.

Also, that will then allow me to determine what, if any, motion might be brought forward to amend the policy, and allow playing up under certain circumstances.

Bob A

P.S. I have heard personally and directly from some CYCC parents who want playing-up allowed under certain conditions.

[Aris Marghetis]

I think it is most important, BEFORE the upcoming CYCC Qualifiers are held, that the CFC issue a statement to the public, giving notice of the current CFC policy on " Playing-Up at the CYCC/CYCC Qualifiers ". Parents must know clearly what they can and cannot do. So must organizers. We cannot let an inconsistent mish-mash of tournaments spring up around this issue.

Bob A

It seems that the current rule is no playing up, which I will simply consistently enforce.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Vlad,

I prepared registration documents myself, so, I know first-hand that a younger player was registered to represent Canada in U18 Open section.

The question is:
Why the registration was changed?
Why Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16?
Did you ask them?

My impression is that international organizers encourage young players to play within their age groups.
If so, we should do the same on the local level, including CYCC qualifiers.

Sorry Michael, I did not get your point at first. Yes, you've registered Jerry Xiong to be our official rep in U18 since there was nobody else in this category. Upon arrival, he was given a choice to play in U16 or U18. Obviously, he chose U16. And for organizers the cost of U16 and U18 player is the same.

I think, the issue is made much more complicated than it should be. In my opinion, if someone wants to play up in age category, it is, definitely, has to be allowed. At the same time, player and parents should be aware that in case of winning, he/she cannot claim to be official rep in lower age category. Sounds quite simple to me.

Going to WYCC is big and respectable goal but it is not everything. If player/parent/coach thinks it is beneficial for the player's development to compete with stronger opposition in CYCC, then we maybe can advise and explain the consequences but we cannot forbid this.

[Aris Marghetis]

Sorry Michael, I did not get your point at first. Yes, you've registered Jerry Xiong to be our official rep in U18 since there was nobody else in this category. Upon arrival, he was given a choice to play in U16 or U18. Obviously, he chose U16. And for organizers the cost of U16 and U18 player is the same.

I think, the issue is made much more complicated than it should be. In my opinion, if someone wants to play up in age category, it is, definitely, has to be allowed. At the same time, player and parents should be aware that in case of winning, he/she cannot claim to be official rep in lower age category. Sounds quite simple to me.

Going to WYCC is big and respectable goal but it is not everything. If player/parent/coach thinks it is beneficial for the player's development to compete with stronger opposition in CYCC, then we maybe can advise and explain the consequences but we cannot forbid this.

Hi Vladimir, I understand where you are coming from, and respect your position. If I may suggest though, here is another point to consider, which can be called "the development needs of the many". In a nutshell, in my experience, and your mileage may vary, the majority of play-ups are not strong enough to reasonably do so. There are of course exceptions, but my anecdotal experience is that when one player "potentially" benefits from playing up, all his/her opponents in the higher section "waste away" playing down.

This does not bother me for any other "regular" tournament, and I believe it is fair to allow each Organizer to do as he/she deems. I used to allow unlimited playing up, until one family insisted that their very young 1100 son had to play with IMs and GMs. All 5 of his opponents just hated 20% (1/5) of their games. Then I limited playing up to one section up, and over the course of half-a-dozen tournaments, the results were similar. The person playing up would get creamed, and his opponents would be frustrated and bored. Therefore, to actually increase registrations amongst more higher-rated players, I have settled on not allowing anyone to play up. However, this conclusion is just my personal experience and opinion, and many Organizers have different policies. To my mind, such differences are completely acceptable for any of our "regular" tournaments.

However, again in my humble opinion, the CYCC Qualifiers and the CYCC itself, are not just "regular" tournaments. They are intended to determine Canada's best hopes, and they should be intended as one of the best development opportunities. To my mind, let's say a player plays 2 rounds out of 7 against unnecessarily (playing up) weak opposition, that represents lost development opportunity. I am open to thinking about this, but I am having a tough time accepting the interests of one player at the expense of 7, 9, etc.

If it is just a nomenclature issue, then I would support a motion that just changes U18 to 17-16, and so on. It seems that the WYCC, FIDE, etc., are thinking that implicitly.

Best regards.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

I agree totally with you that unrestricted ' playing-up " is detrimental to both the elite player and the " player- upper ".

