17)Review of chess activity in Ontario and proposed activity for the next fiscal year

[Christopher Mallon]

OK, but that brings up 2 concerns for me :

1) If a league declines, with your open bid idea, there would be a 67% chance of the same region holding the Ontario Open 2 years in a row (either with last or next year).

I don't see that as a huge issue... and the Governors are able to select a bid if there are competing bids.

2) We kind of attempted the open bid last year, but the EOCA never heard about it before SWOCL won it. I do not know if GTCL went through anything similar. With our established Regional VPs, it should be pretty straightforward to cycle through the leagues. In any case, the odds will be astronomically low that more than one league (and would it ever be anyone other than NOCL) would decline. Therefore, I am reticent to set up a process that overy emphasizes the lowest-chance-of-occurrence scenario?

Actually one recent year SWOCL basically declined, although not really their fault.

P.S. If a league passes on their bid, then I would definitely exclude them from any more bidding that year.

This assumes that all TDs are "in" with their league, which may or may not be the case.

Regardless, a bid will be set over 6 MONTHS before the actual event!

You'll never see me bidding on that. I took about 16 months to prepare for my Ontario Open in 2004 - 4 months before bidding and then a year after bidding. Forcing a short timeframe is just asking for inferior events.

[Rob Clark]

What about the existing model, which is what Chris is talking about basically, with first shot at the bid (if a league turns it down) going to the league two cycles ahead? If they don't take it, its up for grabs between the remaining two leagues. That would help ensure that a league has the Ontario Open twice in a row as little as possible.

[Aris Marghetis]

What about the existing model, which is what Chris is talking about basically, with first shot at the bid (if a league turns it down) going to the league two cycles ahead? If they don't take it, its up for grabs between the remaining two leagues. That would help ensure that a league has the Ontario Open twice in a row as little as possible.

Well, with the existing model, if you look at the last 10 years, it has not been balanced. I understand there might be other contributing factors, but the existing model has had some warts over the last decade. Also, I think it would be better to avoid "up for grabs" situations where leagues are bidding against each other. This is what motivated me to come up with the "you can cook next or get out of the kitchen" idea. Whereas quite a few people have expressed agreement with the idea, it seems that only Chris and Rob (sorry if I am missing anyone) have reservations about it. So now, of those reservations, are there any deal-breakers? The one that stood out for me was Chris saying that he needed over a year's notice to organize an Ontario Open. Chris, do you stand by that, as it seems to me that 6-9 months is enough time. Any other real deal-breakers?

[Christopher Mallon]

Well, with the existing model, if you look at the last 10 years, it has not been balanced. I understand there might be other contributing factors, but the existing model has had some warts over the last decade.

Posted elsewhere in this thread... :

2012-NOCL
2011-odd year in rotation, people originally believed it was NOCL's turn but NOCL was apparently entitled to it in 2012 as per the 5 year rotation, I verified it with the 2007 minutes at the time and it checked out- held by SWOCL
2010-GTCL
2009-EOCA
2008-SWOCL
2007-NOCL
2006- GTCL
2005- EOCA
2004-SWOCL

That looks like a pretty fair spread to me if you consider 2011 and 2012 to simply be a trade between SWOCL and NOCL, which it effectively was. Everyone is every four years. Am I missing some unbalancing somewhere?

Also, I think it would be better to avoid "up for grabs" situations where leagues are bidding against each other. This is what motivated me to come up with the "you can cook next or get out of the kitchen" idea. Whereas quite a few people have expressed agreement with the idea, it seems that only Chris and Rob (sorry if I am missing anyone) have reservations about it.

Actually... if quite a few people have expressed agreement with that idea, they didn't do so in this thread. Maybe they could come and contribute.

So now, of those reservations, are there any deal-breakers? The one that stood out for me was Chris saying that he needed over a year's notice to organize an Ontario Open. Chris, do you stand by that, as it seems to me that 6-9 months is enough time. Any other real deal-breakers?

The absolute deal-breaker for me is that a league loses its spot in the rotation - either by being bumped up or by passing on being bumped up - through no fault of its own.

Sure, I could plan an Ontario Open on short notice, not as good of one though. However, I was planning the 2004 Open starting in December 2002. What if the 2003 event had fallen through, and this rule were in place, and someone else in SWOCL bid for the 2003 event... thus effectively canceling my plans for the 2004 event.

I honestly don't really care what the replacement mechanism is, although I made a suggestion as to what I personally feel is best. My main concern is that the rotation is set and doesn't change for anything short of a change in the number of Leagues in the province. That way I could say "yup, GTCL will be hosting the Ontario Open in 2022!"

After all, taking up the slack for a league which decides for whatever reason not to run the event should be entirely as a favour, there should be no downside to it.

[Christopher Mallon]

P.S. 2003 Ontario Open was in EOCA I believe (Frank Dixon was TD). 2002 was in NOCL (back then there was both NOCL and NEOCL I believe) with John Rutherford as TD.

On a related note, didn't the CFC site used to show us the actual city a tournament was held in, not just the province?

[Marcus Wilker]

What about the existing model, which is what Chris is talking about basically, with first shot at the bid (if a league turns it down) going to the league two cycles ahead? If they don't take it, its up for grabs between the remaining two leagues. That would help ensure that a league has the Ontario Open twice in a row as little as possible.

