CYCC Regional Qualifiers

[Michael von Keitz]

It's getting to be that time of year again. If you're considering running a regional YCC of your own, visit this link (http://chess.ca/cycc_regional_qualifiers) for more information.

[John Coleman]

in the link http://chess.ca/cycc_regional_qualifiers it says
"Age is determined as of Dec 31st 2012, for the 2012 series."

But the CYCC regulations http://www.bcjuniorchess.com/cycc-2012/regulations/ say
"Age as of January 1st, 2012 is used to determine which section a player is eligible to enter."

Some clarification is needed. :confused:

[Michael von Keitz]

Corrected. Thank you, John, for pointing out the error!

[Fred McKim]

in the link http://chess.ca/cycc_regional_qualifiers it says
"Age is determined as of Dec 31st 2012, for the 2012 series."

But the CYCC regulations http://www.bcjuniorchess.com/cycc-2012/regulations/ say
"Age as of January 1st, 2012 is used to determine which section a player is eligible to enter."

Some clarification is needed. :confused:

It probably should be age at Dec 31, 2011 (midnight) ............... It would be easier to remove dates and just use years.

[Bob Armstrong]

To be really picky about this, if the date is to be Dec. 31, the time is 11:59 PM.

Midnight is really 12:00 AM on Jan. 1, no?

Couldn't resist trying to muck it up a bit more!!

Bob A.

[Michael von Keitz]

To quote a related FIDE regulation (their Handbook needs updating...): "Entitled to participate are chess players [...] who shall not have reached the age of 10, 12, 14, 16 or 18 years, respectively, by January 1st of the year in which the tournament will commence." It should be January 1st.

[Paul Leblanc]

I recommend we add a reminder to the advertising regarding time controls to qualify the events for Regular/Standard ratings. Otherwise events will be rated as Active.

CFC Handbook Article 711. Rateable Tournaments. To be rated under the CFC "standard" rating system the time control must be at least 60 minutes per player for the game (or for 60 moves with increment).

[Fred McKim]

To quote a related FIDE regulation (their Handbook needs updating...): "Entitled to participate are chess players [...] who shall not have reached the age of 10, 12, 14, 16 or 18 years, respectively, by January 1st of the year in which the tournament will commence." It should be January 1st.

I think this is a bad translation into English from whatever the actual rule is. The use of a negative with the word by is ambiguous.

Surely those born on Jan 1 are to be treated the same as those born on Jan 2, anything else would just be silly.

I'm sure Hal could investigate this.

[Aris Marghetis]

FYI, International Master Tom O'Donnell and I (and a bunch of helpers), will be running an Ottawa CYCC Qualifier on Family Day, Monday, February 20th. The tournament will run between 9am and 5pm, and as it is a work day for many parents, it will be part of a chess day camp. Kids can stay as long as 8am to 6pm. Full details should be posted by the end of this weekend. Please note that any registrations have to be before onsite.

All the best, Aris.

[Hal Bond]

For crying out loud guys!!!

Age on Jan 1 is the cut off. Everyone knows this. Have we nothing better to do?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Hal:

This is what I have always understood.

For example, if a child was born at 12:01 AM on January 1, and turned 18 on Jan. 1 in the year of the WYCC, then they would be eligibleto play in the WYCC U 18 Open section, right? The reason would be that at 12:00 AM on Jan. 1, they were still only 17 years old.

And as I understand it, if the child was born at 12:00 AM on Jan. 1, they would be treated the same way - theoretically, at the " start " of that year, they were still 17 years old. Right?

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Hal:

This is what I have always understood.

For example, if a child was born at 12:01 AM on January 1, and turned 18 on Jan. 1 in the year of the WYCC, then they would be eligibleto play in the WYCC U 18 Open section, right? The reason would be that at 12:00 AM on Jan. 1, they were still only 17 years old.

And as I understand it, if the child was born at 12:00 AM on Jan. 1, they would be treated the same way - theoretically, at the " start " of that year, they were still 17 years old. Right?

Bob A

Just thinking about this makes my head hurt.
What Fred said makes the most sense,

"Surely those born on Jan 1 are to be treated the same as those born on Jan 2, anything else would just be silly."

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi guys, if I may suggest, here is a way that I find convenient for ages :

For the year 2012 :

[U8 born >2003, U10>2001, U12>1999, U14>1997, U16>1995, U18>1993]

[Michael Barron]

Hi guys, if I may suggest, here is a way that I find convenient for ages :

For the year 2012 :

[U8 born >2003, U10>2001, U12>1999, U14>1997, U16>1995, U18>1993]

Hi Aris,

Yes, you're right.

