View Poll Results: With respect to selection of the Olympiad teams

Voters
22. You may not vote on this poll
  • I. Pick Olympiad team top 4 by rating plus winner of Canadian Closed.

    10 45.45%
  • II. Use Victor Plotkin's second system with calculations and bonuses for 2016 Olympiad performance

    10 45.45%
  • III. Keep the current system with selection committee

    0 0%
  • IV. None of the above

    2 9.09%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Straw Poll on Selection of Olympiad Team

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    2 motions = 4 possible choices.

    1. I like motion I (Selection of the players). I like motion II (Selection Procedures).
    2. I like motion I. I do not like motion II.
    3. I like motion II. I do not like motion I.
    4. I do not like motion I. I do not like motion II.
    The question is which one we like better. It is possible to like all of the alternatives but we have to proceed with one or another or continue with the status quo or if none of the above wins go back to the drawing board.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    SIGH! In my humble opinion, this was another reason not to rush this. We've cobbled together an allegedly only straw poll, and yet we're committing ourselves to the voting, when I'm sure more than Michael and I aren't sure which way to vote. Why not take one more meeting and get all aspects of this done right? We're like speeding to a stop sign.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,361

    Default

    I think, the only question Victor wants to clarify now, before Olympiad, is:
    Will we use 2016 Olympiad performance for 2018 Olympiad selection?

    And according to current poll results and discussion in this thread, the definite answer is NO.

    All other decisions could be made after Olympiad, and for clarity we need to discuss every proposed change separately, one by one.
    Thanks,
    Michael Barron

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    If the vote remains so close between the two alternatives and no one seems to be voting for the selection committee we will probably have to revisit this as a proper motion in the next meeting. We can also work out some of the details beforehand on the voting members forum.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    You should probably vote to keep the selection committee in that case and propose an amendment for next meeting on how the selection committee works. The three options are somewhat mutually exclusive. If motion II wins then next meeting we will work on refining it. If motion I wins it seems self explanatory and will simply be adopted. There may still need to be a housecleaning motion in the case I wins. If option III wins someone will have to take the lead on proposing any changes. It might be more difficult to get people to serve on the selection committee if their decision is easily reversible by the president.

    The president and directors could always overturn a decision of the selection committee BUT doing so would set a very dangerous precedent and could lead to costly litigation. I would certainly need to explain why the reversal decision was made and ask the voting members to ratify the decision if possible.
    Vlad, thanks for the detail explanation. I am going for option 4 (basically "abstain") since none of options 1 to 3 comes close to what I wanted. Thanks again.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kanata, Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    If the vote remains so close between the two alternatives and no one seems to be voting for the selection committee we will probably have to revisit this as a proper motion in the next meeting. We can also work out some of the details beforehand on the voting members forum.
    Good decision. I like practically all of Victor's calculations except notably prior Olympiad performance. This might be the best improvement we've made in years!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aris Marghetis View Post
    Good decision. I like practically all of Victor's calculations except notably prior Olympiad performance. This might be the best improvement we've made in years!
    Thank you Aris. Probably, the meeting is over, or almost over, so I want to share a couple of points.

    1. About Olympiad performance. To be honest: among many different suggestions I wanted to propose, I was less sure with this one, than with every other proposal. However, I do believe, it's a good idea to take this performance into account.

    Some players consistently play better for the team. The best example could be Armenian performance (3 Olympiad wins). Aronian many times performed above 2900 in team events.

    Some players play much worse for the ream. One example is Svidler. Last Olympiad, he lost 20 rating points, which had a huge impact on general performance of Russian team. Unfortunately, it was not the only disastrous team event for him. As a result, he was not included into Russian team for this year. 2 low-rated players made the team instead of Svidler. Sure, I do not know what exactly happened, but it looks very possible, that Peter's last performance was taken into account.

    Great results like Roussel-Roozmon in 2010, Hansen in 2012, Kovalyov in 2014 should be taken into account. The same, of course, about the negative side. I want to say again: my proposal does not give any disadvantage to a new player. One may win bonus points, another one may lose. The total impact is usually around 0. Sure, as a team captain, I want the total impact to be as great as possible.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    411

    Default

    2. The most important result of the straw pool: we have some minor chances to get rid of selection committee. That's why I separated between motion 1 and 2. Maybe, I had to make 6 different motions:
    a) No selection committee
    b) No CFC rating for National Team
    c) Use the last rating instead of the highest
    d) Bonus/penalties for last Canadian Closed
    e) Bonus/penalties for the last Olympiad
    f) Bonus for young age and tie-break.

    However, b) and d) connected with one another. a) and f) are also connected. That's why I wanted to have less motions. Probably, it was too ambitious.

    I have mentioned, that I got a supportive e-mail from on of the current team members. In my reply to him I wrote, "...even with some positive replies, I am not sure that CFC governors would accept my proposals."

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    110

    Default

    I find it a weird situation when the potential Olympiad participants support the suggested proposals, and CFC governors do not.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    3,268
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I don't think its fair to say that the voting members don't support the proposals. I think they are evenly divided between the two. No one is voting for the selection committee so we are safe to say that it will be eliminated.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 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
  •