Concerning extra players representing CANADA at 2011 WYCC in Brazil

[Kerry Liles]

There is a thread of this title ongoing on Chesstalk
... for those who don't always visit there, here is a link that might work:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5610

It looks like the discussion is taking place over there...

[Ken Craft]

Shh, Kerry! I'm sure the executive don't want it discussed here. They have even bothered to brief the Governors on the issue.

[Kerry Liles]

Shh, Kerry! I'm sure the executive don't want it discussed here. They have even bothered to brief the Governors on the issue.

LOL

well, I am sure there is more to this story than meets the eye, but whether it all finds the light of day, I am not sure (not sure how to tell if that happens either). It seems in general that the "rules" are sometimes/often bent or manipulated - hence the reason why people read the handbook word by word... it is not necessarily easy to word a specific handbook section to cover all eventualities, but surely in this case I personally don't see a valid reason why exclusion should be the default behaviour.

One potential worry might be this: allowing 'anyone' to go to the WYCC - although permissible from FIDE's perspective - might result in the erosion of the "importance or prestige or necessity" for the CYCC process and making it irrelevant... I can see that possibility.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Kerry:

That does seem to be the current CFC position.

It appears that maintaining the highest standard for the CYCC ( everyone should play in it ) trumps even Canada sending its best team to the WYCC ( some top juniors will not be allowed on the team even as " extras " if they failed to play in the CYCC ).

This issue is not yet even being debated on the Governors' Board. Maybe someone will be concerned enough about the validity of the current rule, to seek to have it re-visited.

Bob A

[Peter McKillop]

Perhaps the executive team at the CFC needs to take some lessons from the AICF on how to eat crow.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5557


... It appears that maintaining the highest standard for the CYCC ( everyone should play in it ) trumps even Canada sending its best team to the WYCC ( some top juniors will not be allowed on the team even as " extras " if they failed to play in the CYCC ). ...

This statement seems self-contradictory. Also, since when has the CFC been "maintaining the highest standard for the CYCC?" Over the last decade the CYCC seemed to be an almost constant source of controversy - not usually one of the hallmarks of the highest standard. If the CFC is suddenly going to start holding itself to the highest standard, shouldn't there at least be a public warning ....er, announcement?


... This issue is not yet even being debated on the Governors' Board. Maybe someone will be concerned enough about the validity of the current rule, to seek to have it re-visited. ...

Hopefully that someone would be you, Bob.

These three children are reportedly (see Mike Egorov's posts on the other board) among the very best in Canada in their respective age groups. How can it be fair to refuse them an opportunity to play at the WYCC?

[Christopher Mallon]

If all the facts that I've heard are true, then I'm with the Exec on this one.

That being said... the CYCC rule changes are so frequent, often long-winded, etc etc that I think sometimes not everyone really pays attention (meaning Governors)... they just see "Oh the Youth Coordinator is making this motion, it must be good."

And yay, apparently three more motions in the upcoming meeting (albeit not moved by the Youth Coordinator, and in fact one is completely opposed by Patrick unless he's changed his mind in the last two months).

[Michael Barron]

LOL

well, I am sure there is more to this story than meets the eye, but whether it all finds the light of day, I am not sure (not sure how to tell if that happens either). It seems in general that the "rules" are sometimes/often bent or manipulated - hence the reason why people read the handbook word by word... it is not necessarily easy to word a specific handbook section to cover all eventualities, but surely in this case I personally don't see a valid reason why exclusion should be the default behaviour.

One potential worry might be this: allowing 'anyone' to go to the WYCC - although permissible from FIDE's perspective - might result in the erosion of the "importance or prestige or necessity" for the CYCC process and making it irrelevant... I can see that possibility.

Hi Kerry,

You're right - there is more to this story than meets the eye... ;)

I just want to mention some facts, which probably aren't known to the public yet:

1. The new motion was made by Vlad Birarov and Valer Demian on December 1, 2010. At that time the dates of PanAm were not known yet. The Motion passed in January 2011.

2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).

3. Victor Itkine was drafting this motion, and all the discussion can be found on the CFC Youth Committee's Private Forum. At the first draft there was no limitations at all, but most of the Youth Committee's members decided to put participation at CYCC as the major condition to be eligible to go to WYCC. Only extraordinary circumstances were decided to be an excuse for the top 3 rated players in each category to skip CYCC and still play at WYCC under condition that the application to CFC should be presented by them prior to CYCC (sub-paragraph (e)).

4. The discussion of this motion last on the CFC Youth Committee's Private Forum for about 2 months. There were 7 drafts prepared by Victor Itkine until all the members agreed, and then Vlad Birarov made the motion while Valer Demian seconded it.

5. Daxin Jin as the Youth Committee's member participated in this discussion and has offered some corrections during the discussion.

6. Finally, Daxin Jin as the CFC Governor has voted in favour of this motion on January Governor's Meeting.

[Ken Craft]

I've been apprised of more of the facts as well and I don't side with the executive. There is a provision under the new regulations where this request could have been granted. It should have been. it appears to me that the Executive is allowing personal and personality decisions to blind them in making this decision.

[Fred McKim]

There were quite a few children interesteed in taking part in the Pan-Am's in Columbia (!). The original viewpoint was not to allow any to take part in this event, and have everyone concentrate on qualifying for the WYCC via the CYCC. Yes, this was protectionist toward the CYCC, as the players wanting to go were some of the top in their respective age groups.

At some point in time it was decided, reluctantly, that those who absolutely wanted to would be allowed to go with the knowledge that there would be no WYCC. Several who had strongly considered going decided not to go and play in the CYCC and subsequently the WYCC.

We are now in the situation where one child (parent) now has had a change of heart, depite the fact that we have in writing all of the reasons they weren't interested in playing in the WYCC earlier this year. Ignorance can't be claimed as the mother of this child was a Governor at the time and voted in favour of the new CFC rules.

I think we would now prefer to tell those other children that are not playing in the WYCC, that we are holding them to their promises, and to those children who passed on the Pan-Am's that yes we are holding on to our decision that you wouldn't have been able to play in both the Pan-Ams and WYCC this year.

[Ken Craft]

The protectionist decision, and the decision to not allow those who wanted to attend the Pan Am the opportunity to attend the WYCC is abhorent and morally bankrupt in my opinion. The whole situation appears to have been coercive based on what has been written. I do wonder what a judge might think of this situation. I'm also interested in how judge would view all of these postings which try to explain/justify the situation. People really should avail themselves of their legal rights more often. National sporting federations are not above the law.

[Rob Clark]

I feel disgusted about this. The Pan Am conflict should have constituted an extraordinary circumstance for the top 3 players by rating in each age group. Since they would have to pay 300$ to the CFC Youth Program fund if they skip the CYCC anyway, why not just use that money to ensure that there was adequate funding to ensure the flights were paid for etc? Imo, this would have generated more revenue for the CYCC since if these kids chose to go to the Pan Ams anyway, then the CYCC would have lost their entry fee regardless. Furthermore this would allow youth outside the top 3 to have a chance to have an all expenses paid for trip to the WYCC and a national title. It seems this would have promoted more chess for Canadian Youth.

