5.2 Anton Kovalyov World Cup incident

[Ken Craft]

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

[Victor Plotkin]

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" ...?

[Vladimir Drkulec]

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.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

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'.

[Vladimir Drkulec]

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.

[Fred McKim]

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.

[Victor Plotkin]

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.

[Fred McKim]

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.

One of the reason I initiate some changes is the qualification rules was to increase transparency and to reduce uncertainty. Executive did exactly the opposite.

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.

I think there is room for a motion that would outline any exceptions allowed for the 10 point penalty for not attending the Canadian Closed. As always, the Voting Members choose the Executive and can express their displeasure at the voting booth. I think a full discussion about the exceptions to this new rule would be welcome either for the next few days or at the next quarterly meeting. If the majority think the Executive did wrong, then it should be acknowledged for next time.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

I think there is room for a motion that would outline any exceptions allowed for the 10 point penalty for not attending the Canadian Closed. As always, the Voting Members choose the Executive and can express their displeasure at the voting booth. I think a full discussion about the exceptions to this new rule would be welcome either for the next few days or at the next quarterly meeting. If the majority think the Executive did wrong, then it should be acknowledged for next time.

No, it doesn't work like that. There was no way to express displeasure at the voting booth because there was no competition. There was no option to abstain either, as far as I remember. I think the point Victor is trying to make (which I fully agree with) is quite simple. There are rules, and they should be followed. If we don't like the rules - we vote to change them. No exceptions.

[Hal Bond]

Speaking personally, I like what Victor and Nikolay are saying. I can't recall the voting at the time, but I know I was not sensitive enough to these concerns. So I am fine with stricter compliance.