But I would think, a table would be more clear:

For the year 2012 :

U8 born in 2004 or later,
U10 born in 2002 or 2003,
U12 born in 2000 or 2001,
U14 born in 1998 or 1999,
U16 born in 1996 or 1997,
U18 born in 1994 or 1995.

In any case, the category is defined by the year of birth.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

For the year 2012 :

U8 born in 2004 or later,
U10 born in 2002 or 2003,
U12 born in 2000 or 2001,
U14 born in 1998 or 1999,
U16 born in 1996 or 1997,
U18 born in 1994 or 1995.

In any case, the category is defined by the year of birth.

Michael, I think the age group Uxx is not limited only by two years:
U18 born in 1994 and later (1995, 1996, 1997, ..., 2012 :)
U16 born in 1996 and later (1997, 1998, 1999, ..., 2012 :)
etc

[Michael Barron]

Michael, I think the age group Uxx is not limited only by two years:
U18 born in 1994 and later (1995, 1996, 1997, ..., 2012 :)
U16 born in 1996 and later (1997, 1998, 1999, ..., 2012 :)
etc

Egis,

This is the main point:
Normally the age group IS limited by two years.
There could be exceptions, but every such exception should be approved by the organizers.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Egis,

This is the main point:
Normally the age group IS limited by two years.
There could be exceptions, but every such exception should be approved by the organizers.

Players choose the appropriate sections. There is no rule that younger, let say 11 year old, can not compete in U16 or U14.

[Michael Barron]

Players choose the appropriate sections...

Sorry, Egis, but in reality a player's choice is not sufficient - organizer's approval is required.
It's a small difference, but important one - to avoid possible negative feeling, if a younger player won't be allowed to compete in older section.

It's a similar issue if 1700-rated player chooses to compete in U2200 section, when U1800 section is available.
Some organizers allow that without questions, others require additional fee, some don't allow that even for a fee.
In all cases an agreement between a player and an organizer is required.

[Bob Armstrong]

Sorry, Egis, but in reality a player's choice is not sufficient - organizer's approval is required.


Hi Michael:

If what you say is true, is it not also true that the organizer must from the first advertising of the tournament, publicize the rule he is using for his tournament, so all know in advance? Surely he cannot exercise just arbitrary discretion in each individual case.

Also, I have some concern that if what you say is right, CFC should not accept bids that don't allow playing up age groups. I think we want the best to win the group sections, regardless of age.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

I think we want the best to win the group sections, regardless of age.

Bob A

Hold your horses Bob. On the surface, that sounds obvious, but think it thru.

Say some hot shot 7 year old decides to play in the U10 section instead of U8, and he wins 1st, what happens? Remember, we are also picking our champions for the WYCC. Does he then go to WYCC as our U10 champion, or can he then switch back to our U8 champion at WYCC? What about the poor kid who did win the U8 at CYCC? And what about the 2nd place kid U10 at CYCC? Not so simple anymore, eh. I think we should discourage, if not outright ban, playing up an age category at the CYCC!

Do we have any history of kids playing up an age group at the CYCC? What were the ground rules, and where there any unintended consequences or problems?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

Sorry but I don't see any problem with a 7 year old being Canadian U 10 Open Champion, if he is the " best " U 10. But you are right that he then must play for Canada in the WYCC U 10 Open - when he chooses his age group initially, he must stay there. Thus all your " straw man " problems just don't arise.

I don't know about the Canadian history, but I think it is done in the USA YCC.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

But you are right that he then must play for Canada in the WYCC U 10 Open - when he chooses his age group initially, he must stay there.
Bob A

Ah yes, but there is the problem. The competition is much stronger at the WYCC, so inevitably the kid will regret his/her decision and wish to switch back to their proper age group. And when we say no, well....I'm just saying.

[Bob Armstrong]

Ah yes, but there is the problem. The competition is much stronger at the WYCC, so inevitably the kid will regret his/her decision and wish to switch back to their proper age group. And when we say no, well....I'm just saying.

Hi Bob G:

I acknowledge that as a real, possible, practical problem. But don/t we do what is right, and hunker down in the storm? We ask firmly that people play by the rules.

Bob A

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Do we have any history of kids playing up an age group at the CYCC? What were the ground rules, and where there any unintended consequences or problems?

The Magazine publishes ratings limiting only to two years in U categories, even U20 (Juniors) where no age restrictions exists just to be younger than 20.

From the latest:


U18
1 Sapozhnikov, Roman 17 ON 2501
2 Martchenko, Alexander 18 ON 2412
3 Kleinman, Michael 17 ON 2408
4 Calugar, Arthur 17 ON 2377
5 Yuan, Yuanling 17 ON 2328
6 Gelis, Paul 18 ON 2251


U16
1 Qin, Zi Yi (Joey) 15 ON 2339

[Kerry Liles]

Hi Bob G:

Sorry but I don't see any problem with a 7 year old being Canadian U 10 Open Champion, if he is the " best " U 10. But you are right that he then must play for Canada in the WYCC U 10 Open - when he chooses his age group initially, he must stay there. Thus all your " straw man " problems just don't arise.