Furthermore it seems ridiculous that a rule that was created to allow for more juniors to be able to play in the WYCC, is restricting one of our promising youth players from participating. It really irks me when the CFC gets in the way of things like this, especially when the player was representing our country at another youth venue.

Therefore since the deadline for registration for the WYCC has been extended until the 25th of September, I feel that the exec should quickly re-examine this case assuming that Jiaxin (Dora) Lui still wishes to play and will conform to the rules regarding 1012.Participation in the World Events section e.

[Ken Craft]

The executive are falling all over themselves to address your concerns, Rob, and to discuss the matter with the Governors.

[Hal Bond]

Hey Rob;

I am a little surprised by your post after our email exchange. Let's look at 10(e) Some text has been bolded by me.

(e) 3 top CFC rated players in each category (by January 1st of the current year) if not able to participate at CYCC due to extraordinary circumstances, and wishing to participate at WYCC, are eligible to submit to CFC their applications for participation at WYCC before the start of CYCC. CFC Executive has the right to reject the application at their discretion if applicant's circumstances are not valid and/or exceptional. All players whose applications are approved will be eligible to participate at WYCC using their own funds plus paying extra fee of $300 to CFC Youth Program fund.

Exactly who of the top 3 per category was not able to attend the CYCC? A few people chose to play elsewhere. None was obliged to do so. As FIDE Rep I struggle with this rule, particulary in light of the circumstance being the PanAms, but the rule itself clear. Of the three players who may have tried to apply for an exemption, only one has - one who was well aware of the consequences of her choice in the first place.

The Executive has exercised its right to uphold our rules. Shame on us!!

[Ken Craft]

The executive have used the rules in an arbitrary and heavy-handed manner, Hal. I agree, shame on them. The forced choice between the Pan Ams and the WYCC was/is clearly coercive.

I'm not debating the CFC executives' right to reject this application. I'm saying they weren't right when they did so. The argument that the exec had the right to reject the application is a red herring at best.

[Rob Clark]

Hal,

I truly do value your opinion a lot and look up to you as a member of the chess community and as a person. I don't think I have to convince you of that. It's the reason I decided to email you.

However, I slept on it and thought about it, and I still don't think that disallowing a junior to play when they offer to pay their way and will contribute to the CFC youth fund is right in this circumstance. There were other options here and they were not exercised.

As for your bolded text, there are multiple ways to interpret that as well. "Not able to participate due to extrordinary circmstances." I personally see the Pan Ams as an extraordinary circumstance and therefore while attending them someone is certainly not able to attend the CYCC. (Also, the Pan Ams are one of the only tournaments I would consider extraordinary.)

The exec had no idea about the date of the Pan Ams and I understand that, but why couldn't something be worked out where our top players would be able to attend and represent Canada without jeopardizing their shot at the WYCC?

I realize the exec and yourself were well within your right to make this decision, but I feel I'm also within my right to express my displeasure and disagreement with your decision.

I just feel that this was a bad situation and at this point, right in front of us now, there's an option to allow a talented junior to represent Canada and have a great experience on the world chess stage. I think allowing her to do so is the better decision for chess in Canada.

[Patrick McDonald]

We have rules.
We often get criticized for not following those rules that we put in place.

The rule clearly states that an application needs to be made BEFORE the CYCC for exemption from needing to attend the CYCC to be allowed to attend the WYCC.

The application in question only came to me AFTER the CYCC ... in fact almost 2 months after.

IF the rule needs to be changed, then we need to change it, but right now, that is the rule.

[Christopher Mallon]

I basically see talk of a Governor's motion as a moot point already.

Certainly the Governors could make a motion "Player A,B,C are granted permission to represent the CFC and Canada at the 2011 WYCC despite not being otherwise eligible."

However, the deadline is the 25th. The Exec are under no obligation under CFC rules to allow it to come to a vote before the upcoming October meeting, which will be two weeks too late. And even if there WAS an obligation, we have several examples in the past of executives refusing to allow motions to be voted on even when they legally are required to.

Basically, if you can't convince the Exec to change their minds, there's no real point in going with a motion as it's doomed to failure.

[Christopher Mallon]

Incidentally, I looked up the voting record on this motion. Most of the votes from that meeting had 28-31 votes, however there were more governors present. Just as a point of order, anyone "present" for the meeting who does not cast a vote SHOULD be listed as having abstained from the vote. As long as you are present at the meeting, you do not have to actually state that you abstain.

For example, I refused to vote on any of the motions, in protest of the Exec ignoring the rules of the meeting and conducting the votes via email. I should still have been listed as abstaining on each motion, since I was present for the meeting, and each motion should have the same number of votes including abstentions listed.

[Fred McKim]

We have rules.
We often get criticized for not following those rules that we put in place.

The rule clearly states that an application needs to be made BEFORE the CYCC for exemption from needing to attend the CYCC to be allowed to attend the WYCC.

The application in question only came to me AFTER the CYCC ... in fact almost 2 months after.

IF the rule needs to be changed, then we need to change it, but right now, that is the rule.

I think this is another important point, that nobody is choosing to mention.

[Ken Craft]

The executive informed people that they would not be be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC. This was a de facto rejection of an application for an exemption prior to one being filed. Such a statement compltely prejudiced any forthcoming application.

Why would anyone choose to file a request for exemption prior to the CYCC when they were informed that a request for exemption based on the attendance at the Pan Ams would be rejected even before they requested one?

[Fred McKim]

The executive informed people that they would not be be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC. This was a de facto rejection of an application for an exemption prior to one being filed. Such a statement compltely prejudiced any forthcoming application.

Why would anyone choose to file a request for exemption prior to the CYCC when they were informed that a request for exemption based on the attendance at the Pan Ams would be rejected even before they requested one?

Well their case would have been stronger before the CYCC. By your logic why would they bother coming forward now ?

I think the reason is, because they told us they had absolutely no interest in playing in the WYCC, that they have simply changed their mind.

[Ken Craft]

I would wonder what a judge would think about an appeal system in which the appelant is notified prior to the appeal that the appeal would be rejected. Admit it Fred, the executive botched both the process and this decision.

[Rob Clark]

I'm actually really interested to hear any members of the exec respond to Ken`s post. I think that this should be brought before the governors with enough time so that action can be taken if needed. Also, I keep hearing over and over that it wouldn't be fair to the other top 3 players interested in playing in the Pan Ams who chose to participate in the CYCC. This is not an argument, stop using it. If the exec made a decision that the majority of the governors feel is wrong (they're human it happens) and it already affected a handful of people, allowing it to affect more to ensure uniformity is not an answer. Based on the situation in front of us, without being able to go back and change anything in the past, the question I think needs to be asked is "whats best for chess and chess players in Canada?"

[Vladimir Drkulec]

Based on the situation in front of us, without being able to go back and change anything in the past, the question I think needs to be asked is "whats best for chess and chess players in Canada?"

Excellent point.

[Bob Armstrong]

I know I'm going to get flack for this point, but what is " best for chess... in Canada ", is that the CFC is able to say we pass rules, and stick to them.

