6d. Officer + Committee Reports - NFP Act Transition Committee

[Vladimir Drkulec]

You are right. I also received many complaints from parents. If I had known more about the tournament (such as the fact that the CYCC will be used to finance the CO, while the kids while have to pay thousands of dollars to go to the WYCC), I would never have voted in favour of it. But the solution to this might be to request all the details about a tournament when there's a bid.

Also, it is true that the original bid was on 3 days. But we thought they had changed it to 7 rounds after they announced that they will hold the tournament on 4 days. However, the last day is only for tie-breaks (?!).

I am not clear on why people would suppose that the CYCC would be financing the Canadian Open. Rules were put in place after the 2011 CYCC which limited the organizer's portion of the funds to an amount that would not normally cover the expenses of a stand alone CYCC put on in any major metropolitan area. Fundraising is pretty much mandatory and quite uncertain in these austere times. My understanding of the current CYCC is that the only benefit to the CO is the same as to the CYCC - being a lower overall expense for the site by scheduling both tournaments back to back. If anything this would tend to be more of a benefit to the shorter CYCC than to the longer CO which probably would already enjoy some discounts due to its length.

[Pierre Dénommée]

Hi Bob,

This is not the only relevant factor. In a six rounds tournament, some players will likely have 4 blacks and 2 white or 4 whites and 2 blacks. This is legal and this is done only when there is no other alternative. On a so small number of rounds, having whites for 2/3 of a tournament is a distinct advantage. In an odd number of rounds Swiss tournament, only truly exceptional circumstances could result in a player having anything else then a 4-3 or 3-4 coulour distribution. Except in some truly exceptional conditions, a 5-2 colour distribution is illegal.

1. 6 rounds is sufficient to determine at least first place;

[Félix Dumont]

I am not clear on why people would suppose that the CYCC would be financing the Canadian Open. Rules were put in place after the 2011 CYCC which limited the organizer's portion of the funds to an amount that would not normally cover the expenses of a stand alone CYCC put on in any major metropolitan area. Fundraising is pretty much mandatory and quite uncertain in these austere times. My understanding of the current CYCC is that the only benefit to the CO is the same as to the CYCC - being a lower overall expense for the site by scheduling both tournaments back to back. If anything this would tend to be more of a benefit to the shorter CYCC than to the longer CO which probably would already enjoy some discounts due to its length.

On the CO websites, it says that the prize fund is guaranteed if and only if the CYCC has enough entries (and thus makes enough profit). It was later confirmed on Chesstalk that part of the CYCC entry fees will be used to finance the CO : http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...?t=8034&page=3

[Michael Barron]

So the issue is clearly up to Les - and it is at least theoretically available to him to add a 7th round, if he fels that is an alternate viable plan.

Sorry, Bob, but I respectfully disagree...

If it was a regular weekender, Les could do whatever he wants.
But even in this case, a responsible organizer tries to understand preferences of potential participants before making any changes - like it does Aris, for example.

But in this case we're talking about National Championship, and the CFC has full responsibility for it's organization.

If it's impossible to get clear answers to simple questions, like:
Who made this decision?
Who is parents representative referred by Les?
Why it's impossible to have 7th round on Saturday morning?
- it means that something is wrong in the process of awarding CYCC to a potential organizer.