Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: 7. 2013-P Amendments to Class Certificate Program (Bond/Gillanders) - commentary only

  1. #1

    Default 7. 2013-P Amendments to Class Certificate Program (Bond/Gillanders) - commentary only

    That the following clauses be added to Section 7, p.738b): "ix. Should a player have a norm result after the first 5 rounds of play, regardless of subsequent results within the same event, a norm shall be awarded"; and "x. Should a player's performance after 4 rounds of play in an event be such that a norm result is guaranteed regardless of result in the fifth round, that player shall be awarded a norm, whether the fifth round is played or not."

  2. #2

    Default

    This may be split for voting purposes, depending on governor feedback.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I have some issues here.

    First of all, as the one who lead the development of the system, and as the one who wrote the software that gives us a nice easy list of who has which titles, it may have helped to run this by me ahead of time!

    I have big issues with both proposals. The main one is that the whole system was designed to be SIMPLE, with very few loopholes (if any), and one that a computer could, in a matter of less than 10 seconds, spit out a list of every CFC member in the database and what title they are eligible for.

    Both proposals will ruin that computer capability, forcing us to do everything by hand. Not to mention adding two more layers of confusion to something that should be dead-simple.

    A 6-round event does not always pair the first 5 rounds the same as a 5-round event pairs the 5 rounds - they can be (not always) different, in other ways as well (# of players for example). An event should be taken as a complete set of games, not breaking them up.

    The improvement we SHOULD be making to the system is to automate the titles to run every week right after new ratings are uploaded, and to display people's titles on their rating pages. I've suggested this extremely minor thing several times now. I can even easily make the software post a list directly to the forums of everyone who earned a new title each week (once the website displays them, anyway). So long as this proposed motion doesn't ruin that software capability, of course.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  4. #4

    Default

    The software argument is an excellent reason to vote against the motion.

    Should a player's performance after 4 rounds of play in an event be such that a norm result is guaranteed regardless of result in the fifth round, that player shall be awarded a norm, whether the fifth round is played or not.
    is a good proposal. FIDE has a similar proposal aimed at preventing a player from deliberately depriving the opponent of a norm with an intentional no-show forfeit in the ultimate round. I doubt that anybody would try such a trick at the CFC level. FIDE norms are hard to get whereas CFC norms are much easier. So even if an irresponsible opponent deliberately scraps a norm, it won't be long before the victim achieve his norm.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
    The software argument is an excellent reason to vote against the motion.

    Should a player's performance after 4 rounds of play in an event be such that a norm result is guaranteed regardless of result in the fifth round, that player shall be awarded a norm, whether the fifth round is played or not.
    is a good proposal. FIDE has a similar proposal aimed at preventing a player from deliberately depriving the opponent of a norm with an intentional no-show forfeit in the ultimate round. I doubt that anybody would try such a trick at the CFC level. FIDE norms are hard to get whereas CFC norms are much easier. So even if an irresponsible opponent deliberately scraps a norm, it won't be long before the victim achieve his norm.
    It's also highly unlikely... say you are earning a Class-A norm with around a 1900 performance rating required. To absolutely guarantee a norm in the 5th round regardless of opponent rating, you would actually need something around a 2300 performance rating over 4 rounds.

    We will not have the same problem FIDE has with no-shows, as under CFC rules no-shows are rated, and thus will show up in the system as a game played. (Handbook 718/733)

    The only case where it would not be rated is if both players fail to show up - and why should the first player get a norm in that case?

    Thanks for the support on the software argument though
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,560

    Default Sorry....

    Yes, Chris you should have been consulted.

    In the interests of keeping it simple, and we should, for practical reasons I suggest we use your software to calculate the titles earned, ignoring for the moment this proposed amendment.

    If the amendment passes, in the rare cases where it applies, the player can simply email the CFC and ask for a review.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,158
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Yes. That is the only practical way to implement this.

  8. #8

    Default

    733 also mention that Games marked F or D (for Forfeit or Default) will not be rated (rule 718) unless they are also marked R (for Rated).

    It looks like there is arbiter discretion when reading 733 but I see no such discretion in 718. Furthermore, a player may advise the director 1 minute before the beginning of the round which is too late to change the pairings but the player has still advised in advance . In this case, there is arbiter discretion. It is unlikely but still possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    We will not have the same problem FIDE has with no-shows, as under CFC rules no-shows are rated, and thus will show up in the system as a game played. (Handbook 718/733)

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I am not sure what problem this proposal is seeking to address. It seems to me that the system is working and many people seem to be interested in the system as it is currently implemented. It seems to me that there is a bit of an inequity in the proposed rule in that a norm result is not possible in a four round event but you can have a norm result after four rounds. As Pierre says most people who achieve the required performance will sooner or later achieve the required norms without this new rule. I don't think that we should make it too easy to get a norm as then the whole system becomes a joke.

    The system as it currently works relies on very little human intervention and that is very good as it is possible for this job of checking norms to be very time consuming as it was when we first came up with the system before Chris automated it.

    I will be voting against this proposal.

  10. #10

    Default

    I also will vote against the motion - the cure is worse than the problem.

    Bob A

Page 1 of 2 12 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
  •