The CFC Executive seem to be not penalizing Dora for not making the " extraordinary circumstances " application to be an " additional " member " before the CYCC " as demanded by s. 2010 of the Handbook. They seem to be treating the situation as a rejected application made now.

The reasoning seems to be that the attendance at the Pan-Am's is not " extraordinary cirucmstance ", because it was earlier explained at the time of choice, that going to the Pan-Am's would not be sufficient reason to allow joining the team - it was made clear that playing in the CYCC was a necessary prerequisite for all players, including the top three rated in each category, and that the Pan-Am would not constitute an exception under s. 2010 (e ) for the top three. We may disagree with the executive decision on this ( and I do ), but they have the power to decide - and they are sticking to their decision. And they are following the rule - that you must play in the CYCC to be on the Can. WYCC team, unless you are in the top 3. And they are deciding an applications under ( e ) as they are supposed to.

So, at this point, as far as I can see, the only remedy, as I've posted elsewhere, is a motion of appeal to the governors.

Bob A

[Michael Barron]

...
The reasoning seems to be that the attendance at the Pan-Am's is not " extraordinary cirucmstance ", because it was earlier explained at the time of choice, that going to the Pan-Am's would not be sufficient reason to allow joining the team - it was made clear that playing in the CYCC was a necessary prerequisite for all players, including the top three rated in each category, and that the Pan-Am would not constitute an exception under s. 2010 (e ) for the top three. We may disagree with the executive decision on this ( and I do ), but they have the power to decide - and they are sticking to their decision. And they are following the rule - that you must play in the CYCC to be on the Can. WYCC team, unless you are in the top 3. And they are deciding an applications under ( e ) as they are supposed to.
...
Bob A

Excellent point, Bob!

Mr. Craft is misrepresenting the facts. The Executive did not "informed people that they would not be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC." This is incorrect statement. The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC. After this decision Mrs. Daxin Jin made a claim saying that in this case her daughter will not be able to participate in International competition this year due to the fact that she is not planning to go to WYCC to Brazil. Mrs. Jin put a lot of pressure on the Executive explaining that (see the quote from her email):

"we are not coming this year to Brazil 2011 WYCC because we already been there and she is not ready.
But Pan-American she will have more chance coming top three, maybe the first. Because last year she got 11 place in her Junior year, only one junior girl won her( FIDE 1460), and other Junior girl draw her. So in this Senior year, she will have more chance because mostly strong players will come to WYCC in South American rather than to Pan-American."

After that the Executive in favour of Mrs. Jin (actually just to please her) decided to send official Canadian team to PanAm based on the only reason that Dora is not interested to go to WYCC in 2011. Two more players joined this team for the same reason: they also were (and still are) not interested to go to WYCC in Brazil.

So, the fact is: not the Executive "informed people that they would not be allowed to attend the WYCC if they chose to attend the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC", but just contrary, the Executive especially organized the team to PanAm just because these 3 players officially claimed that they have no interest to go to WYCC, and they prefer to go to PanAm. Bob Gillanders has allowed this team (with reluctance) to be official Canadian representatives in Colombia.

"Your words and actions have consequences..."

[Ken Craft]

That seems even more egregious to me that the CFC Executive would choose not to send a team to the Pan Ams, an international event, in order to protect the strength of the CYCC. Thanks for the extra information, Mr. Barron.

As well, Mr. Barron, do you have Mrs. Jin's permission to share the contents of her email publicly on this site?

[Kerry Liles]

That seems even more egregious to me that the CFC Executive would choose not to send a team to the Pan Ams, an international event, in order to protect the strength of the CYCC. Thanks for the extra information, Mr. Barron.

As well, Mr. Barron, do you have Mrs. Jin's permission to share the contents of her email publicly on this site?

There is more to this than Mr Barron has revealed, but since I am not directly involved, I will let others deal with the situation. I do not believe it is correct to state that the CFC sent any representation to the Pan Ams - my understanding is that they sent no one, but several people went.

As to the posting of email contents here, I suppose that can be another reason for the usual "outrage". I doubt there is enough server space to contain all the email contents, but that is just a guess.

There were a lot of emails and a lot of statements made and then (apparently) reconsidered much later, but the bottom line is summarized well, I think, by Bob Armstrong's post just above in this thread.

[Hal Bond]

With the benefit of hindsight it does look a bit strange that the CFC did not support the PanAms they way we normally would.

The Pan Am organizers were not communicative about their plans despite our inquires, as Michael B can attest. When they announced their dates in conflict with ours we were disappointed to say the least. The other concern at the time was the viability of our CYCC. For the first time, a qualification system was used and there was much concern by the organizers themselves that this would harm attendance and they would lose money. The Pan Ams posed an additional threat, sadly. If the organizers lost money the CFC would do likewise in an effort to field a team to the WYCC.

Ken Craft's protectionism was Bob Gillander's fiscal prudence.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Mr. Barron,

So this is the real reason for not allowing youth to participate at Pan-Am games and penalize them, if they do?

Quote:'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC.

In your previous post you claimed :
‘2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).’

I am really getting confused here, but thank you very much for additional information!

Mikhail

[Mikhail Egorov]

Thanks Ken,

I completely agree with you.

In fact Mr. Barron did not special authorization from Mrs. Daxin Jin to do this. He posted private emails without any authorization.

Mikhail

[Peter McKillop]

...
The Executive has exercised its right to uphold our rules. Shame on us!!

Yes, I think so too, Hal. Shame on the executive!

I doubt that any human has every devised a set of rules that could fairly take into account all possible variables or exigencies. Changing one's mind is a very human thing to do. The child to whom this discussion pertains, if I've understood correctly, is one of the top players, by rating, in her/his age group. The parents, if I've understood correctly, are prepared to pay all expenses including a $300 contribution to the CFC's youth program (which, I assume, covers off the CYCC entry fee they didn't have to pay because they attended the Pan-Am tournament instead of the CYCC). Really, what does the CFC have to lose here by being magnanimous?

Every organization needs a set of 'rules' to operate under. But surely one of the measures of the quality of an organization is, can they operate fairly and with integrity in spite of those rules.

[Rob Clark]

I can very well understand why the exec made the decision it did. People have called it protectionist but that is part of the exec and governor's job, to protect those events and their importance. I can also understand how frustrated they are over this request. Ms. Jin had clearly agreed beforehand to not pursue this and yet, here we are. However, here we are, we have Canada's top female under 10 by more than 200 points asking if she can play in the WYCC on her own dollar. She was not able to participate due to her CFC sanctioned participation in the Pam Ams which conflicted with the CYCC. Also given how active she is with Canadian and Ontario Youth Championships I'm not sure she wouldn't have participated in the CYCC even if she didn't have any intention of playing in the WYCC.

Is the exec within their right to refuse her ability to play in the WYCC? Yes, however, I still disagree with their decision, not based on any sort of rules but by looking at the results of the decision of not allowing her to play. If we let her go, we are nurturing one of Canada's young female talents, we are certainly putting together a stronger team for the female U10 and the youth fund is getting 300$. If we disallow her from playing we are certainly following the rules but at the detriment of one of our young players. Also her lack of participation allowed others to get a chance to play in the WYCC and win a bursary. (I'm reasonably certain she would have qualified).

Also regarding the rules, I've seen quite a few rules broken in my time, most weren't afforded this much debate. Also part of the reason for the exec's existence is to decide when rules must be broken, since no set of rules is universally applicable. So I will reiterate my point, is the exec technically correct in their decision based on the rules? Yes, but if you make a pro and cons list, I can't see a reason to not let her go. At the very least put it before the governance to see how they feel.

[Kerry Liles]

I can very well understand why the exec made the decision it did. People have called it protectionist but that is part of the exec and governor's job, to protect those events and their importance. I can also understand how frustrated they are over this request. Ms. Jin had clearly agreed beforehand to not pursue this and yet, here we are. However, here we are, we have Canada's top female under 10 by more than 200 points asking if she can play in the WYCC on her own dollar. She was not able to participate due to her CFC sanctioned participation in the Pam Ams which conflicted with the CYCC. Also given how active she is with Canadian and Ontario Youth Championships I'm not sure she wouldn't have participated in the CYCC even if she didn't have any intention of playing in the WYCC.

Is the exec within their right to refuse her ability to play in the WYCC? Yes, however, I still disagree with their decision, not based on any sort of rules but by looking at the results of the decision of not allowing her to play. If we let her go, we are nurturing one of Canada's young female talents, we are certainly putting together a stronger team for the female U10 and the youth fund is getting 300$. If we disallow her from playing we are certainly following the rules but at the detriment of one of our young players. Also her lack of participation allowed others to get a chance to play in the WYCC and win a bursary. (I'm reasonably certain she would have qualified).

Also regarding the rules, I've seen quite a few rules broken in my time, most weren't afforded this much debate. Also part of the reason for the exec's existence is to decide when rules must be broken, since no set of rules is universally applicable. So I will reiterate my point, is the exec technically correct in their decision based on the rules? Yes, but if you make a pro and cons list, I can't see a reason to not let her go. At the very least put it before the governance to see how they feel.

"At the very least put it before the governance to see how they feel."

In that case, why is there an Executive at all? Why not have all the Governors (at least the ones who bother to vote) decide every thing that comes up. By extension, you can eliminate all the Governors too and just have an Internet poll where all fully-paid CFC members can vote on every item too.

[Peter McKillop]

...
In that case, why is there an Executive at all? Why not have all the Governors (at least the ones who bother to vote) decide every thing that comes up. By extension, you can eliminate all the Governors too and just have an Internet poll where all fully-paid CFC members can vote on every item too.

Good ideas, Kerry. You've got my vote!! :D

[Christopher Mallon]

The Governors back in January, in their infinite wisdom, delegated this responsibility to the Executive. So, naturally, as soon as the Executive makes a decision that the Governors don't happen to agree with, the Governors want the power back in their hands :p

[Michael Barron]

Mr. Barron,

So this is the real reason for not allowing youth to participate at Pan-Am games and penalize them, if they do?

Quote:'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC.

In your previous post you claimed :
‘2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).’

I am really getting confused here, but thank you very much for additional information!

Mikhail

Mr. Egorov,

You are really getting confused here, because you are mixing up several different issues.

Let me clarify it for you:
The real reason is the objective of the Chess Federation of Canada, how it's stated on the CFC website (http://chess.ca):
"to promote and encourage the knowledge, study and play of the game of chess in Canada".

It means - to promote chess in Canada, not in Colombia, in Brazil, or anywhere else.

Of course, you could have a different opinion, especially if you get a direct financial benefit from it.

Different people have different opinions, as you can see in this thread, and it's very good.
The question is:
How could we make a decision, if we have several alternatives?

Usually in such situations the majority rules, and minority follows - it's how the democracy works. :p

Thank you for understanding! :D

[Rob Clark]

Firstly Mr. Liles, I wrote 3 paragraphs you managed to take one sentence and miss the entire point of what I said; without addressing any of the rest of it. The side who supports Liu going to the 2011 WYCC clearly doesn't have the support to get anything done with the Sept 25th deadline soon approaching. So until the next AGM this is all pointless and the debate is degrading quickly.

As for the supporting chess in Canada, I see supporting chess players in Canada as supporting chess in Canada. A huge amount of money goes to supporting our Olympiad team, while this doesn't directly support chess in Canada (geographically speaking) it benefits our players greatly. The same is true for the junior championships and in my opinion the Pan Ams. It gives our players an opportunity to play opponents they normally wouldn't and experience they wouldn't be able to get in Canada while representing Canada on the international stage.

Lastly, I really don't understand why grown men are using "stick out tongue" icon. Using that doesn't make what your saying a joke. Finally, Mr. Barron I find the ending of your last post addressed to Mr. Egorov a tad out of line.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

If there are players in Canada that would like to go to the WYCC and pay there own way this is a good for everybody.

The country organizing the WYCC gets to make some extra revenue and pay for the tournament. The tournament lives and dies on the extra entrants and we are trying to dicourage them.

Canada as a country or zone loses nothing by allowing these folks to go.

Those that went through the CYCC get all the benefits that come with that. Our official rep gets entry and local expenses and they are a drain on the WYCC for the local organizers. The extra Canadians that could make the tournament a success are blocked by the CFC. BRILLIANT!

What is our point exactly?

[Hal Bond]

Halldor - it's true that the WYCC organizer loves to see extra paying participants. As the exclusive FIDE franchise in Canada, the CFC can broker these deals and charge whatever slice we want. It's tempting! Especially in our precarious financial condition.

How principled is it to allow wealthier families to bypass the CYCC, pay the penalties and their own expenses and attend the WYCC?

Rob Clark - when you list the pros and cons of this case, remember that several other families abided by the decision to ignore the PanAms, and played instead in the CYCC. What do we say to them if we change our tune now?

Just wondering!

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Hal,

I really wish you, would not have said that: “How principled is it to allow wealthier families to bypass the CYCC, pay the penalties and their own expenses and attend the WYCC?”. So, if you wealthy you can’t go to WYCC? Is it a crime now days?

All I see a talented young girl, who recently got her WCM title for her accomplishments for winning 2009 North American Youth Championship in Mexico. She is eager to play and very ambitions to win WYCC title for team Canada. How principled is that not to allow talented girl and top in her country not to go???

By skipping to CYCC to ‘EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES’, she allowed another girl Constance Wang to join WYCC team. Is

Just wondering!!!

[Ken Craft]

Not only will the CFC lose $300 if they do not let this individual attend the WYCC, they also will not be receiving a donation to the Olympic Fund from me. I urge others who oppose the Executive's decision to consider withholding their donations as well.

[Fred McKim]

Not only will the CFC lose $300 if they do not let this individual attend the WYCC, they also will not be receiving a donation to the Olympic Fund from me. I urge others who oppose the Executive's decision to consider withholding their donations as well.

Ken: I think a more positive use of your energy would be to start a campaign to join the Executive next year.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hello everyone.

I apologize for rushing this. The deadline is September 25, and 10 days away. Is it possible for this case be put into vote by executives/governors? If, this case is approved and Dora is allowed to go, it will give Patrick (Youth coordinator) enough time to add Dora to the WYCC list. I believe we already have one official vote: Peter McKillop.


Peter,

Thanks for voting yes!

Mikhail

[Christopher Mallon]

Not only will the CFC lose $300 if they do not let this individual attend the WYCC, they also will not be receiving a donation to the Olympic Fund from me. I urge others who oppose the Executive's decision to consider withholding their donations as well.

Wow Ken. Not only will you resort to blackmail, but you want to start a campaign that will not actually even hurt anyone on the Exec, it will only hurt the Olympiad teams - who are innocent and unrelated parties in all of this. Might want to think that through a little bit more.

[Kerry Liles]

Hello everyone.

I apologize for rushing this. The deadline is September 25, and 10 days away. Is it possible for this case be put into vote by executives/governors? If, this case is approved and Dora is allowed to go, it will give Patrick (Youth coordinator) enough time to add Dora to the WYCC list. I believe we already have one official vote: Peter McKillop.


Peter,

Thanks for voting yes!

Mikhail

I don't believe Peter is a Governor...
The Executive has already made a decision.

I don't see how a motion can be forwarded and voted on outside the normal cycle (or whether such action would be permitted), but it might be interesting for the Executive to see what the Governors feel about this issue. Perhaps a vote (straw poll?) on the Governor's board might be insightful - provided enough Governors are paying attention and a high number of them vote in the poll.

[Peter McKillop]

...
Peter,

Thanks for voting yes!

Mikhail

Sorry, Mikhail, but Kerry's right. It's been almost 10 years since I was a governor. If I could vote, I would vote to allow the young lady to attend the WYCC. I hope your efforts are successful.

Regards,

[Ken Craft]

Not blackmail at all, Chris. A simple statement that decisions have consequences. The Federation lost a substantial donation from me last Olympiad over the manner in which selection for the National Team took place. The Olympiad before (2008) I made large donation.

Keeping your sponsors happy is an important part of managing a national sporting federation.

[Vladimir Birarov]

By skipping to CYCC to ‘EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES’, she allowed another girl Constance Wang to join WYCC team

This is too much, Mikhail. Dora allowed Constance Wang to join WYCC team. Wow!!! We all, probably, should be thankful to Dora for not playing in CYCC.
Constance is a brilliant chess player, and she doesn't need Dora's absence to win CYCC. I'd suggest you to apologize before Constance and her parents for your comment.

And once again, Dora's parents were fully aware what they are doing when decided to send her to PanAm. I, personally, heard from her mother that they did it because they don't have plans to go to WYCC this year. I'm not discussing how good rules are. I'm just saying all 3 families, who went to PanAm, were OK with this rules back in July. I also know at least one family, who thought to send their kid to PamAm but changed their mind when understood the circumstances. So, how ethical will it be to bend these rules now for one family?

[Peter McKillop]

Not blackmail at all, Chris. A simple statement that decisions have consequences. The Federation lost a substantial donation from me last Olympiad over the manner in which selection for the National Team took place. The Olympiad before (2008) I made large donation.

Keeping your sponsors happy is an important part of managing a national sporting federation.

Hey Dave, wanna grab a beer and a sandwich after the game on Saturday?

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Vlad,

Quote from Mr. Barron’s post:
“1. The new motion was made by Vlad Birarov and Valer Demian on December 1, 2010. At that time the dates of PanAm were not known yet. The Motion passed in January 2011.

2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).”

So you were the one original creators of the motions. WOW! The main reason to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC???

Perfect! I can now see, how it is working in full swing now!

You are in full right to defend your motion and act in personal interest, since you were one of the original creators. Sometimes you have to look at the whole pictures,
Put persona interests aside and ask: ‘What is best for Canadian chess and Canadian youth”.

I am not saying that people create bulletproof motions. I've seen quite a few rules broken in my time as well.

Yes you are correct, that Constance is a good player, and I am not denying this.


Mikhail

[Halldor P. Palsson]

The CFC should be done grandstanding for the CYCC this year.

The CFC position on the PanAms had always been that it is not a priority but that those who wanted to participate at their own expense could do so. I think moving to punish those who participated in the PanAms this year is not an improvement. The CYCC and PanAms are not always on the same dates.

The WYCC as a FIDE event deserves our support. The WYCC is only feasible if it gets in-country support and entries from paying customers. Canada as a well-off country and a zone has always seen it as the right thing to do to send a large number of participants to the tournament.

We are here to promote chess. The discussion of who can afford what has no place here. If folks want to spend their own time and money on chess tournaments like the WYCC I do not see how that is a bad thing for anyone.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Hi Vlad,

Quote from Mr. Barron’s post:
“1. The new motion was made by Vlad Birarov and Valer Demian on December 1, 2010. At that time the dates of PanAm were not known yet. The Motion passed in January 2011.

2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).”

So you were the one original creators of the motions. WOW! The main reason to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC???

Perfect! I can now see, how it is working in full swing now!

You are in full right to defend your motion and act in personal interest, since you were one of the original creators. Sometimes you have to look at the whole pictures,
Put persona interests aside and ask: ‘What is best for Canadian chess and Canadian youth”.

I am not saying that people create bulletproof motions. I've seen quite a few rules broken in my time as well.

Yes you are correct, that Constance is a good player, and I am not denying this.

Mikhail

Sorry, Mikhail, I have hard time to find any core of good sense among your emotional expressions. How do I act in my personal interest? Oh yes, I'm paid by CFC for every motion I submit! :D

When we discussed this motion within Youth Committee and then on Governors' meeting we acted in best interest of Canadian chess and Canadian youth. In order to see this, you just need to compare current rules to ones existed before. Would you like to improve it further? No problem, just find Governor who will submit motion for you.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Sorry, Mikhail, I have hard time to find any core of good sense among your emotional expressions. How do I act in my personal interest? Oh yes, I'm paid by CFC for every motion I submit! :D

When we discussed this motion within Youth Committee and then on Governors' meeting we acted in best interest of Canadian chess and Canadian youth. In order to see this, you just need to compare current rules to ones existed before. Would you like to improve it further? No problem, just find Governor who will submit motion for you.
Hi Vlad,

No need to apologize to me, since If, you wish to appolozie, you should do it to the top juniors who are getting panelized here with new motion: Jackie Peng, Jiaxin (Dora) Liu, and Dezheng Kong.

Specifically 9 year old girl Dora, who is taking a lot of critisim from CFC, lately for just trying to go represent Canada at World stage. I really wonder what judge will think about this!

Quote: “How do I act in my personal interest? Oh yes, I'm paid by CFC for every motion I submit!”

I leave it up to you to find out. :)

Have a great day!

Mikhaill

[Vladimir Birarov]

Hi Vlad,

No need to apologize to me, since If, you wish to appolozie, you should do it to the top juniors who are getting panelized here with new motion: Jackie Peng, Jiaxin (Dora) Liu, and Dezheng Kong.

Specifically 9 year old girl Dora, who is taking a lot of critisim from CFC, lately for just trying to go represent Canada at World stage. I really wonder what judge will think about this!

Quote: “How do I act in my personal interest? Oh yes, I'm paid by CFC for every motion I submit!”

I leave it up to you to find out. :)

Have a great day!

Mikhaill

I don't think, I have reason to apologize before these kids. I'm quite sure they didn't have any chance to go to WYCC if "old" rules were still in effect. So, I didn't hurt them by any means with introducing of new rules.

The way you conduct this discussion is not very constructive. Do you think current rules don't answer this situation the best way? Go ahead and change them. But why to criticize me, other Youth Committee members, and Governors? Did we create any problem with new rules? I invite you to compare "new" and "old" rules and provide some examples.

[Michael Barron]

I really wish you, would not have said that: “How principled is it to allow wealthier families to bypass the CYCC, pay the penalties and their own expenses and attend the WYCC?”. So, if you wealthy you can’t go to WYCC? Is it a crime now days?
...

Mr. Egorov,

Please understand:
An opportunity to represent Canada at WYCC is not a right, it's a privilege, that should be earned at the CYCC and could be granted only by the CFC.

If you're wealthy, you can go to WYCC.
Just like everybody else - by winning CYCC.
It's not a crime.

But you can't buy your way to WYCC under the table and violate the rules.
It is a crime.

Of course, Mrs. Jin could buy Mr. Egorov.
But apparently she can't buy the entire CFC Executive.

Maybe she's just not wealthy enough... :D

[Peter McKillop]

Mr. Egorov,

Please understand:
An opportunity to represent Canada at WYCC is not a right, it's a privilege, that should be earned at the CYCC and could be granted only by the CFC.

If you're wealthy, you can go to WYCC.
Just like everybody else - by winning CYCC.
It's not a crime.

But you can't buy your way to WYCC under the table and violate the rules.
It is a crime.

Of course, Mrs. Jin could buy Mr. Egorov.
But apparently she can't buy the entire CFC Executive.

Maybe she's just not wealthy enough... :D

What the hell is this b.s.?? Now we have a supposedly responsible governor of the CFC: (a) insulting Mike Egorov for going to bat for a talented little girl who in any other year of the past decade would have been approved without any fuss to play in the WYCC despite not playing in the CYCC; (b) alleging that the little girl's mother may have 'bought' part of the CFC executive; (c) implying that the little girl's mother has done something "under the table", something that is a "crime."

Enough of this crap! I think the CFC owes Ms. Jin an apology for Barron's behaviour. The apology can be accompanied by an approval for Ms. Jin's daughter to play in the WYCC.

[Rob Clark]

Did the former youth coordinator really just say that Ms. Jin (who I might add hasn't said one thing on the matter publicly since this came up) has bought (or could buy) Mr. Egorov as well as trying to buy the exec? Also did you just make a joke (I'm really hoping that was a joke) that the exec could be bought if the price was high enough? And you're a governor? Over the last few days you published confidential emails without authorization and accused this woman of bribery or attempted bribery. You've also questioned the integrity of a well respected member of the chess community who I will personally vouch for being an honest and decent person.

You owe more than a few apologies.

Also, at this point the exec has said that they won't budge on this issue and it is theirs to make. The president has also not responded to my email and hasn't commented on this issue. This matter isn't going anywhere. Continuing this debate seems like it isn't doing anything for the CFC other than making us look ridiculous.

[Ken Craft]

Mr. Barron's comments above are probably actionable. I find it deeply disturbing that the President raely posts on the CFC site either publicly or in the Governors' Forum. Now Mr. Clark informs us the president isn't responding to his emails. Leadership and governance needs to be transparent.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Mr. Barron,

You should be really ashamed of yourself to post this.

I am still puzzled why CFC is still defending you.

Ms. Jin was chief organizer of 2011 CYCC, that made suplus and youth fund for WYCC more than EVER. As a result Canada is sending its BIGGEST team yet. She put 10 months of volunteer work for Canadian Youth program in 2010 to" buy" excutives CFC that refuse her daughter going to WYCC.

Is this what you referring to Mr.Barron???

As a result this is BIG thanks she gets from you, and CFC executives? The CFC's refusal for her daughter (who is also top junior in the country U10) to join WYCC team?

Mikhail

[Hal Bond]

Mikhail - I am disappointed with Michael's comments - a very bad joke at best. I don't see any other executive member supporting them.

I did not suggest anything criminal about extra players paying to go to the WYCC. I do recall the CFC being criticized on this very idea of qualication vs simply paying to go to the CYCC, which was considered unprincipled.

As I suggested to Halldor, it is tempting to open up the rules for participating in the WYCC even more. (Canada is already one of the largest delegations at the WYCC) But we will take some flack for it, so we will need strong support from the Governors.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Mikhail:

I agree with you - Michael is introducing controversial statements which are not relevant to the issue or helpful.

Here is my take on what is relevant:

Dora effectively made an application to join the team under " extraordinary cirucmstances ". The executive rejected the application on the grounds that it had been explained at the time of choice, that attendance at the Pan-Am's would not be considered an " extraordinary circumstance ". At the time, some juniors decided to forgo the Pan-Am's and play in the CYCC. Three of our top players decided to go to the Pan-Am's, knowing full well the executive position.

You have tried to garner public support to have the executive review their decision. The executive has refused to review the decision.

A motion to the governors to overrule the executive could have been brought but wasn't ( admittedly the time frame was tight, although one governor had started to draft a motion ). The jurisdiction of the governors to overrule is also admittedly unclear. Also, it may be that the majority of governors agree with the executive position.

I think then, that the issue is effectively closed, since the deadline for Team registrations with FIDE is Sept. 25.

Bob

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Hal,

Thank you very much for your support. I think, since we are acting in the best interest of Canadian Youth program and it’s players,
everyone will understand and no one will take any flack for this.

Hi Bob,

Yes, I completely agree with all the facts that you stated.

I would like to add that Mr.Barron’s statement is what is still bothering me, and why I am insisting on my point:
‘The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC.’

As Mr. Barron stateted himself: “'The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).”

This completely contradicts with actions Mr. Barron (youth coordinator at that time) took to boycott Pan-Am games with EXECUTIVE decision.

Since Mr.Barron had a right to change and damage Canadian participation at WYCC with his actions; I see no reason why we can’t reverse and make things right again!

Dear executives/governors;

I know an EXECUTIVE decision will have to be made. I would like to ask for your support on this issue, and maybe allow extra player(s) to join our fantastic WYCC team this year in Brazil and make it even stronger! Thank you very much for you time.

Mikhail

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Hi Vlad,

Quote from Mr. Barron’s post:
“1. The new motion was made by Vlad Birarov and Valer Demian on December 1, 2010. At that time the dates of PanAm were not known yet. The Motion passed in January 2011.

2. The main reason for the new motion was to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC (not only first 3 finishers).”

So you were the one original creators of the motions. WOW! The main reason to allow more Canadian players to participate at WYCC???

Perfect! I can now see, how it is working in full swing now!

You are in full right to defend your motion and act in personal interest, since you were one of the original creators. Sometimes you have to look at the whole pictures,
Put persona interests aside and ask: ‘What is best for Canadian chess and Canadian youth”.

