Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

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

  1. #11

    Default

    This motion arose out of member feedback. In one case, the player in question has health problems that prevent him from playing 5 rounds in a weekend Swiss. In the days of his having better health, he accumulated 2 norms and missed out on a third. This last being an exceptional result over 4 rounds that, due to his health, could not be stretched further. Of course, back then, the program was not in place and his playing strength and ability to fight through the pain to attend events in general has fallen since.

    In the other case, the player had a norm result after five rounds of play. Had he withdrawn, his norm would have been secured and, in fact, would have counted for the category above the class in question. Instead, he played on in an attempt to continue his winning streak. Again, this was during a time when the program was not in place, and he ended up with a perf slightly below the floor.

    That's the context, for what it's worth. I believe we may also eventually have a request that a norm result over 10 rounds be counted as two norms.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,744

    Default

    Until there is a software solution, a player could inform the office of his or her results during first five rounds, which could be checked by (maybe) a Rating Auditor later.
    .*-1

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,235
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    I still don't see the issue. You want to break the automation, increase the workload on whomever is administrating it, and add two levels of complexity to the rules for a couple of edge cases...

    If someone is good enough to earn a title, they will earn the title, even if it might take just a little bit longer.

    If you can't tell, I strongly oppose this.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  4. #14

    Default

    The basic argument is that foreknowledge of the future availability of this program would have changed the chosen actions of these individuals (and others like them) in the past. The suggestion that a player good enough to earn a title will earn that title eventually anyway is fraught with assumptions. Much like some players pursuing NM titles under the old system would withdraw from events if they were in danger of having their rating fall too low prior to completing their string of 25 games, these players would have, in one case, played a fifth game to secure his final norm (painkillers and all) and, in the other, withdrawn after five rounds. Edge cases, or not, history denied them the opportunity to make a fully informed decision. That said, the intent of the motion was for the "exemptions" to apply uniformly to all title applicants, as opposed to strictly favouring the "victims," and, of course, it seems this is destined to fail.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Regretably I have already voted on this motion but based on the discussion have changed my mind.

    I would argue that it is entirely appropriate that a player be allowed to challenge a non-norm ruling on the basis of the ideas expressed in this motion (one remembers how some 40 years ago Duncan Suttles failed to get a GM norm in similar circumstances at the Olympiad) but that we definitely should not cripple how crosstables are handled to do so.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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