Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: 5.2 Anton Kovalyov World Cup incident

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post
    So the executive can vote on such a matter?..without even consulting the possible team members?
    Executive can do everything. They have almost unlimited power.

    6-1 is a very good score.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    Executive can do everything. They have almost unlimited power.

    6-1 is a very good score.
    Yes of course, but its still nice to get them to admit it in public once in a while.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    500

    Default

    If the Executive vote had been to boycott, we would have taken it to the VMs for a final vote.

  4. #14

    Default

    The vote was 6-0-1. I thought the vote was premature, thus I abstained.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Thanks to Vlad, Hal and Ken for their explanation. Now we can understand better what happens with the idea of boycott, which was intially published on chesstalk about 2 months ago.

    I have another question about the next Olympiad.

    For 2018 for the first time we have a 20-games rule. So far, many of our very top players don't meet this requirement. Bareev - 0 games, Hansen - 7 games, Y.Yang - 9 games. Will the Executive follow this rule? Or will he grant "exemption", "exception" ...?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,075
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    Thanks to Vlad, Hal and Ken for their explanation. Now we can understand better what happens with the idea of boycott, which was intially published on chesstalk about 2 months ago.

    I have another question about the next Olympiad.

    For 2018 for the first time we have a 20-games rule. So far, many of our very top players don't meet this requirement. Bareev - 0 games, Hansen - 7 games, Y.Yang - 9 games. Will the Executive follow this rule? Or will he grant "exemption", "exception" ...?
    There is no plan to grant any exemption or exceptions. I suspect that there may be players scrambling to make the minimum but there is still time.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    There is no plan to grant any exemption or exceptions. I suspect that there may be players scrambling to make the minimum but there is still time.
    I think a better statement to those scrambling players would be 'no exemptions or exceptions' will be granted period'.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,075
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Noritsyn View Post
    I think a better statement to those scrambling players would be 'no exemptions or exceptions' will be granted period'.
    No one has asked for any exemption with regard to the minimum games rule. Making a blanket statement prior to consultation with them annoys members of the executive. A slightly weaker team where we have players in a position to make GM norms and give a young player or two an opportunity to play on the highest stage is not a terrible outcome from my point of view. Giving someone an exemption would be taking an opportunity away from someone else. If the 20 game rule is too onerous then that is something that the voting members need to consider at a future meeting.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    1,934
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Plotkin View Post
    Thanks to Vlad, Hal and Ken for their explanation. Now we can understand better what happens with the idea of boycott, which was intially published on chesstalk about 2 months ago.

    I have another question about the next Olympiad.

    For 2018 for the first time we have a 20-games rule. So far, many of our very top players don't meet this requirement. Bareev - 0 games, Hansen - 7 games, Y.Yang - 9 games. Will the Executive follow this rule? Or will he grant "exemption", "exception" ...?
    I don't remember the exact vote, but I think the VM's were pretty clear that they wanted more active players on the Olympic Teams. I can't think of any reason someone would be granted an exemption - it's no different than when we had the 10 game requirement - I can't think of any examples going back 40 years.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred McKim View Post
    I don't remember the exact vote, but I think the VM's were pretty clear that they wanted more active players on the Olympic Teams. I can't think of any reason someone would be granted an exemption - it's no different than when we had the 10 game requirement - I can't think of any examples going back 40 years.
    Fred, I absolutely agree with your aproach. The reason I asked this question was the violation of some CFC rules in this campaign. As you know, the executive granted exepmtion from 10 points penalty (Canadian Closed) for 2 players.

    In one case (R.Preotu) it was a really exceptional situation, but I am not sure about the call even in this case. In another case (E.Hansen) it was a standard conflict of interest, which happens to everyone. Nothing was really exceptional here. The same ruling could potentially apply for many other players. Bareev, for example has a lot of students and a whole week costs him a lot of money.

    You wrote that VMs were clear about this 20-games rule. That's right. They also voted for our motion about bonus/penalty for Canadian Closed.

    I always want CFC to follow it's own rules. Eric has a gap of 100 points between him and next in the line (LeSiege), so his spot in the team is garanteed (it he plays 20 games). Very possible, Vlad's call doesn't change anything. However, I see it as a dangerous precedent.

    One of the reason I initiated some changes in qualification rules was to increase transparency and to reduce uncertainty. The executive did exactly the opposite.
    Last edited by Victor Plotkin; 12-17-2017 at 08:20 AM.

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
  •