Should the WYCC be split into two events?

[Hal Bond]

A motion to this effect will be voted on at the FIDE Congress in Krakow next month. This had been recommended by the Presidential Board in light of concerns that the event has become too large.

Although I have heard some general grumbles, the main negatives I can think of are:

- duplication of registration hassles, ie going thru the laborious registration process twice per year
- causing double costs for families with siblings who may play in both halves

However there are positives:

- more manageable events and more options for venues
- double the chance of bringing a WYCC to Canada
- more peerage within the events

I would like to have some Governor input on the subject but maybe we can start here.

[Kerry Liles]

A motion to this effect will be voted on at the FIDE Congress in Krakow next month. This had been recommended by the Presidential Board in light of concerns that the event has become too large.

Although I have heard some general grumbles, the main negatives I can think of are:

- duplication of registration hassles, ie going thru the laborious registration process twice per year
- causing double costs for families with siblings who may play in both halves

However there are positives:

- more manageable events and more options for venues
- double the chance of bringing a WYCC to Canada
- more peerage within the events

I would like to have some Governor input on the subject but maybe we can start here.

Do you have a link to the actual wording of the motion?
It might be good to know (for example) where the split occurs - below and above what age?

Is the intention for both "halves" to be held as if they were completely separate events? That is, could they be awarded to the same city/organizer on different dates? Or are they looking at non-conflicting dates in different locations?

[Fred McKim]

As I remember the split was 8,10,12 and 14,16,18. One of the events would keep the present dates and I thin kthe other would be earlier, which would mean that the CYCC for those age groups would have to be pre-summer.

I think Hal can fill in the details.

This would be better for us if we could still hold all six sections of the CYCC during the summer at the same time.

So maybe our biggest concern would be acceptable dates of the "Junior" WYCC and "Senior" WYCC.

[Ken Jensen]

The following text comes from the FIDE website;
"At the recent Presidential Board Meeting in Al-Ain it was decided that with effect from 2014, the World Youth Championships will be split into two separate events. The growing number of entries is limiting potential bidding federations.

The U8, U10 and U12 events (Lower Youth) will be allocated a slot in the calendar alongside the World Junior (August 1-16), although not necessarily in the same place.
The U14, U16 and U18 events (Upper Youth) will occupy the same dates in the calendar currently allocated to the existing World Youth Championships (October 16-31).
Every Continent will have the opportunity to bid for either event in the first year. There will be a separate six year cycle for Upper and Lower Youth with Europe only able to bid on three occasions within each cycle."

This cannot possibly work for Canada and must be opposed.
-The August date does not work with the CYCC Schedule.
-Few parents can afford the expense of one WYCC event. Far fewer could afford the vacation time and expense of attending two in one year. We have many multiplayer famillies who would have to choose which kid gets to go.
-We cannot split the CYCC into 2 events, nor move it into the school year. If we did move it we would have players waiting 5 months after qualifying. A lot changes in junior chess over 5 months.

If the problem is truly a matter of attendance why not place caps on the amount of players a federation can send? Some will send 250 players while others only send 12.

If a lack of bids is truly a problem why not submit a bid to hold the WYCC in Canada?

Ken Jensen

[Valer Eugen Demian]

The following text comes from the FIDE website;
"At the recent Presidential Board Meeting in Al-Ain it was decided that with effect from 2014, the World Youth Championships will be split into two separate events. The growing number of entries is limiting potential bidding federations.

The U8, U10 and U12 events (Lower Youth) will be allocated a slot in the calendar alongside the World Junior (August 1-16), although not necessarily in the same place.
The U14, U16 and U18 events (Upper Youth) will occupy the same dates in the calendar currently allocated to the existing World Youth Championships (October 16-31).
Every Continent will have the opportunity to bid for either event in the first year. There will be a separate six year cycle for Upper and Lower Youth with Europe only able to bid on three occasions within each cycle."

This cannot possibly work for Canada and must be opposed.
-The August date does not work with the CYCC Schedule.
-Few parents can afford the expense of one WYCC event. Far fewer could afford the vacation time and expense of attending two in one year. We have many multiplayer famillies who would have to choose which kid gets to go.
-We cannot split the CYCC into 2 events, nor move it into the school year. If we did move it we would have players waiting 5 months after qualifying. A lot changes in junior chess over 5 months.

If the problem is truly a matter of attendance why not place caps on the amount of players a federation can send? Some will send 250 players while others only send 12.

If a lack of bids is truly a problem why not submit a bid to hold the WYCC in Canada?

Ken Jensen

I am in full agreement here with Ken. This proposal is dumb and short sighted.

[Christopher Mallon]

I also agree that this is a bad proposal. After all there is nothing in it that will stop the two half-events from becoming bloated. What then, split it into 3? 6?

[Hal Bond]

Noted Ken, thanks.

However, how many families are actually effected by the split?

