CFC Executive Candidates Start to Come Forward - Gillanders

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Fred:

Since I've become a Governor, I've always thought that when a vote is called in the Governors' Letter, or by e-mail, it is considered a meeting by the governors, chaired by the President, with the CFC Secretary acting as Secretary, and those present are those who vote.

Bob

[Michael von Keitz]

Bob Gillanders, I support your candidacy, but your horror horrifies me!

I think this is a bold move (switching to FIDE ratings) that warrants a full hearing with the Governors. We have the exclusive rights to FIDE ratings in Canada and yet we dilute their meaning with a national system. I have not always felt this way - FIDE used to have a 2000 floor and a published list twice per year. Now the FIDE floor is at 1200 and a new list every 2 months. Further, the events are rated very quickly so you can see your expected rating change. If players below 1200 remained unrated we would shed some of the under rated junior problems too.

There are difficulties - cost being one of them. But as a Federation we could mark up the FIDE costs as we see fit, possibly reducing membership dues in place of higher user fees. We could also review the provincial rebate system to take ratings into account. I think a more Elo-centric revenue redistribution to various programs is worthy of consideration too.

Our national office would have an easier time forwarding tournaments instead of managing the whole ratings system. We would also have a much bigger card to play in Quebec. Currently FQE ratings are valued equally to CFC ratings by their membership. FIDE ratings on the other hand are the gold standard of ratings and have a much better chance of success in Quebec.

This is just my opinion of course - it's not a simple move and it has no chance at all without input and debate by all stakeholders - Governors, organizers and members.

Bob, I seem to have missed your reply to the issues Hal raised. I assume he hasn't swayed your opinion, but do you have some potential counterpoints and/or additions to the conversation?

[Michael von Keitz]

I have supported past efforts to reduce the number of governors. However, these measures have been defeated. Time to try something else.

Just to clarify, I am aware of the previous attempt, but, essentially, I just wanted your take on its potential reintroduction. If Bob A's motions go through at the AGM, I picture a similar motion to the previous effort being put in front of the governors in a year or so, and I hope that you - as an incoming, what I hope to be, multi-term President - will be in support of the initiative. Anyway, we can temporarily close the book on it.

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob, I seem to have missed your reply to the issues Hal raised. I assume he hasn't swayed your opinion, but do you have some potential counterpoints and/or additions to the conversation?

I am still against the idea of trashing the CFC rating system in favour of the FIDE rating system, but the horror and shock has somewhat diminished.

With the lowering of the FIDE rating floor, I am wondering if perhaps we are seeing the beginnings of a long term evolution towards a one global rating system for all. Maybe, maybe not!

FIDE still has a long way to go to convince me. I've played several FIDE rated events, and I don't even have a FIDE rating!

In the meantime, we offer both and let the members decide.