I don't know about the Canadian history, but I think it is done in the USA YCC.

Bob A

Makes one wonder why it is called under 10 then, doesn't it? Perhaps it should have been called [9-10]...

I think Bob G. points out some potential pitfalls elsewhere in this thread (and they are not theoretical problems given the recent kerfuffles we have seen when the 'rules' were enforced).

Unless the wording is precise and the rules very clear (including all eventualities that can be reasonably seen), people will work to find a way to do what they want. Sadly, this leads to multi-page 'rules and regulations' containing every scenario under the sun pre-determined with the usual catch-all at the end saying that the organizer reserves the right to do whatever they feel like doing...

[Mikhail Egorov]

And when we say no, well....I'm just saying.

It has being done before here, so it’s should not be rocket science anymore! :D




But don/t we do what is right, and hunker down in the storm?


Thinking what you think is right and what is actually right are two totally different things!



We ask firmly that people play by the rules.
Bob A

Yes, we seen that work flawlessly in the past and recent case, with great effect.


I think Bob G. points out some potential pitfalls elsewhere in this thread

I agree with you Kerry on this point, that there are a lot of pitfalls in this thread, that also highlights pitfalls in the past.


For crying out loud guys!!! Have we nothing better to do?

Even Hal stepped in to express his thoughts regarding this thread. :D

This thread is turning into a real circus. Should be interesting how it will unfold, along with very intense 2016 Olympic drive push!

[Fred McKim]

Hold your horses Bob. On the surface, that sounds obvious, but think it thru.

Say some hot shot 7 year old decides to play in the U10 section instead of U8, and he wins 1st, what happens? Remember, we are also picking our champions for the WYCC. Does he then go to WYCC as our U10 champion, or can he then switch back to our U8 champion at WYCC? What about the poor kid who did win the U8 at CYCC? And what about the 2nd place kid U10 at CYCC? Not so simple anymore, eh. I think we should discourage, if not outright ban, playing up an age category at the CYCC!

Do we have any history of kids playing up an age group at the CYCC? What were the ground rules, and where there any unintended consequences or problems?

Things may have changed in 10 years, but the rule was strict that players in the CYCC had to play in their own age group. Exceptions could be granted, but I'm not sure if there ever were any cases.

[Bob Armstrong]

Under a system prohibiting playing up, if junior George is 7 years old, and a GM with a rating of 2700, he must play in the U 8 Open, with opponents rated in the 1300’s. He cannot play in the U 18 Open, with the cream of Canada’s youth players, some of whom are IM’s.

Not good IMHO.

I agree with Fred that an " exception " committee is one way to go. If a child wants to play up, they make an application to someone, who in their wise discretion decides on a case by case basis. This is the least favourable option in my mind. Arbitrariness will be the charge of the day.

Best to give kids the freedom to choose! Why not? I agree there should be a limit to playing up - cannot be more than 100 pts. below the bottom ranked player when registrations close. And if the child, George, plays in the U 10 Open CYCC, and becomes champion, then he gets to go to the WYCC and play for Canada - in the U 10 Open.

If he then, however, wants to go back to the U 8 Open WYCC, fine - but he loses his U 10 bursary, which then devolves to the second place player. And George cannot displace the U 8 Open CYCC champion if he decides to play in the U 8 WYCC. He pays his own way, and the U 8 Open Can. Champion has a protected bursary.

Bob A

[Fred McKim]

There have been years where an older group actually is not as strong at the top as the next lower age group. It was felt that there would be too much strategizing and last minute entering by some players if they could play out of their age group.

[Ken Craft]

A player should be permitted to play in any section for which they are young enough to play in. Anything else is rampant discrimination.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I agree that juniors should have full freedom of choice - almost. If they are good, and want to play up a section, or more than one, to play their peers for the championship, they should be free to do that. The only limitation I would have, is that a player playing up cannot be more than 100 points lower than the lowest-rated player in the section. Parents push children, and we cannot have them placed in upper sections inappropriate to their rating ( no matter how much the parent argues their wonderkind is " underrated " ).

The big fear in doing this appears to be that an under-age player, George, 7 years old, will win the U 10 years old Open section. Then when the WYCC comes up, and the world competitors are much stronger than the equivalent Canadian peers, George ( more likely his parents ) will get cold feet, and want to be the " official Can. Rep. " in the U 8 Open WYCC! Problems......

I say we make the rules clear, and known, and then people choose.