I am not saying that people create bulletproof motions. I've seen quite a few rules broken in my time as well.

Yes you are correct, that Constance is a good player, and I am not denying this.


Mikhail

Hi Mikhail,

I stand behind this motion and indeed it is good for chess in Canada.

What bothers me is how many bleeding hearts are ready to paint something good with Black paint just because 3 families changed their minds and now are crying wolf...

It does not matter how good the children involved are. When their families decided to go to PanAm they already knew about the passed motion and possibility not to go to WYCC; moreover they stated they had no intention to go. Forcing CFC's hand here is a test and I stand behind the Executive decision.

It is a matter of principle and not a matter of developing chess in Canada!

Regards,

[Peter McKillop]

Hi Mikhail,

I stand behind this motion and indeed it is good for chess in Canada.

What bothers me is how many bleeding hearts are ready to paint something good with Black paint just because 3 families changed their minds and now are crying wolf...

It does not matter how good the children involved are. When their families decided to go to PanAm they already knew about the passed motion and possibility not to go to WYCC; moreover they stated they had no intention to go. Forcing CFC's hand here is a test and I stand behind the Executive decision.

It is a matter of principle and not a matter of developing chess in Canada!

Regards,

Seems to me that the principle should call for focusing on the children involved rather than wasting valuable time with the usual one group of 'adults' trying to put the screws to another group of 'adults'.

[Peter McKillop]

Hi Mikhail:

I agree with you - Michael is introducing controversial statements which are not relevant to the issue or helpful.

Here is my take on what is relevant:

Dora effectively made an application to join the team under " extraordinary cirucmstances ". The executive rejected the application on the grounds that it had been explained at the time of choice, that attendance at the Pan-Am's would not be considered an " extraordinary circumstance ". [my 'bolding' - P. McK.] ...

Well, with the benefit of hindsight, I think that the CFC's position with respect to what constituted an extraordinary circumstance was the original mistake. The matter called for more careful insight into the possible consequences of a narrow definition.


... At the time, some juniors decided to forgo the Pan-Am's and play in the CYCC. Three of our top players decided to go to the Pan-Am's, knowing full well the executive position. ...

And so those families lost their chance to compete for WYCC bursaries. Wasn't that enough of a penalty?


... You have tried to garner public support to have the executive review their decision. The executive has refused to review the decision. ...

A discreditable action on their part.


... A motion to the governors to overrule the executive could have been brought but wasn't ( admittedly the time frame was tight, although one governor had started to draft a motion ). The jurisdiction of the governors to overrule is also admittedly unclear. Also, it may be that the majority of governors agree with the executive position.

I think then, that the issue is effectively closed, since the deadline for Team registrations with FIDE is Sept. 25. ...

Sorry, Bob, but I think this last part is a bunch of bureaucratic b.s. There was, and still is, plenty of time for detailed discussion and voting by the governors.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Mikhail,

I stand behind this motion and indeed it is good for chess in Canada.

What bothers me is how many bleeding hearts are ready to paint something good with Black paint just because 3 families changed their minds and now are crying wolf...

It does not matter how good the children involved are. When their families decided to go to PanAm they already knew about the passed motion and possibility not to go to WYCC; moreover they stated they had no intention to go. Forcing CFC's hand here is a test and I stand behind the Executive decision.

It is a matter of principle and not a matter of developing chess in Canada!

Regards,
Hi Valer,

You do have some valid points, but after weighting pros and cons I still stand by this appeal.

Quote from Mr. Barron post: 'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to, Pan-Am due to the fact that the dates of Pan-Am appeared to be in conflict with CYCC' .

The new motion was manipulated by Mr. Barron to get back at Pan-American organizers, after new motion was passed. CFC hand was successfully tested here in EXECUTIVE decision.

What is the point, if new motion can manipulated, after it was passed?

With his EXECUTIVE actions, he jeopardized it, by NOT allowing more Canadian players to participate at WYCC.

If, tournaments were organized on different dates, we would not be having discussion now.

Mr. Barron was youth coordinator at that time. He acted in personal interest, and not in matter of principal or not in matter of developing chess in Canada! Please do correct me, if I am wrong here.

The damage was already done by Mr. Barron. I am not even brining his public insults into this. The least thing CFC can do is fulfill this small request and allow following 3 strong juniors to join WYCC team.

Regards,

Mikhail

[Vladimir Birarov]

Hi Valer,

You do have some valid points, but after weighting pros and cons I still stand by this appeal.

Quote from Mr. Barron post: 'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to, Pan-Am due to the fact that the dates of Pan-Am appeared to be in conflict with CYCC' .

The new motion was manipulated by Mr. Barron to get back at Pan-American organizers, after new motion was passed. CFC hand was successfully tested here in EXECUTIVE decision.

What is the point, if new motion can manipulated, after it was passed?

With his EXECUTIVE actions, he jeopardized it, by NOT allowing more Canadian players to participate at WYCC.

If, tournaments were organized on different dates, we would not be having discussion now.

Mr. Barron was youth coordinator at that time. He acted in personal interest, and not in matter of principal or not in matter of developing chess in Canada! Please do correct me, if I am wrong here.

The damage was already done by Mr. Barron. I am not even brining his public insults into this. The least thing CFC can do is fulfill this small request and allow following 3 strong juniors to join WYCC team.

Regards,

Mikhail

Mikhail,

While I agree that Michael's post is controversial and contains unsubstantiated personal attacks, I can not refrain from asking you again: "Where do you see somebody's personal interest in this story?". What was Michael's interest when he "manipulated" and "jeopardized" this motion? If you can show when and how Michael (or someone else) acted in his personal interest, please, do that. If you can not, I'm asking you to stop with your allegations.

I've already stated my position but I can do it again: with this motion we all acted in best interests of Canadian youth chess. And this including Dora's mother who is a member of Youth Committee and actively participated in this motion creation, and who was Governor when it passed.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Vlad,

Thank you for agreeing, that you also found your friend’s post “unsubstantiated persona attack”.

I can’t not emphasise the following point more clearly.

Following is taken from Mr. Barron post and he stated it publicly on this thread:
His statement: ''The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to, PanAm due to the fact that the dates of PanAm appeared to be in conflict with CYCC'.

Pan-Am is an annual international event, and is 2nd strongest young players can complete after WYCC. One year ago, before new motion was passed, our juniors could compete in both. NOW they are forced to chose ONE. This is “jeopardizing”.

If following is not enough for evidence, I do not know what is!

So what do we have as a result:
a. top 3 very strong juniors get penalized by new motion
b. some of their parents/organizers get attacked by Mr. Barron himself

What is next, more personal attacks???

I am also asking you to stop making empty claims, if you can’t backup yours and Mr. Barron's claim: “with this motion we all acted in best interests of Canadian youth chess”. Please advise us how you and Mr. Barron accomplished that?

Mikhail

[Mikhail Egorov]

Well, with the benefit of hindsight, I think that the CFC's position with respect to what constituted an extraordinary circumstance was the original mistake. The matter called for more careful insight into the possible consequences of a narrow definition.



