Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: 7B DISCUSSION THREAD motion b

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,204
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default 7B DISCUSSION THREAD motion b

    Motion 2
    Addendum to Article 436:
    Players with FQE ratings will be treated in the same manner.

    Current Article 436

    436. Rating Non-Residents. If a non-resident player or new Canadian resident has a USCF or FIDE rating, the rating system in which the player has played the most recent games will be used to determine his first CFC rating. If a non-resident is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his/her USCF or FIDE rating, his/her CFC rating will be adjusted accordingly. [Leblanc/McKim, Oct 2013]A Canadian may have a foreign FIDE-rated tournament count for their CFC rating by sending a letter to that effect in advance to the CFC. (And include $25 in advance with the letter sent to the CFC office. The letter should be received by the CFC office not less than 1 month before the start of the event, and include the $25 flat rating fee. - CFC Office policy effective December 1st, 2003) The CFC will rate the event only to the extent that FIDE does. Results must be reported within one month after the tournament is completed. Failure to submit a crosstable after registering an event bars the player from registering a tournament participation for three years. [see Motion 78-15; GL, April 1978, p. 39]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    To be clear, this addendum should be numbered 436.a and should have a heading "Rating FQE Members".
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Do we need the fee? It is difficult to imagine that the amount of revenue involved would warrant the effort - or is there some policy issue here I'm unfamiliar with?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    The fee is a separate issue from my motion.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    1,393

    Default

    Fair enough - my attitude on fees (whether CFC or government taxation) is that they exist for one of the following reasons: (a) to raise general revenue, (b) to indicate official displeasure with some act (this is usually called a fine), (c) to raise funds for a specific project, (d) to provide cost recovery for a specified service. Fees for their own sake perform no particular service for the organization unless the reason is one of those above.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,977
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle Craver View Post
    Fair enough - my attitude on fees (whether CFC or government taxation) is that they exist for one of the following reasons: (a) to raise general revenue, (b) to indicate official displeasure with some act (this is usually called a fine), (c) to raise funds for a specific project, (d) to provide cost recovery for a specified service. Fees for their own sake perform no particular service for the organization unless the reason is one of those above.
    Rating FIDE tournaments for a single player falls under d)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    After reading this more carefully, I have concerns about the point behind this motion.

    436. "Rating Non-Residents. If a non-resident player or new Canadian resident has a USCF or FIDE or FQE rating, the rating system in which the player has played the most recent games will be used to determine his first CFC rating."

    First, why does "a non-resident player or new Canadian resident" have a FQE rating? Were non-resident players the point behind this motion, or is it intended for players in Quebec who do not have CFC ratings?

    If a non-resident is inactive in Canada for a year but has a change in his/her USCF or FIDE or FQE rating, his/her CFC rating will be adjusted accordingly. [Leblanc/McKim, Oct 2013]

    If the player has a change in their FQE rating, then they are active in Canada. Quebec is part of Canada. Again, is the point behind these changes non-residents, or Quebec players?

    If the point of the motion is Quebec players or more precisely FQE players, then I do not think this motion is the correct way to go. Instead there should be some form of unification of the CFC and FQE rating systems. The current situation, with 2 rating pools is illogical. Currently as a TD I have people playing in my events with only FQE memberships and I assume the reverse is also true. Unifying both systems would eliminate needless duplication. Lumping FQE players in a motion for non-residents or new Canadian players does not make sense.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    Garland, this is not a change to article 436. It is to be called "436.a Rating FQE Members". It has nothing to do with residency.
    TDs are already using FQE ratings for FQE members that don't have CFC memberships, this brings the CFC into line with what is already happening.
    My attention was drawn to this after the Canadian Open in Montreal when the CFC office had to deal with hundreds of "unrated" players who actually had well established FQE ratings.
    If you have a better suggestion on how to word 436.a please let me know. I'm looking for a practical solution.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Port Moody, BC
    Posts
    591
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default

    Why don't we follow the USCF line here:
    "For players with FIDE ratings 2200 and above, all foreign FIDE rated events are cross rated automatically. The player has no choice, whether he/she wants it or not, their FIDE results are cross rated.

    For players rated below 2200 FIDE, USCF members can "opt in" to have their FIDE results cross rated, but once they "opt in" they can never opt out again and this seems sensible as it prevents people from cherry picking the results they want cross rated. Importantly, these USCF procedures require no specific applications on a tournament by tournament basis and involve no fees.

    One additional thing the USCF does is to adjust the FIDE rating to make it USCF rating equivalent. For players rated above 2000, FIDE ratings are multiplied by 1.02 and 20 points are added. So, for example 2000 FIDE is treated the same as (2000 * 1.02) + 20 = 2060 USCF."


    This was suggested by a good friend, Eric Gedajlovic.
    Valer Eugen Demian
    FIDE CM & Instructor, ICCF IM
    https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ches...593013634?mt=8

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    624

    Default

    This is an interesting idea. In particular, it might help bring the FIDE and CFC ratings of our top players more into line if we cross-rated their FIDE results.
    I'd be interested in some feedback from our Masters' Representative and FIDE Representative.
    Might be labour intensive for the CFC office, not sure. A good topic for discussion at the next opportunity.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

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
  •