Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45

Thread: 10. Other business

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Barron View Post
    Aris,
    Let me reiterate:
    the main problem here - is a lack of publicly available information and a lack of transparency in decision making process.

    CFC Youth Committee could make the information publicly available and decision making process more transparent.
    How exactly can they do that? I don't see how we could possibly be more transparent than we were on both of these threads.

    If you still don't get it, please read the following threads on ChessTalk:
    http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...YCC-organizers
    and
    http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...g-Manipulation

    Don't you think such discussions on ChessTalk harm CYCC impression and your personal reputation?
    Even the people that usually criticize the CFC are jumping off the bandwagon on the CYCC Pairing Manipulation thread so fast I can hear legs breaking.

    Wouldn't it be better, if such issues were discussed by the CFC Youth Committee, rather than on ChessTalk?
    It would be better but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.
    Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 08-09-2015 at 10:20 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    I disagree. Golf Canada and Tennis Canada are not a professional associations. They are volunteer organizations, with very similar mandates and structures akin to the CFC. And many of the chess players who play in the Canadian Open are Chess professionals. There may be a difference of magnitude in resources, but at some scale it could have happened. For instance this year's Ontario Open had the makings of a Canadian Open.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Garland Best View Post
    For instance this year's Ontario Open had the makings of a Canadian Open.
    Hal talked to the Brantford group. No suitable venue for a Canadian Open was open for any reasonable time frame if I recall correctly.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    How exactly can they do that? I don't see how we could possibly be more transparent than we were on both of these threads.



    Even the people that usually criticize the CFC are jumping off the bandwagon on the CYCC Pairing Manipulation thread so fast I can hear legs breaking.



    It would be better but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.
    Thanks Vlad for replying so well. I fell asleep very early last night.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.
    At least it could have started the revision of the Handbook CYCC chapter, and to set guidelines for organizers and arbiters running the CYCC. The written procedures are easy to understand for players and parents as well.

    At least from those two threads I got impression that:
    CYCC policies are hidden in the CFC forum, and only known to very limited number of people, and probably 0.5% of players knew about possibility to play up.
    There was no announcements about rating corrections done during the tournament (what influence pairings.)
    .*-1

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I know on the whole playing up idea Aris, Michael and myself argued against the idea three years ago. It does create a problem for organizers if a large number of players ask to move up a section. At this year's Pan Am and NAYCC, players were allowed to play up changing sections on the last day as well so this decision aligned with FIDE in that respect. The crux of the complaints by a player who was not in the section affected by the decision was that we don't have detailed rules preventing last minute changes. We don't and thus none were applied in this situation. If the posters in question had wanted some action on this they should have sent an email to a governor or even to me or the youth coordinator and ask that this situation be addressed. Instead for reasons of their own they did their best to besot a very successful tournament. Last night I spent half an hour on the phone with the former coach of the player after he spent an hour with one of the CYCC organizers and he (the coach) was very disappointed with the behaviour as are most of the Windsor parents who are aware of this situation.

    I think we need to get away from allowing who is screaming loudest on chesstalk determining what our actions should be on any particular matter.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,097
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    At least it could have started the revision of the Handbook CYCC chapter, and to set guidelines for organizers and arbiters running the CYCC. The written procedures are easy to understand for players and parents as well.
    A number of people said that they would update and rewrite the handbook but the work didn't get done.

    At least from those two threads I got impression that:
    CYCC policies are hidden in the CFC forum, and only known to very limited number of people, and probably 0.5% of players knew about possibility to play up.
    If 80% had asked to play up then I probably would have stepped in and stopped anyone from playing up. As it was only 50% of the two requests to play up were allowed.

    There was no announcements about rating corrections done during the tournament (what influence pairings.)
    I do not know that there were no announcements about rating corrections. There were many announcements before every round. I did not hear all of them because I was occasionally busy doing other things. John Coleman posted that 20 out of 60 Windsor players started with the wrong ratings. It is not surprising that there were adjustments to correct this in subsequent rounds though some of this might have been due to using the highest of three available ratings.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Egidijus Zeromskis View Post
    At least it could have started the revision of the Handbook CYCC chapter, and to set guidelines for organizers and arbiters running the CYCC. The written procedures are easy to understand for players and parents as well.

    At least from those two threads I got impression that:
    CYCC policies are hidden in the CFC forum, and only known to very limited number of people, and probably 0.5% of players knew about possibility to play up.
    There was no announcements about rating corrections done during the tournament (what influence pairings.)
    Hi Egis, I do agree about a "new handbook". But I think that's different than what Michael is envisioning? If I am incorrect, my bad. I would support ANY volunteers who could work towards building a new handbook. However, it's gonna be quite some work, entailing ratifications at meetings like these, etc. My viewpoint is that would be REAL WORK, which we need. However, I do not support creating committees whose main role in life would be "massaging communications". I look back at what I just wrote, and I'm not sure that I've done a good job expressing it, the difference between getting real tangible stuff done, vs. just being involved and thus actually adding to the "slowy slush effect".

    I completely disagree with your last point though. I don't remember seeing you there before every round, but for the first three rounds, I repeatedly explained what was happening with some of the ratings, on a microphone to everyone. Maybe I said it too simply to register, but the vast majority of players and parents who approached us between rounds seemed to understand what was going on, and offered to assist by providing more recent rating references. Some people (well maybe one) refused to accept what was going on. There were even other conspiracy theories that I was accused of onsite that haven't made it to ChessTalk yet. But I have a limited amount of "up time" while recovering from an emergency surgery, so I'm sure as heck not going to spend it trying to convince anyone who thinks something was done wrong. By the way, one of the challenges with using the most recent ratings is that it became apparent that in many rating systems, posting results will often backdate to the tournament date, which adds an extra layer of required checking. For example, if two events on a Thursday get rated on Friday and next Monday respectfully, they still show up with Thursday dates.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    I completely disagree with your last point though. I don't remember seeing you there before every round, but for the first three rounds, I repeatedly explained what was happening with some of the ratings, on a microphone to everyone.
    As you could read it was my impression reading that thread. Your memory is absolutely right - I was not there. Looks you did everything right what was in your capabilities.

    Take care of yourself. Not worth loosing limbs (or whatever you broke) for chess LOL

    My mistake - I should not post here - I'm not returning as a Voting member. Somehow I thought that the committee discussion was for Outgoings.
    .*-1

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Almonte, ON
    Posts
    371

    Default

    Vlad, as I posted in post #7 of this thread, "I propose that a working committee be struck to create a new handbook in line with the current articles of incorporation. I see this a a two or three year project, where a new handbook is probably phased in a section at a time. The handbook will be supplemental to the articles of incorporation."

    If you agree with this, please say so, and let's get a call for volunteers for such a committee going within this meeting.

Page 2 of 5 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
  •