Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: 7. Motion 2012-H TDOCP Motion

  1. #11

    Default

    I can appreciate that people want to ensure that our organizers and arbiters know the rules well, but this seems ineffective. After someone has directed that many tournaments including tournaments at the national/international level what purpose does applying for the title serve? At this point the candidate organizer in question is already semi-experienced and likely to have no need for the majority of the training; meanwhile the prospective organizer who has no clue what he’s doing is still lost.

    Why not simply just have an online course similar to the smart serve program? I work in bars in both Northern and Southern Ontario and both have required me to take this course (although technecially optional in terms of the government) because it effectively conveys the rules and guidelines around alcohol. This would make the program far more accessible, modernized, would create revenue for the CFC and would ensure a standard of chess knowledge amongst organizers and arbiters. Say it’s a onetime 20$ course, x number of hours online and included in this is a pin and certificate for those who complete the course and pass. It would also then not be a massive hinderance to anyone either.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Clark View Post
    I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. I know you said in the past Mike that you wanted to help inexperienced organizers. However, lets say an organizer in Thunder Bay wants help running a tournament. He's supposed to come to (I'm assuming) Toronto to sit in on a seminar? Also he then enters into this system of norms and titles with the ultimate goal of what? Obtaining a FIDE title? It seems like all this will do is make it more difficult to become an FA, IA, IO etc. Is there really a problem with unqualified people applying at present? Also, how will this help organizers in the least? Why not make these materials and tests online so its more accessible to all and have a forum where questions can be answered by more experienced TDs? It seems like this is all a way to try to make money through licensing and seminars and at the end of it I'm not even sure what the person gets other than being able to say I'm a RO etc etc. I'm also not a fan of a committee deciding who gets these titles. I want to propose the aforementioned amendment but to be honest I can't even begin to support anything that makes it harder for Canadian organizers. Also, what happens in 50 years in Canadian chess when we have very few IAs (or IOs) because they didnt want to first become RTD, NTD, and FA (and vice versa)?
    I should point out that I have no relationship with this motion, so I'm not clear on why these questions seem to be directed at me. I believe either Simon or Hal are best suited to respond to your concerns.

  3. #13

    Default

    My apologies Mike. Those questions were directed at you based on what you had said in support of a program like this at the long term planning committee kick off. I assumed you had a place on the committee. So thanks Mike, if Simon or Hal could answer my questions that would be much appreciated.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Clark View Post
    I'm not sure I understand the purpose of this. I know you said in the past Mike that you wanted to help inexperienced organizers. However, lets say an organizer in Thunder Bay wants help running a tournament. He's supposed to come to (I'm assuming) Toronto to sit in on a seminar? Also he then enters into this system of norms and titles with the ultimate goal of what? Obtaining a FIDE title? It seems like all this will do is make it more difficult to become an FA, IA, IO etc. Is there really a problem with unqualified people applying at present? Also, how will this help organizers in the least? Why not make these materials and tests online so its more accessible to all and have a forum where questions can be answered by more experienced TDs? It seems like this is all a way to try to make money through licensing and seminars and at the end of it I'm not even sure what the person gets other than being able to say I'm a RO etc etc. I'm also not a fan of a committee deciding who gets these titles. I want to propose the aforementioned amendment but to be honest I can't even begin to support anything that makes it harder for Canadian organizers. Also, what happens in 50 years in Canadian chess when we have very few IAs (or IOs) because they didnt want to first become RTD, NTD, and FA (and vice versa)?
    Hello Rob,
    You brought up excellent questions. The main purpose of this system is not to make it difficult to people who want to become FA, IA, IO, etc. The purpose is to get our local/regional and national arbiters to learn from experienced t.d's who have achieved FIDE-titles. By learning from them, you will gain enough knowledge/skills to achieve the FIDE-titles. In other words, it shows to the committee that one is competent to direct and/or organize a chess tournament in Canada.

    Thanks,
    Simon

  5. #15

    Default

    Why does the person need to show the committee they are competent arbiters/organizers? They already are organizers and arbiters (and must have some level of competency given the scale of the tournaments you are requesting) before they can even apply for the titles (since it is required they be involved with CFC level organization/arbitration). The only thing I can see this doing is further ensuring that people are competent when applying for FIDE titles by creating more obstacles for them. However, you already said that making it more difficult to apply for FIDE titles is not the main purpose. I have to ask again what is the purpose then? By making it mandatory rather than optional it is no longer an aid to someone seeking a FIDE title but rather a tiresome & burdensome tribulation. I also highly doubt that this program will receive enough interest to merit its existence; ie how many people would need to show up at a seminar to make it worthwhile? What must an attendee pay? Who will give the seminars? Also in the years to follow will there be enough attendance to make this profitable (ie once the initial rush receives the seminar, will there be enough new blood to merit another seminar)? This combined with the licensing issue must be resolved before a motion be put in place in my opinion.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Being a good director is a matter both of technical skills and demonstrated judgement both in terms of 'people skills' and dealing with situations where 'anything you do is wrong'. Anyone who has done late round Swiss pairings knows exactly what I mean. And good people skills are indispensable in things like that.

    We all know players who know the rules extremely well but would be a disaster behind the director's table as they're completely obtuse in handling people.

    I'd be happy to have such folks as certified directors but would expect their issues to be dealt with before they were considered for the higher levels.

    I've filled out numerous FIDE norm forms and used to think the short essay portion of the form was a pain in the *** - but now realize FIDE is trying to get some sort of testimonial from the recommending individual and that is very sound.

    Again - anybody can do Swiss pairings but that is merely technical skill which is only part of the toolkit required to be a good director particularly at the higher levels.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,023

    Default CFC and Licensing TDs

    We need to get the program going again. Perfection is not necessary.

    My concern is that for the last 20 years or so the CFC has not been issuing any titles for TDs. The Provincial bodies grandfathered TDs in 2004-05 based on tournament history from say 1992 to 2003.

    Fast forward, in 2012 I think we owe some people better than your large numeber of CFC rated tournaments are all CRAP. Under the new program, get in line, pay a TD fee, take a TD course and keep sending in those rating fees.

    Some decency is in order. Pick a large number of CFC rated events and grandfather these folks into the grid. They do not need to have performances on par with our most senior IAs to become CFC NTDs, RTDs or TDs. You do not have to like them and they do not have to be god's gift to TD-ing for these coveted titles to be bestowed on them by the CFC.

  8. #18

    Default

    The crap will still be run. The organizers who are running the crap events which need guidance will do so regardless of this motion. This will not affect the bad organizers who don't care at all as this is not mandatory to run tournaments it will simply impede those who wish to gain FIDE titles in the future as it is only mandatory for them.

    I don't disagree that something being in place would necessarily be a bad idea. I just don't think this is a solution. Most people seem to think that this motion needs work and want to work on it as they go. I also still don't think it is sustainable. In two years will there be enough people to make holding a seminar worth it? Are there going to be that many organizers and arbiters flocking to these seminars? Are the senior titled arbiters even willing to do this? I also think it clearly favours organizers in large communities where as there are other alternatives which don't and are accessible to everyone. I come from an area outside of a densely populated area and am not alone. We will certainly get overlooked and if there is anyone who needs guidance its those who don't have a large support network around them and are exposed to fewer tournaments. Besides, what exactly does this hope to accomplish? I've been told of organizers who will do well on any seminar etc but still end up performing poorly, its not the same. Is the committee going to slap them in the face and say that they aren't granted the title and can't pursue FIDE titles?

    This doesn't seem well thought out, modern, or sustainable. There is still the issues of cost of seminars and licensing. The reason I addressed Mike before is that he was on the committee and was a driving force for it. He mentioned what the committee hoped to accomplish and I don't see this motion doing that.

  9. #19

    Default

    By the way if this motion seems familiar to anyone, it is. This exact same motion (verbatim) was removed from the last quarterly for modifications. It faced a lot of questions and opposition. None of which have been answered and yet this is the exact same motion word for word. In fact I believe Simon said in the last post he no longer supported licensing, yet here it is.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    591

    Default Streamlining, dues

    As Halldor mentions, we do need to put a certification program back in place. We owe our membership some semblance of quality assurance with respect to tournaments run in our name. Currently we have none - anyone can run a tournament, start a club and collect fees without any credentials or formal registration whatsoever. Given the laxity of our entire chess network it is surprising that we have not faced more serious problems.

    Rob - your idea of online seminars is just fine - these are less expensive and more accessible to remote regions and smaller towns. I don't understand the objection to a renewal fee every 6 years. Rules change, rates change, cycles change. Recertification/renewal/continuing education are all common features in most fields of endeavour. It comes back to the idea of quality assurance of our tournament officials for the playing, paying membership. If an official must pay for certification they tend to take the process and their credentials and their responsibilities more seriously.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •