Rook
On hearing further debate on this, especially those who have some information about how our elite players feel about this change ( "neither necessary nor good" - Hal Bond's post above), I am going to reconsider, and now will NOT support this change from the activity rule being 10 games, to 20 games ( for either the National or Women's Teams ).Originally Posted by Bob Armstrong
Bob A
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; 01-27-2013 at 08:50 PM.
CFC President
I am not in favour of a 20 game rule. It seems to me that players can stay sharp with internet play and playing private matches. Particularly in this day of widespread databases where games are widely disseminated immediately it might be wise to allow players the opportunity to prepare in private. We have to be careful about the natural or perhaps unnatural urge to pass new rules just because we can.
On balance I don't think the Selection Committee is a good idea when through an arbitrary criteria by a member of the committee someone like Eric Hansen could have been excluded from the Olympiad team if he had not had someone from his province on the selection committee strongly advocating for him.
Vladimir Drkulec
CFC Masters Representative
CFC Voting Member
Vlad,
someone like Eric Hansen can't be excluded from the Olympiad team by any Selection Committee - he would qualify by rating.
Someone like Aman Hambleton should be selected by Selection Committee, if the Selection Committee would do its job properly - instead of strongly advocating for a player well after his prime based solely on rating earned many years ago.
Thanks,
Michael Barron
Bishop
If the selection was only based on CFC rating, Eric would have good chances of not being qualified... I guess it shows how FIDE ratings are more accurate.
Pawn
Michael, it's NOW that Eric Hansen would qualify by rating - before the Olympiad it was not the case.
And someone like Eric Hansen is not necessarily Eric Hansen himself - there will be other deserving players who might be overlooked because of a biased committee member or two. Once you let subjectivity in, it will never leave on its own will. And if the committee has to choose between, for instance, Aman Hambleton and Richard Wang, you will be guaranteed the next can of big, fat worms because everything will depend on "who grew where and who likes whom" - which might not necessarily be appreciated by the NOT chosen player. Eventually, you'll get the next Kevin Spragett case - with a lot of bitterness and spite.
Finally, about the player "well after his prime".
Apart from thanking you for the compliment, I'll provide a suggestion. Why don't we go with a rating change in close cases? That is, if the rating difference between the two candidates is no more than X (and you are most welcome to suggest how big the X should be), we'll check their relative rating/rating change for the last year. Surely, a fair formula can be worked out along these line - and unlike the committee's considerations, this formula will remain transparent and objective. Because judging who is past his prime and how far is a treacherous and slippery ground which borders on discrimination by age way too close!
CFC President
Eric Hansen can't be excluded now but he could have been excluded at the time of the last selection of an Olympiad team.
Aman Hambleton will most likely make it on the basis of rating given his current trajectory of improvement especially if we adopt the FIDE rating or even a blended FIDE and CFC rating as the main criteria. Lets keep the conversation focused on the future and avoid picking at the scabs of past decisions while wounds are still fresh.Someone like Aman Hambleton should be selected by Selection Committee, if the Selection Committee would do its job properly - instead of strongly advocating for a player well after his prime based solely on rating earned many years ago.
Administrator
Do we not already use a blended formula?
Christopher Mallon
FIDE Arbiter
CFC Voting Member
I don't see much interest to support players who would come just to play in Olympiad. That why I proposed to increase number of required games. Other (main) reason: the motion was an additional to a motion proposing elimination of the Selection committee. Though it was upgraded to a separate motion.
.*-1
CFC President
Yes we do use a blended formula. The problem this part of the motion solves is the removal of a need for conversion between FQE and CFC ratings. It would not make a difference to the next Olympiad selection if the top four players by rating along with the Canadian Champion choose to play.
CFC President
On the portion of this motion dealing with the team captain I am going to support the motion. I am sure that the Executive will appropriately weigh the opinions of team participants in coming to an choice for team captain. It has been some time since a Canadian team as a whole has had an outstanding result in an Olympiad. There have been individual successes of course but ultimately as a team we have not achieved beyond obtaining a result matching our ranking. Whether we have team chemistry or not the results seem to line up the same.
One problem we have is that the compensation for the team captains is quite low amounting to not much more than a plane ticket as I understand it.
Posting Permissions