But if it's more often NOCL that would turn it down (as people here are suggesting) it would keep being the same league (whoever is 2 ahead of NOCL) that would keep getting that opportunity. Unless the order is randomized somehow ?

[Aris Marghetis]

I think I hear what Chris is saying :

1) Some Organizers plan their Ontario Open over a year ahead of time. I was not aware of that, and am having trouble coming to terms with it. If there are other Ontario Open Organizers, even potential ones, who feel the same way as Chris regarding ensuring a planning period of over a year, please either reply here, or email Chris and me, thanks!

2) Chris is also concerned, appropriately, that if a league passes in their year, then that puts pressure on the next league to either take that spot, or the rotation continues. I feel that the evaluation of this point depends on two things. First of all, it would be the usual preparation time referred to in the first bullet above. I would be fine with receiving notice of just 6 months to organize an Ontario Open, but what about other Organizers? This is probably the most important consideration in considering my "you are the next cook or get out of the kitchen" proposal. If Organizers generally want notice of more than 6 months, then I withdraw my proposal. However, if most Organizers are fine with at least 6 months, then the next question becomes who will be after NOCL in the new rotation, as that is the league that is most likely to be surprised. I can ask my executive.

In summary, if most people agree with the concerns listed by Chris, then I would have to withdraw my proposal. At that point, I cannot think of a better alternative than when a league passes on their turn, that turn is lost, and any of the other 3 leagues can bid on running an "extra" Ontario Open. There would be no shifting up, so that Organizers would know for sure what year they were up next, and 4 years after that, and so on.

However, if we do go with this "open bid after a pass" proposal, I would really like to see something much tighter than last year, with explicit cooperation between the 4 Regional Vice-Presidents, a bid process including dates and an evaluation committee, and so on.

Looking forward to feedback, as we shouldn't waste time voting on a bad proposal!

[Rob Clark]

Aris,

You yourself said you're already planning the new Ontario Open, this is more than 6 months in advance. I know I helped out with the initial stages of planning the site etc for the Ontario Open this year and we did that over the summer. Shorter notice wouldn't have worked for either of us. I think its a valid concern, you could put on an event in 6 months but would that event match the one you're planning now?

[Aris Marghetis]

Aris,

You yourself said you're already planning the new Ontario Open, this is more than 6 months in advance. I know I helped out with the initial stages of planning the site etc for the Ontario Open this year and we did that over the summer. Shorter notice wouldn't have worked for either of us. I think its a valid concern, you could put on an event in 6 months but would that event match the one you're planning now?

Yes, we are already planning it, but I meant that in the rare occurrence that another league passed, and we were pressed into it, then at least 6 months would be enough.

However, I might very well be in the minority, and if that is the case, then I withdraw my "your turn to cook or get out of the kitchen" proposal. I am not looking for the best process for Aris, but rather the best process for the OCA and all 4 leagues. Yes, that might entail some compromises, but so be it. Any thoughts on "open bid after pass"?

[Michael Barron]

I think I hear what Chris is saying :

1) Some Organizers plan their Ontario Open over a year ahead of time. I was not aware of that, and am having trouble coming to terms with it. If there are other Ontario Open Organizers, even potential ones, who feel the same way as Chris regarding ensuring a planning period of over a year, please either reply here, or email Chris and me, thanks!

2) Chris is also concerned, appropriately, that if a league passes in their year, then that puts pressure on the next league to either take that spot, or the rotation continues. I feel that the evaluation of this point depends on two things. First of all, it would be the usual preparation time referred to in the first bullet above. I would be fine with receiving notice of just 6 months to organize an Ontario Open, but what about other Organizers? This is probably the most important consideration in considering my "you are the next cook or get out of the kitchen" proposal. If Organizers generally want notice of more than 6 months, then I withdraw my proposal. However, if most Organizers are fine with at least 6 months, then the next question becomes who will be after NOCL in the new rotation, as that is the league that is most likely to be surprised. I can ask my executive.

In summary, if most people agree with the concerns listed by Chris, then I would have to withdraw my proposal. At that point, I cannot think of a better alternative than when a league passes on their turn, that turn is lost, and any of the other 3 leagues can bid on running an "extra" Ontario Open. There would be no shifting up, so that Organizers would know for sure what year they were up next, and 4 years after that, and so on.

However, if we do go with this "open bid after a pass" proposal, I would really like to see something much tighter than last year, with explicit cooperation between the 4 Regional Vice-Presidents, a bid process including dates and an evaluation committee, and so on.

Looking forward to feedback, as we shouldn't waste time voting on a bad proposal!

Aris,

Every organizer could have his own idea how much time is needed for preparation for successful Ontario Open.

But I would think, the OCA AGM is the right place and time to decide where will be Ontario Open next year.
If we're going to make any rules, let's make a rule that Ontario Open bid should be presented to the AGM a year before.
If for some reason a bid is not ready, a League can confirm it's intention to organize Ontario Open next year, and set a deadline for bid preparation - say, by August 1st, as you suggest.
The same AGM could decide which League will organize it, if the initial organizer is unable to prepare a bid by set date - normally the next in rotation.
At the same AGM any League could announce its intention to organize Ontario Open 2 or more years in advance.

We could test this suggestion right now...

Could you please confirm that EOCA will organize Ontario Open 2013?
When could you present a formal bid, including dates and format of the event?