And so those families lost their chance to compete for WYCC bursaries. Wasn't that enough of a penalty?



A discreditable action on their part.



Sorry, Bob, but I think this last part is a bunch of bureaucratic b.s. There was, and still is, plenty of time for detailed discussion and voting by the governors.
Hi Peter,

Yes, I completely agree with you. There is still plenty of time left for detailed discussion and reaching the right decision, before Septmebr 25 deadline. I really hope this starts moving into right direction very soon.

Mikhail

[Christopher Mallon]

Not blackmail at all, Chris. A simple statement that decisions have consequences. The Federation lost a substantial donation from me last Olympiad over the manner in which selection for the National Team took place. The Olympiad before (2008) I made large donation.

Keeping your sponsors happy is an important part of managing a national sporting federation.

What you do with your money is up to you, but as soon as you start saying things like "do this or else" - especially when not backed up by the rules - amounts to blackmail. At least for the 2010 Olympiad your reasoning was related to what the donation was for, unlike this case.


What the hell is this b.s.?? Now we have a supposedly responsible governor of the CFC: ...

Enough of this crap! I think the CFC owes Ms. Jin an apology for Barron's behaviour. The apology can be accompanied by an approval for Ms. Jin's daughter to play in the WYCC.

Michael Barron is not on the Executive, and he does not represent the views of the CFC, any more than you or I do - he is but one vote amongst 60. If any apologies are owed, it would be by him, not by the CFC.


when you list the pros and cons of this case, remember that several other families abided by the decision to ignore the PanAms, and played instead in the CYCC. What do we say to them if we change our tune now?

I still have seen no satisfactory answer to this point way back on Page 2.


NOW PAY ATTENTION EVERYONE!

I haven't been able to keep both eyes on this thread up to now but it's starting to get a bit ugly. Any further personal attacks, threats, or potentially libelous comments will result in official forum warning points.

The point is to discuss the decision(s) of the CFC, and its future direction, NOT the character of the people involved.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Hi Valer,

You do have some valid points, but after weighting pros and cons I still stand by this appeal.

Quote from Mr. Barron post: 'The Executive in fact made the decision that Canada will not send the team to, Pan-Am due to the fact that the dates of Pan-Am appeared to be in conflict with CYCC' .

The new motion was manipulated by Mr. Barron to get back at Pan-American organizers, after new motion was passed. CFC hand was successfully tested here in EXECUTIVE decision.

What is the point, if new motion can manipulated, after it was passed?

With his EXECUTIVE actions, he jeopardized it, by NOT allowing more Canadian players to participate at WYCC.

If, tournaments were organized on different dates, we would not be having discussion now.

Mr. Barron was youth coordinator at that time. He acted in personal interest, and not in matter of principal or not in matter of developing chess in Canada! Please do correct me, if I am wrong here.

The damage was already done by Mr. Barron. I am not even brining his public insults into this. The least thing CFC can do is fulfill this small request and allow following 3 strong juniors to join WYCC team.

Regards,

Mikhail

Hi Mkhail,

All of us can have our own opinions and beliefs. Bottom line is Vlad's point: none of us (including Mr. Baron) had/ have anything to gain from it.

CFC can act in its best interest if international tournaments coincide with such important events like CYCC. Strictly speaking CYCC promotes chess in Canada far more than PanAm!...

No, I do not think this motion was manipulated by anyone. We act for the benefit of chess in this country. Those families were aware of the situation and risks (not being accepted to join team Canada @ WYCC). It is like being mated in 1 and still asking the opponent to take back his move and continue the game...

I am sorry you took Mr. Baron's opinions as insults; maybe they've been a bit extreme, but from that to insults is a long way. Of course you are entitled to take them as you wish. However I would suggest more cooperation and understanding; some of us have had to deal with a lot of discussions in the past few years leading nowhere, or in the personal interest of certain parents and their kids. In the end a lot of our good intentions were highjacked and nothing was solved.

I do not agree at all with Peter McKillop's opinion those families have already been penalized by losing the WYCC bursaries. Those families simply DO NOT qualify for WYCC to begin with; bursaries don't even enter the discussion...

If every parent is capable to bully CFC for their own benefit, the result is going to be total chaos in this country. Do not think anyone wants that...

Regards,

[Vladimir Birarov]

Pan-Am is an annual international event, and is 2nd strongest young players can complete after WYCC. One year ago, before new motion was passed, our juniors could compete in both. NOW they are forced to chose ONE. This is “jeopardizing”.
Mikhail

You made me to do a little work ... :)

This is wording of section 1012 prior to the new motion. It is quite small and very clear:

1012.Participation in the World Event:
The winner of the event [CYCC] shall be eligible to participate in the appropriate world event. If the winner is unable to participate, the second place finisher shall be invited to go in his place. If the second place finisher also declines, the highest finisher in the tournament who is willing to participate in the world event, shall be selected. The CFC Board of Directors shall use an appropriate tie breaking method to break ties if required to determine the order of finish.

How exactly under these rules "our juniors could compete in both"?

Now, when you have both "old" and "new" rules in front of you, it will be easier to express your opinion on whether our motion was improvement over old rules or not.

[Peter McKillop]

...
Michael Barron is not on the Executive, and he does not represent the views of the CFC, any more than you or I do - he is but one vote amongst 60. If any apologies are owed, it would be by him, not by the CFC. ...

Yes, I know he's not on the executive but, as a governor, he does represent the CFC. And yes, I agree that Mr. Barron should apologize to Ms. Jin, too.

[Andrew Giblon]

... just because 3 families changed their minds and now are crying wolf...


I have been appointed as Head of Delegation for this year's WYCC team, so I have a vested interest in leading both the strongest and the most fairly selected team under existing rules. It's unfortunate that there is so much controversy and acrimony over what should be a positive event - we already have approximately 40 confirmed players on the Canadian team, by far the largest contingent ever!

I think we need to first confirm the scope of what is in dispute. To be fair to the families involved, I'm not even aware that we have definitively established yet that each of the 3 families changed their minds. Would it be possible to get confirmation (e.g. a posting on this forum; or an email to me as Head of Delegation, or to Patrick McDonald as Youth Coordinator, if they would prefer to remain private) from one parent of each of the 3 children in question about whether they want their child to go to the WYCC? I'm not aware of formal WYCC application forms received on behalf of any of these 3 children. I have not seen any direct posting by either of Jiaxin's parents that they want Jiaxin to go to the WYCC, and their rationale. Similarly, I have also not seen any indication from the parents of Jackie Peng or Dezheng Kong, nor from anyone else, that they want Jackie or Dezheng to go to the WYCC.

[Peter McKillop]

Odd how all the discussion stopped the moment someone asked for the facts.
:)

[Christopher Mallon]

I'm pretty sure the discussion has run its course... anything more would just be repetition at this point. Unless Michael Von Keitz wants to jump in.

[Kerry Liles]

Odd how all the discussion stopped the moment someone asked for the facts.
:)

It would be nice if the facts were actually posted though. A lot of people seem to have very strong views on this (notwithstanding the absence of all the specifics). Unfortunately, the questions asked upthread don't seem to be answered by any of the major characters in this play.