I have no problem with George exercising his freedom to chose to play wherever-the-hell he wants to. BUT if he won the U 10 Open CYCC bursary, then that’s where it HAS to be used! If he plays in the U 10 WYCC, he gets the bursary to help defray costs, and gets the free room and board from the organizer, as the “ official “ Canadian rep.

But if he chooses to play in the WYCC U 8 Open, he is free to do it, but loses the bursary, which will then devolve to the second place CYCC U 10 Open finisher. And he will no longer be an “ official “ Canadian Rep., getting free room & board. There is an U 8 Open CYCC Champion who has already won that position/bursary.

George is simply an “ extra “ player, paying his own way throughout in the WYCC U 8 Open section he chose.

I don't particularly see any problem with this. And if George's parents object, tell them all must follow the rules! You knew them when you chose – and now you’re stuck with your decision. And you can sic the devil himself on the CFC to try to get the decision changed, and we will “ not be moved “! Our resolve will be strong in the face of the evil wind! We are right, and will hunker down and weather the storm, and come out stronger on the other side for it.

And it gives the juniors almost total freedom to play in the CYCC where they feel most confident and comfortable.

Why not??

Bob A

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

This can be simply and easily solved with a Motion (or Motions) just to clarify rules. Imho, it is time to stop this slight off-topic (three pages already were devoted) and move to Qualifiers.

One more was publicized at chesstalk ( http://chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=6217 ) - Toronto Qualifiers for 2012 CYCC, Monday, Febuary 20, Family Day.

Does the CFC give any special treatment for website/newsletters spaces for these events?

[Bob Armstrong]

This can be simply and easily solved with a Motion (or Motions) just to clarify rules.

Hi Egis:

I am willing to bring a motion to implement my " CYCC Playing-Up Rules " I have set out here, to the 2012 Spring Meeting ( April ).

But first I would like more public input to see if I have consensus on my position. There are those who are dead against allowing any playing-up - I'd like to know the extent of the opposition.

Bob A

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

There are those who are dead against allowing any playing-up - I'd like to know the extent of the opposition.

The motion can clarify who can play in sections with several options:

everybody who is younger (imho, this should be);
only two years;
only two years + a special Execs decision for a younger player (seems this is practiced).

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Egis:

I am willing to bring a motion to implement my " CYCC Playing-Up Rules " I have set out here, to the 2012 Spring Meeting ( April ).

But first I would like more public input to see if I have consensus on my position. There are those who are dead against allowing any playing-up - I'd like to know the extent of the opposition.

Bob A
Hi Bob, I am respectfully "dead against allowing any playing-up". I have to run to play chess now, so we can chat tomorrow or something. But until anything is changed, when we run the CYCC Qualifiers this year, is playing up allowed or not? Thanks in advance.

[Michael Barron]

Hi Bob, I am respectfully "dead against allowing any playing-up". I have to run to play chess now, so we can chat tomorrow or something. But until anything is changed, when we run the CYCC Qualifiers this year, is playing up allowed or not? Thanks in advance.

Aris,

Fred is correct:
the rule was strict that players in the CYCC had to play in their own age group. Of course, exceptions could be granted, but such exceptions should be considered on case by case basis on organizer's discretion.

The case in point:
Why Canada didn't have a representative in U18 Open section at 2010 WYCC?
I know for sure that we have registered one of younger players for this section.
Why he wasn't admitted? :confused:

Maybe you, Aris, could shed some light at what actually happened in Greece?

[Aris Marghetis]

Aris,

Fred is correct:
the rule was strict that players in the CYCC had to play in their own age group. Of course, exceptions could be granted, but such exceptions should be considered on case by case basis on organizer's discretion.

The case in point:
Why Canada didn't have a representative in U18 Open section at 2010 WYCC?
I know for sure that we have registered one of younger players for this section.
Why he wasn't admitted? :confused:

Maybe you, Aris, could shed some light at what actually happened in Greece?
So, to confirm this, for the upcoming CYCC Qualifiers, players must play within their 2-year age group? I would agree with that, but will enforce whatever the rule actually is.

Re the 2010 WYCC in Greece, sorry, but I have no awareness of what you are talking about. I was the main arbiter in the U18 Open section, independent of being Canadian.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Aris,
Why Canada didn't have a representative in U18 Open section at 2010 WYCC?
I know for sure that we have registered one of younger players for this section.
Why he wasn't admitted? :confused:


I'm not sure how it is related to the topic but the case was very simple - Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16.
So, we found no reason to register one of them in U18.

[Ken Craft]

I wonder if restricting someone from playing in an under 18 chess section when they are any age under 18 would withstand legal challenge?

[Michael Barron]

So, to confirm this, for the upcoming CYCC Qualifiers, players must play within their 2-year age group?

The short answer is - yes. :)

[Michael Barron]

I'm not sure how it is related to the topic but the case was very simple - Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16.
So, we found no reason to register one of them in U18.

Vlad,

I prepared registration documents myself, so, I know first-hand that a younger player was registered to represent Canada in U18 Open section.

The question is:
Why the registration was changed?
Why Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16?
Did you ask them?

My impression is that international organizers encourage young players to play within their age groups.
If so, we should do the same on the local level, including CYCC qualifiers.

[Bob Armstrong]

I think it is most important, BEFORE the upcoming CYCC Qualifiers are held, that the CFC issue a statement to the public, giving notice of the current CFC policy on " Playing-Up at the CYCC/CYCC Qualifiers ". Parents must know clearly what they can and cannot do. So must organizers. We cannot let an inconsistent mish-mash of tournaments spring up around this issue.

Also, that will then allow me to determine what, if any, motion might be brought forward to amend the policy, and allow playing up under certain circumstances.

Bob A

P.S. I have heard personally and directly from some CYCC parents who want playing-up allowed under certain conditions.

[Aris Marghetis]

I think it is most important, BEFORE the upcoming CYCC Qualifiers are held, that the CFC issue a statement to the public, giving notice of the current CFC policy on " Playing-Up at the CYCC/CYCC Qualifiers ". Parents must know clearly what they can and cannot do. So must organizers. We cannot let an inconsistent mish-mash of tournaments spring up around this issue.

Bob A
It seems that the current rule is no playing up, which I will simply consistently enforce.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Vlad,

I prepared registration documents myself, so, I know first-hand that a younger player was registered to represent Canada in U18 Open section.

The question is:
Why the registration was changed?
Why Greeks allowed us to have 2 official players in U16?
Did you ask them?

My impression is that international organizers encourage young players to play within their age groups.
If so, we should do the same on the local level, including CYCC qualifiers.

Sorry Michael, I did not get your point at first. Yes, you've registered Jerry Xiong to be our official rep in U18 since there was nobody else in this category. Upon arrival, he was given a choice to play in U16 or U18. Obviously, he chose U16. And for organizers the cost of U16 and U18 player is the same.

I think, the issue is made much more complicated than it should be. In my opinion, if someone wants to play up in age category, it is, definitely, has to be allowed. At the same time, player and parents should be aware that in case of winning, he/she cannot claim to be official rep in lower age category. Sounds quite simple to me.

Going to WYCC is big and respectable goal but it is not everything. If player/parent/coach thinks it is beneficial for the player's development to compete with stronger opposition in CYCC, then we maybe can advise and explain the consequences but we cannot forbid this.

[Aris Marghetis]

Sorry Michael, I did not get your point at first. Yes, you've registered Jerry Xiong to be our official rep in U18 since there was nobody else in this category. Upon arrival, he was given a choice to play in U16 or U18. Obviously, he chose U16. And for organizers the cost of U16 and U18 player is the same.

I think, the issue is made much more complicated than it should be. In my opinion, if someone wants to play up in age category, it is, definitely, has to be allowed. At the same time, player and parents should be aware that in case of winning, he/she cannot claim to be official rep in lower age category. Sounds quite simple to me.

Going to WYCC is big and respectable goal but it is not everything. If player/parent/coach thinks it is beneficial for the player's development to compete with stronger opposition in CYCC, then we maybe can advise and explain the consequences but we cannot forbid this.
Hi Vladimir, I understand where you are coming from, and respect your position. If I may suggest though, here is another point to consider, which can be called "the development needs of the many". In a nutshell, in my experience, and your mileage may vary, the majority of play-ups are not strong enough to reasonably do so. There are of course exceptions, but my anecdotal experience is that when one player "potentially" benefits from playing up, all his/her opponents in the higher section "waste away" playing down.

This does not bother me for any other "regular" tournament, and I believe it is fair to allow each Organizer to do as he/she deems. I used to allow unlimited playing up, until one family insisted that their very young 1100 son had to play with IMs and GMs. All 5 of his opponents just hated 20% (1/5) of their games. Then I limited playing up to one section up, and over the course of half-a-dozen tournaments, the results were similar. The person playing up would get creamed, and his opponents would be frustrated and bored. Therefore, to actually increase registrations amongst more higher-rated players, I have settled on not allowing anyone to play up. However, this conclusion is just my personal experience and opinion, and many Organizers have different policies. To my mind, such differences are completely acceptable for any of our "regular" tournaments.

However, again in my humble opinion, the CYCC Qualifiers and the CYCC itself, are not just "regular" tournaments. They are intended to determine Canada's best hopes, and they should be intended as one of the best development opportunities. To my mind, let's say a player plays 2 rounds out of 7 against unnecessarily (playing up) weak opposition, that represents lost development opportunity. I am open to thinking about this, but I am having a tough time accepting the interests of one player at the expense of 7, 9, etc.

If it is just a nomenclature issue, then I would support a motion that just changes U18 to 17-16, and so on. It seems that the WYCC, FIDE, etc., are thinking that implicitly.

Best regards.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

I agree totally with you that unrestricted ' playing-up " is detrimental to both the elite player and the " player- upper ".

To deal with this, while allowing reasonable playing-up ( which respects the child's freedom to choose ), I have proposed in my post above ( modified ):

" The only limitation is that a player playing-up cannot be lower-rated than the lowest-rated player who is in the appropriate age section at the time of close of registrations. "

Parents push children, and we cannot have them placed in upper sections inappropriate to their rating ( no matter how much the parent argues their wonderkind is " underrated " ). Also, each section has low-rated players, and if a child is no lower than the lowest, there is no detriment to the elite players, because they have to play other section players already at the lower rating level.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Bob A., with all due respect, your restriction is way too weak.
You want to allow choice, and you give the hypothetical case of some superstar GM 2700 wanting to play up in age to support your position. Now you offer a restriction that is laughably weak. I am still in favour of not allowing any playing up, but I guess I could live with some flexibility for extraordinary cases. So perhaps allowing the kid to play up if they are the highest rated player or at least equal to the average in the higher aged category.

I get the impression that most organizers experienced in youth chess prefer the kids stay in their own age category. Maybe we should listen to experience here.

I am talking about only the CYCC here, the CYCC qualifiers are a different animal. I see no need for restrictions in the qualifiers.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

1. I do respect the opinions of organizers, given their foundation on lots of experience. But they can be wrong - for example when they say the rule should be " no playing-up ".

2. I do want playing-up:

a) there will always be some exceptional juniors for whom peer competition will only be available in upper age brackets;
b) there must be some recognition of the junior's freedom to choose, and so the restriction should not be so severe that juniors who deserve to be allowed to play-up, can't.

3. I don't want the mechanism to be a CFC " Exceptions " Committee. This is fraught with danger for the CFC. No one will acknowledge the series of decisions to be " consistent and fair ", regardless of the extent the Committee is able to achieve this.

4. My proposed restriction was :

" The only limitation is that a player playing-up cannot be lower-rated than the lowest-rated player who is in the appropriate age section at the time of close of registrations. "

I agree now that it is likely too weak. A significant influx of juniors at the bottom level playing-up, too negatively affects the quality of the competition.

5. How about a restriction that said:

" Playing-Up is allowed where the under-age junior has a rating equal to or above, the fifth ranked player actually in the age section, at the close of registrations ".

Too weak? Too severe?

6. There will be no playing-up restriction in CYCC Qualifiers.

Bob A.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Aris, you making excellent points.


... when one player "potentially" benefits from playing up, all his/her opponents in the higher section "waste away" playing down.
Although it sounds very obvious, I wonder if there are many people so unselfish to think this way.


However, again in my humble opinion, the CYCC Qualifiers and the CYCC itself, are not just "regular" tournaments.
Completely agree. And that's why I don't see anyone willing to play up without having really good reason. I think, there are 2 type of kids coming to CYCC: first one is just to enjoy, and second type to win trophies and WYCC trip. For both types it doesn't really make sense asking to play up if they are not clearly ahead of their own age.


If it is just a nomenclature issue, then I would support a motion that just changes U18 to 17-16, and so on. It seems that the WYCC, FIDE, etc., are thinking that implicitly.
I'm quite sure if Jerry Xiong would choose to play in U18, organizers wouldn't have any issue with this.

[Aris Marghetis]

Hello Bob A., I could just kick myself for getting into this with you, but here we go! ;)



1. I do respect the opinions of organizers, given their foundation on lots of experience. But they can be wrong - for example when they say the rule should be " no playing-up ".
I find your conclusion that Organizers are "wrong" to be disrespectful. Surely this would work out better if you convinced the majority of Organizers to voluntarily see your way?



2. I do want playing-up:
Point heard, but maybe the priority should be on what is best for our youth programs, as opposed to what people like you (or I) "want". Convince me your ideas will be good for the kids, without adding too much overhead to the Organizers, and I would be happy to agree.



3. I don't want the mechanism to be a CFC " Exceptions " Committee. This is fraught with danger for the CFC. No one will acknowledge the series of decisions to be " consistent and fair ", regardless of the extent the Committee is able to achieve this.
4. My proposed restriction was :
" The only limitation is that a player playing-up cannot be lower-rated than the lowest-rated player who is in the appropriate age section at the time of close of registrations. "
I agree now that it is likely too weak. A significant influx of juniors at the bottom level playing-up, too negatively affects the quality of the competition.
5. How about a restriction that said:
" Playing-Up is allowed where the under-age junior has a rating equal to or above, the fifth ranked player actually in the age section, at the close of registrations ".
Too weak? Too severe?
The logistics of this are not as easy as you might think. For example, the Organizer might not be able to set his sections until the last minute. This could be significant because some decisions involve which age groups to bundle, or not, locking in round-robins, or not, etc. You could even have the headache of a player waiting to decide whether to play up or not, based on whether someone else from his/her age group already decided to play up or not. Heck, there are so many possible permutations here, and people will indeed find them, lol! And for what, just to make a "legal" point? I say just rename the sections, 17-16, etc.



6. There will be no playing-up restriction in CYCC Qualifiers.
You have got to be kidding here! Why wouldn't we absolutely insist on the same rules?!

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

So perhaps allowing the kid to play up if they are the highest rated player or at least equal to the average in the higher aged category.
...
I am talking about only the CYCC here, the CYCC qualifiers are a different animal.

If a kid enters the Up age group in the Qualifier, and he qualifies (first three places), I don't see a problem that he would play in that UP group in the CYCC.

[Bob Gillanders]

If a kid enters the Up age group in the Qualifier, and he qualifies (first three places), I don't see a problem that he would play in that UP group in the CYCC.

The qualifiers and CYCC itself are completely different animals and as such this logic does not follow. I am going to go back and comment on Aris's last post, which will be relevant here.

[Bob Gillanders]

You have got to be kidding here! Why wouldn't we absolutely insist on the same rules?!

The CYCC qualifiers and the CYCC itself have different goals and objectives, so they don't necessarily need to have the same rules. Playing up in the CYCC causes problems because it leads into who represents Canada at the WYCC, who gets the money, etc.etc.

The objective of the CYCC qualifiers is simply to ensure kids entering the CYCC have the basic skills and tournament experience so that they don't embarrass themselves at the "big show". We don't really want to restrict anyone, the more the merrier. Also, some smaller qualifiers will need to combine sections, so playing up is not such an issue.

Also, at some qualifiers, 50% score qualifies you for CYCC, at some others, it is 1st, 2nd, 3rd winners. A lot is left to the discretion of the provincial youth coordinators. Every organizer running a CYCC qualifier should have a discussion with their provincial youth coordinator beforehand, as to how many kids they can qualify. It may also depend on how many kids enter the qualifier, and how sections maybe combined.

This may all sound ridiculously confusing, but it really isn't. If everyone just keeps the objectives in mind, and use good judgement and some common sense.

[Aris Marghetis]

The CYCC qualifiers and the CYCC itself have different goals and objectives, so they don't necessarily need to have the same rules. Playing up in the CYCC causes problems because it leads into who represents Canada at the WYCC, who gets the money, etc.etc.

The objective of the CYCC qualifiers is simply to ensure kids entering the CYCC have the basic skills and tournament experience so that they don't embarrass themselves at the "big show". We don't really want to restrict anyone, the more the merrier. Also, some smaller qualifiers will need to combine sections, so playing up is not such an issue.

Also, at some qualifiers, 50% score qualifies you for CYCC, at some others, it is 1st, 2nd, 3rd winners. A lot is left to the discretion of the provincial youth coordinators. Every organizer running a CYCC qualifier should have a discussion with their provincial youth coordinator beforehand, as to how many kids they can qualify. It may also depend on how many kids enter the qualifier, and how sections maybe combined.

This may all sound ridiculously confusing, but it really isn't. If everyone just keeps the objectives in mind, and use good judgement and some common sense.
OK, I can see your point, even though I would still prefer the rules between the CYCC Qualifiers and the CYCC (the WYCC Qualifier, lol) to be the same. Regardless, it then seems to me that your are allowing the CYCC Qualifiers Organizers to set their policies?

More specifically, who determines if playing up is permitted in an Ontario CYCC Qualifier? So far, someone said no playing up at all, by rule, but is that for sure for 2012? Or are those decisions to be made by a CYCC leader, an OYCC leader, or each event Organizer?

Thanks and regards.

[Bob Gillanders]

OK, I can see your point, even though I would still prefer the rules between the CYCC Qualifiers and the CYCC (the WYCC Qualifier, lol) to be the same. Regardless, it then seems to me that your are allowing the CYCC Qualifiers Organizers to set their policies?

More specifically, who determines if playing up is permitted in an Ontario CYCC Qualifier? So far, someone said no playing up at all, by rule, but is that for sure for 2012? Or are those decisions to be made by a CYCC leader, an OYCC leader, or each event Organizer?

Thanks and regards.

