4G. Master's Representative's Report

[Victor Plotkin]

Mr Plotkin,

Your report concerning the Canadian Closed is completly unfair. This tournament was organized in Time pressure. Only six weeks. Nobody was interested to organize the tournament even if it was a zonal. The conditions were not perfect, but quite ok (lighting, space, parking, cafeteria on the site, bilingual web site, hotel nearby, games recorded). When you say «disaster», you probably refer to the case Sambuev-Notitsyn. This case was in fact very simple. CFC took no time to render a decision and it was supported by FIDE which is, in a way, the Supreme court of Chess.

A suggestion : as a CFC officer, you are not supposed to discourage organizers, but to help them. To have super conditions, this tournament needs at least 10 000 $ to 15 000 $ in sponsorship. This will surely boost the participation of masters. Any ideas ?

Richard Bérubé

The word "disaster" perfectly and fairly reflects my opinion as well as opinion of many other players about this event. Indeed, incident in play-off contributed to my negative opinion. However, had the Closed have no play-off at all, I would have used the same word "disaster".

Actually, it was not only disaster, but also it was a truly unique tournament.

- probably it was the only tournament in Canada there GMs had (at least potentially) to pay entry fee,

- in was the only tournament in Canada with forfeit rate of 31% (9 out of 29 players did not finish the tournament)

- I don't remember any other tournament, where organizers allowed to player with rating 400 (!!) points below the cut-off to participate in the National Champiomship.

I agree with you, Richard. Some of conditions were normal, like lighting or air-condition. Student who fails usually doesn't score 0. He scores 10 or 20 or even 45. But the result is the same: he fails.

[Pierre Dénommée]

- in was the only tournament in Canada with forfeit rate of 31% (9 out of 29 players did not finish the tournament)

This is the withdrawal rate, not the forfeit rate. If 31% of the players have been forfeited by arbiters for any reason other then arriving at the chessboard after the default time, that would indeed have been a problem. In some countries, all the players who have withdrawn would have been suspended for three months but this penalty has been proved ineffective in preventing withdrawals.

[Victor Itkin]

Of course, it was the withdrawal rate, not forfeit; Victor just used inaccurate word. But organizers had different ways how to prevent these numerous withdrawals, for example:

a) not to allow players under 2200 rating at all;

or

b) to take from those players extra $300 collateral at registration, which would be returned only if the player has played all 9 games.

[Victor Itkin]

Of course, it was the withdrawal rate, not forfeit; Victor just used inaccurate word. But organizers had different ways how to prevent these numerous withdrawals, for example:

a) not to allow players under 2200 rating at all;

or

b) to take from those players extra $300 collateral at registration, which would be returned only if the player has played all 9 games.