Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: 07A Motion 1: Olympiad Selection Regulations Player activity rules

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    617

    Default

    I support the motion because I believe that Canada's strong players should be supporting our tournaments. In fact I would prefer to see the games limited to CFC/FQE regular rated events.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilia Bluvshtein View Post
    I will definitely vote NO.
    The main reason is the proposed 40 games within 2 years prior to the start of the selection process. For an elite player, 40 games mean about 3 months out of "normal life". (It includes chess preparation, analysis, travel, making arrangements, actual chess etc.) As many elite contenders to our Olympic teams are amateurs, their "normal life" does not include chess. So they would need to take vacation or time off school/job. In addition to this, the proposed language regarding 2 years takes into account games from 2.5 years to 0.5 years prior to the Olympiad. In my opinion, games played more than 1.5 years prior to the Olympiad should not be counted in the selection process as they are irrelevant to a contender's chess strength at the Olympiad.
    It should be noted that in 2014 all of the players on the national team and all of the young players on the women's team would have been compliant with this rule to the best of my knowledge. I am open to the idea of amendments to exempt the Canadian champion and perhaps the selection committee pick though some that I have talked to have been opposed to that idea. Funding the Olympiad team is a significant expense every two years. Does it really make sense that all it takes to get a ticket to the Olympiad is ten games in one year without any consideration of the competition and then to see the player disappear again for ten years once the Olympiad is over. On the other side we have players who really would like to represent their country who are objectively stronger than the player that bumped them and become discouraged.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Does it really make sense that all it takes to get a ticket to the Olympiad is ten games in one year without any consideration of the competition and then to see the player disappear again for ten years once the Olympiad is over.
    A new clause of 20 games within a year is OK. Effectively it shuts the door to those who want just a ticket to the Olympiad. A 40 games clause is not good for the reasons I wrote above.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,298

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    I wouldn't like to see a situation which is possible where one of the best players in Canada could potentially not make the team despite playing a great deal of high level chess. I don't think we should punish our few success stories.
    Vlad,
    As you said, both Anton and Yuanling played more FIDE rated games than necessary to qualify, and don't need such events like Dearborn to be counted.

    We use FIDE and CFC ratings for Canadian team selection.
    The purpose of activity requirement is to ensure than selection rating is up to date.
    It simply doesn't make sense to count games which don't affect selection rating.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    617

    Default

    This is a good point Michael.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    I agree with Michael and Ilia, only CFC and FIDE rated events should be taken into account. Events like Dearborn, not FIDE rated, are obviously an exception - almost all high level tournaments in US are rated. I also think 20 games/last year before the Olympiad should be sufficient.

  7. #17

    Default

    I think 40 is too high of a number. I would support 20 in the year before the Olympiad.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,096
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I am willing to break it out into two parts which can be voted on separately. I would also consider the suggestion to delay implementation of the 40 game provision raised on the governor's board to 2018 since we are already within the window of the two years for the 2016 Olympiad.

    The problem with using only FIDE rated games is that even if a tournament is FIDE rated the games against non-FIDE players don't count. Even the U.S. Senior champion from a few years ago didn't have a FIDE rating when I played him two years ago.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I agree with Ken and Ilia. 20 games in one year is sufficient activity.

    With regard to USCF rated games, I would prefer more information regarding percentage of USCF rated university games that are also FIDE rated. If the percentage of games is high enough, then the addition of USCF rating is unnecessary. Certainly CFC, FQE, and FIDE rated games should be the primary basis of consideration.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    617

    Default

    I guess another consideration is geography. Players in Ontario or Quebec can find lots of events to enter without travelling too far. Not the case for someone in say Winnipeg.
    Paul Leblanc
    Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
    CFC Rating Auditor
    CFC Governor

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •