CFC Executive Candidates Start to Come Forward - Gillanders

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Definitely a definite answer !! Thanks.

I'll lob a few more your way later, after some others have chimed in.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Not to mention using the FIDE system costs more money, doesn't rate below 1200, and adds lots of extra overhead and forms.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

As I said, I'll lob some of my " Goals for the CFC " at you for your comments, to get an idea of some of your platforms in your run for CFC President. Here is my second of my " one-a-day " issues - my Goal # 1:

1. Finances – The 2010-11 budget is a balanced one. It needs to stay balanced as we go through the year. And the Governors should know as soon as possible, as the Executive immediately does, whether the budget presented is the one being implemented at the May 1 start of the 2010-11 fiscal year ( The governors still don't know the result of the March 31 vote ).

The new website should be not be an operating expense, but a capital expense out of the $ 65,809 “ Office Sale Savings Fund “.deposited for investment with the Chess Foundation.

Bob, any comments on this " goal "? Anyone else have any input?

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

We find ourselves in an odd situation, we have a budget for 2010-2011, but we don't know if it is approved yet! So I will comment on both scenarios.

If the budget has been approved, then I would consider that the will of the governors, and proceed accordingly. That is great news that it is balanced!

If the budget is not approved, then the priority of the new executive would be to get a new budget approved ASAP. I am confident that is achievable!

I am comfortable with treating the cost of a new website as a capital expenditure. A new website is critical, costs have been estimated at between 5k and 10k. We have the funds, let's get it done.

[Paul Leblanc]

I intend to support Bob's campaign and will post some more detail later but I wanted to emphasize a bit of philosophy and one or two specific issues at this time.

1. It is critical to maintain a balanced budget. We have achieved this with considerable pain and this needs to be the cornerstone of any executive.
2. The CFC cannot be all things to all people. The core responsibilities, that I have discussed before in a different forum need to be agreed on and stuck to. I'll post more on this later.
3. The Executive Director position needs to be brought back into the CFC and report to the President. Gerry Lichfield is a talented and dedicated fellow but the current contractual arrangement is just not flexible enough for him to be responsive to the needs of the organization.
4. The website needs immediate attention but let's not spend like drunken sailors to address the problem. It's not so much the format and technology, it's the outdated and incomplete information. See item 3 above.
5. There is indeed a problem with under-rated juniors. I raised this in the CFC Governors' forum. I'm not sure if the rating auditor has looked at it but he needs to. It is really bad out here in BC.

[Hal Bond]

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.

[Christopher Mallon]

4. The website needs immediate attention but let's not spend like drunken sailors to address the problem. It's not so much the format and technology, it's the outdated and incomplete information. See item 3 above.

I would argue that it's actually all 4 things. The format and technology make it unnecessarily difficult to keep the information up to date and complete.

[Stephen Wright]

5. There is indeed a problem with under-rated juniors. I raised this in the CFC Governors' forum. I'm not sure if the rating auditor has looked at it but he needs to. It is really bad out here in BC.

For what it's worth, I wrote the following to the CFC executive and other parties in September of 2007 - I am not aware of the situation changing any since then:

I realize that the CFC likely has far more pressing concerns at the moment, but I would like to bring to your attention a problem which I feel has had and is still having a profound effect on the ratings system. This is junior-only events with short time controls being rated under the regular system, rather than active. For a number of years the following article was in effect:

711.2 Rating of Junior Events

All pure Junior and Scholastic tournaments will be regular rated unless 50% or more of the participants have regular ratings over 1500, or the time control is less than 30 minutes per player per game. [See GL2 1999-2000, October 1999]

This article was rescinded in 05-06GL9 yet, at least in B.C., nearly all junior events are still rated regular, despite the fact the time control is usually 30 minutes per player. I'm not sure how prevelant this situation is elsewhere in the country, but I do know the whole series of events from Mr. Pelts' Chess Academy are played at time controls which fall under active guidelines, yet are rated regular.

A new junior player will acquire a (regular) rating from scholastic events, then looking for ways to improve will enter an adult (mixed) event. The problem is that the two ratings pools are considerably different; there are many kids with ratings of 400 or 600, but very few adults rated lower than 1000. Thus the initial rating gained through scholastic events will be deflated in comparison with the adult/mixed pool. A case in point - this is the CFC information for Andrew Datcu-Romano:

Tournament Old Perf New T/Rds Date Type
Langley Labour Day Open 419 1225 604 1.5/6 9/3/2007 R
2007April Junior Open Under 800 469 266 419 1.5/5 4/22/2007 R
2007BC Chess Challenge Kindergarten 534 387 469 0.0/6 4/7/2007 R
Fraser Valley Regional K12 CC K G1 700 500 548 2.0/5 3/18/2007 R
Vancouver Regional K Gr 1 548 451 534 0.5/5 3/17/2007 R
2006 South Fraser Challenge 1 0 397 699 0.0/5 3/26/2006 R

This person just played in his first 'adult' event, the Labour Day Open, and has a new rating of 604. However, the previous events were played at active time controls, which means that his first regular rating should actually be over 1200 - quite a difference. The result is juniors with deflated regular ratings, which will have an adverse effect on the overall ratings pool.

Why are scholastic games still being rated regular? I suspect ignorance is a large problem - people knew of 711.2, but are not aware that it has been rescinded (over a year later it still has not been removed from the CFC site). Or organizers respond to pressure from parents, who want their kids to get regular ratings as soon as possible. Or not realizing there are two ratings system. I have mentioned that 30 minute junior games should be rated active to some organizers, but have generally been ignored.

So what should be done? The CFC does not have the manpower or resources to play policeman with every tournament submitted for rating (although events with five games in one day is a red flag that they shouldn't be regular rated), but the CFC Handbook could at least reflect the current rules. It would also help that when the rules change this fact is advertised in some way - I suspect very few people read the GLs, and people assume that what they already know is the way things are, unless contrary information is communicated. Could Chess Canada perhaps be used for this purpose, to educate organizers and players to changes?

Stephen Wright
BCCF President

[Christopher Mallon]

Actually London used to run one-day Regular events, SD/60 that had a pile of rounds in one day, so you have to be careful about that too.

[roger patterson]

Not to mention using the FIDE system costs more money, doesn't rate below 1200, and adds lots of extra overhead and forms.

and you could add: not to mention the CFC rating system makes money for the CFC [according to rumor :-) ] and is perhaps the CFC's most valuable asset.

Another point - FIDE rated events must be run under FIDE rules. I'm not sure what idiosyntric differences the CFC rules may have but there is some level of freedom there that one might not want to give up.