-We cannot split the CYCC into 2 events, nor move it into the school year. If we did move it we would have players waiting 5 months after qualifying. A lot changes in junior chess over 5 months.

Maybe so, however we have many returning champions. I believe the majority of parents would prefer to have the maximum lead time possible for vacation planning. Back to that in a minute.

Lack of bids? The last Congress featured 3 bids, one of which withdrew after seeing the quality of its rivals. This was why I was surprised by the proposal - bidders seem to be happy. But perhaps we are reaching a tipping point and newer feedback predicts a problem - I don't know.

Bid from Canada? This has always been a good idea. If Chris is right about the split events becoming too popular it ensures that they will atleast be viable in the meantime - a less risky proposition, more attractive to more organizers.

Valer's "dumb and short sighted" remark doesn't help much. Some obviously believe it is brilliant and visionary.

The most telling concern I see here is the impact on our own championship. That's important. I can tell you India's solution. They hold their championships a full year in advance. Under 7,9,11,13,15,17 in the previous year. That way they are always prepared for whatever the following year brings. Notwithstanding Ken's concern about the dynamic nature of youth chess, this option deserves some consideration.

Of course I will vote as our Federation wishes. I am about 80% sure it will pass though, so we will need to review our youth regulations, flawless as they are.;)

[Ken Jensen]

I would be very interested to find anybody who has anything to do with the CYCC who thinks this is a good change. Just as I am sure the split would be a disaster for the CYCC I am also sure that you could find someone to agree with you that it is a good idea. Nothing good comes from this. It only creates more problems for the people organizing Junior chess events in Canada.

Valer's comments are valid, and I tend to agree with him. There is clearly no benefit to Canadian Junior Chess by the move, and little or no consideration for the effects or alternatives on the part of fide. You may have trouble finding company in your "Brilliant and visionary" club. Then again, someone thought the HST in BC was brilliant and visionary too.

As Chief organizer of the next CYCC I can tell you that I will have no further interest in future CYCC's when the event is split. The strength of the CYCC is the appeal of WYCC. Splitting the event cuts the appeal in half.

My understanding is the split is a done deal, like anything else at the whim of fide. There are too many other ways to spend a week playing chess. Many other tournaments, and non chess options too. The CFC doesn't seem to realize Chess is a competitive market place. Many other things compete for our player's time, and money. Any move like this that makes an event less appealling opens the door for asomething else to attract the business.

We don't have the support to hold and develop champions for a year, and that idea does not address the split event issue. It may be time to think about alternatives to the WYCC. Perhaps that's their real plan to address overcrowding afterall.

Ken Jensen

[Hal Bond]

I don't think I will score any points with my colleagues in FIDE when I tell them that this idea is dumb and short sighted, particularly among those who believe it is brilliant an visionary.

This is not a done deal. As I said it will be voted on at the Congress. Call it a whim if you like, but this recommendation has been brought forward for a democratic vote, and we are one vote among some 60-70 people (these non Olympic year Congresses are smaller). My sense it that there is enough support for the idea among them to approve this change.

I share your frustration Ken - I spend some time in the trenches too. I missed the relevance of your comment about the CFC and a competitive marketplace. We are all the CFC, and most of us are well aware of the competition which chess faces. This is one of many parameters we each try to manage. Solutions are not so obvious.

We don't have the support to hold and develop champions for a year, and that idea does not address the split event issue. It may be time to think about alternatives to the WYCC. Perhaps that's their real plan to address overcrowding afterall.

What makes you say so? Holding the age championships one year in advance allows us to hold a single, annual CYCC. The main argument I could identify from your comments was the harm to the CYCC. Do you think winners will lose interest during their year of preparation?

[Valer Eugen Demian]

... Holding the age championships one year in advance allows us to hold a single, annual CYCC. The main argument I could identify from your comments was the harm to the CYCC. Do you think winners will lose interest during their year of preparation?

Winners have such a short period of time to enjoy their accomplishment; enjoy it now cause next year who knows what will happen? Players could lose a lot of focus and determination to wait for another year after their success to participate at WYCC.

Let's give an example: it is similar with one NHL team qualifying for the Stanley Cup and having to wait for one year to actually play for it. Your European delagates could understand this example replacing Stanley Cup with Champions League and the NHL teams with soccer ones. No other sport does this :)

To me this proposal comes possibly (maybe?) from an organizer's point of view and not at all from a chess lover's perspective (player, coach, member of delegation, etc). There is nothing in it to make the participation of players better. This is why I called it so blunt. Is it possible you ask your fellow delegates in advance if they feel the same? I would think any decision - as nice as it might sound ("The road to Hell is paved with good intentions"...) - should be for the benefit of the players, right?

[Hal Bond]

Thanks Valer - I am quite frustrated at ther lack of background information given to support this proposal. How can the event be too big? The bigger it is, the more profitable.

I have begun the inquiries. As you can see from other posts, the Congress agenda has several dramatic proposals from the Events Commission. I would love to derail them all.