To deal with this, while allowing reasonable playing-up ( which respects the child's freedom to choose ), I have proposed in my post above ( modified ):

" The only limitation is that a player playing-up cannot be lower-rated than the lowest-rated player who is in the appropriate age section at the time of close of registrations. "

Parents push children, and we cannot have them placed in upper sections inappropriate to their rating ( no matter how much the parent argues their wonderkind is " underrated " ). Also, each section has low-rated players, and if a child is no lower than the lowest, there is no detriment to the elite players, because they have to play other section players already at the lower rating level.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob A., with all due respect, your restriction is way too weak.
You want to allow choice, and you give the hypothetical case of some superstar GM 2700 wanting to play up in age to support your position. Now you offer a restriction that is laughably weak. I am still in favour of not allowing any playing up, but I guess I could live with some flexibility for extraordinary cases. So perhaps allowing the kid to play up if they are the highest rated player or at least equal to the average in the higher aged category.

I get the impression that most organizers experienced in youth chess prefer the kids stay in their own age category. Maybe we should listen to experience here.

I am talking about only the CYCC here, the CYCC qualifiers are a different animal. I see no need for restrictions in the qualifiers.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

1. I do respect the opinions of organizers, given their foundation on lots of experience. But they can be wrong - for example when they say the rule should be " no playing-up ".

2. I do want playing-up:

a) there will always be some exceptional juniors for whom peer competition will only be available in upper age brackets;
b) there must be some recognition of the junior's freedom to choose, and so the restriction should not be so severe that juniors who deserve to be allowed to play-up, can't.

3. I don't want the mechanism to be a CFC " Exceptions " Committee. This is fraught with danger for the CFC. No one will acknowledge the series of decisions to be " consistent and fair ", regardless of the extent the Committee is able to achieve this.

4. My proposed restriction was :

" The only limitation is that a player playing-up cannot be lower-rated than the lowest-rated player who is in the appropriate age section at the time of close of registrations. "

I agree now that it is likely too weak. A significant influx of juniors at the bottom level playing-up, too negatively affects the quality of the competition.

5. How about a restriction that said:

" Playing-Up is allowed where the under-age junior has a rating equal to or above, the fifth ranked player actually in the age section, at the close of registrations ".

Too weak? Too severe?

6. There will be no playing-up restriction in CYCC Qualifiers.

Bob A.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Aris, you making excellent points.

... when one player "potentially" benefits from playing up, all his/her opponents in the higher section "waste away" playing down.

Although it sounds very obvious, I wonder if there are many people so unselfish to think this way.

However, again in my humble opinion, the CYCC Qualifiers and the CYCC itself, are not just "regular" tournaments.

Completely agree. And that's why I don't see anyone willing to play up without having really good reason. I think, there are 2 type of kids coming to CYCC: first one is just to enjoy, and second type to win trophies and WYCC trip. For both types it doesn't really make sense asking to play up if they are not clearly ahead of their own age.

If it is just a nomenclature issue, then I would support a motion that just changes U18 to 17-16, and so on. It seems that the WYCC, FIDE, etc., are thinking that implicitly.

I'm quite sure if Jerry Xiong would choose to play in U18, organizers wouldn't have any issue with this.

[Aris Marghetis]

Hello Bob A., I could just kick myself for getting into this with you, but here we go!

1. I do respect the opinions of organizers, given their foundation on lots of experience. But they can be wrong - for example when they say the rule should be " no playing-up ".

I find your conclusion that Organizers are "wrong" to be disrespectful. Surely this would work out better if you convinced the majority of Organizers to voluntarily see your way?

2. I do want playing-up:

Point heard, but maybe the priority should be on what is best for our youth programs, as opposed to what people like you (or I) "want". Convince me your ideas will be good for the kids, without adding too much overhead to the Organizers, and I would be happy to agree.

3. I don't want the mechanism to be a CFC " Exceptions " Committee. This is fraught with danger for the CFC. No one will acknowledge the series of decisions to be " consistent and fair ", regardless of the extent the Committee is able to achieve this.
4. My proposed restriction was :
" The only limitation is that a player playing-up cannot be lower-rated than the lowest-rated player who is in the appropriate age section at the time of close of registrations. "
I agree now that it is likely too weak. A significant influx of juniors at the bottom level playing-up, too negatively affects the quality of the competition.
5. How about a restriction that said:
" Playing-Up is allowed where the under-age junior has a rating equal to or above, the fifth ranked player actually in the age section, at the close of registrations ".
Too weak? Too severe?

The logistics of this are not as easy as you might think. For example, the Organizer might not be able to set his sections until the last minute. This could be significant because some decisions involve which age groups to bundle, or not, locking in round-robins, or not, etc. You could even have the headache of a player waiting to decide whether to play up or not, based on whether someone else from his/her age group already decided to play up or not. Heck, there are so many possible permutations here, and people will indeed find them, lol! And for what, just to make a "legal" point? I say just rename the sections, 17-16, etc.

6. There will be no playing-up restriction in CYCC Qualifiers.

You have got to be kidding here! Why wouldn't we absolutely insist on the same rules?!