As you know, we introduced the qualifier system just last year, and it is fair to say we are still developing the rules, standards, and practices. I don't recall the issue of playing up ever coming up last year, so we are in new territory here. For 90% of the qualifiers, I would say "no playing up" is the order of the day, but I certainly believe local organizers should hold some discretionary power here. Unforeseen circumstances are always possible and flexibility is needed. Finally, we want the provincial youth coordinators to be actively involved in the process. We are looking to them to approve the qualification process, so keep them consulted.

[Bob Armstrong]

The CYCC qualifiers and the CYCC itself have different goals and objectives, so they don't necessarily need to have the same rules. Playing up in the CYCC causes problems because it leads into who represents Canada at the WYCC, who gets the money, etc.etc.

The objective of the CYCC qualifiers is simply to ensure kids entering the CYCC have the basic skills and tournament experience so that they don't embarrass themselves at the "big show". We don't really want to restrict anyone, the more the merrier. Also, some smaller qualifiers will need to combine sections, so playing up is not such an issue.

The current section of the CFC Handbook concerning playing up at the CYCC is:

Section 10 - Invitational Youth Championships: Junior, Cadet [ BA - obviously a housekeeping motion to update this section title is required ]

1008. Entries:

....................

{Motion Bunning/Taylor in 2002-3 GL1 From AGM}:
The Executive may allow exceptional players to move up to a higher age group.

In the light of all the previous discussion, who thinks this section requires amendment?

Bob A

[Pierre Dénommée]

At the international level, there is a significant difference in playing strength between the age groups. A 10 years old that could win the Canadian U16 championship would likely finish last at the World level. FIDE want to splits the World Youth into multiple tournaments. The current FIDE handbook list the U20, U18 and U16 separately and the lower categories are grouped together but on the FIDE Calendar, there is still only one Youth Word Championship for the next three years. If the split becomes reality. it would be possible for a player to play in more then one category.

[Andrei Botez]

Playing up in the CYCC causes problems because it leads into who represents Canada at the WYCC....

This was done before, if you want you can check Efroimski Marsel database. She is born in 1995 and she played in U18 in WYCC2010

http://ratings.fide.com/individual_calculations.phtml?idnumber=2810964&rating_period=2011-01-01

[Valer Eugen Demian]

I think players should be strongly encourage to play within their age group at all times and at all national levels including CYCC. If there are special circumstances when playing up is desired, those should be treated on a case by case basis.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Valer:

We seem to disgree on this one.

I am going to propose a motion that will give the top juniors the option to play up. I think it is a matter of freedom of choice for up and coming juniors.

So : play up ? Yes ; Restricted ? Yes.

I hope to post the motion for public input this week.

Bob

[Aris Marghetis]

Hi Valer:

We seem to disgree on this one.

I am going to propose a motion that will give the top juniors the option to play up. I think it is a matter of freedom of choice for up and coming juniors.

So : play up ? Yes ; Restricted ? Yes.

I hope to post the motion for public input this week.

Bob
Hi Bob, at this time, I respectfully submit here that such motions for things that really almost never happen are neither worth the planning effort, nor the implementation effort. Both of these will fall on the shoulders of those Organizers who feel the same way. In fact, it seems there are at least some of us who believe that CYCC playing up can have negative side effects. I hope that we retain the current no playing up rules.

Thanks and regards, Aris.

[Andrei Botez]

I hope that we retain the current no playing up rules.



If FIDE allowed players to play up during WYCC, I believe that we suppose to follow the same rule even if we disagree.
I can give you at least one good reson why that might be a good idea. Look at U18 section in CYCC 2006, it was a mix section Open/Girls, there were stronger girls in U16/14/12/10

[Aris Marghetis]

If FIDE allowed players to play up during WYCC, I believe that we suppose to follow the same rule even if we disagree.
I can give you at least one good reson why that might be a good idea. Look at U18 section in CYCC 2006, it was a mix section Open/Girls, there were stronger girls in U16/14/12/10
But I thought that FIDE did not allow playing up during the WYCC. That would change my position. Does someone know definitively? I suggest we proceed from that point.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Aris:

I have been told that Magnus Carlsen as a junior played up at a WYCC ( haven't researched this myself though ).

Bob A

[Ken Craft]

The phrase "playing up" is problematic. We are talking about a player playing in a section that they are young enough to play in. The sections are called under X for a reason. That some want to interpret x as no greater than x-2 is the issue.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Good point.

Bob A

[Aris Marghetis]

If I may suggest, we need to take a step back, and fix this thoroughly. First of all, from the posts I am seeing here, and various private emails I am receiving, there seem to be conflicting views on whether YCC "playing up" (for lack of a better term) is allowed or not. I will happily respect and follow whatever the current rule actually is, not what anyone thinks it should be (until of course the rule gets changed, etc). We also need to take precaution to provide the definitive reply, as it applies to each different YCC level :

1) WYCC (just for my curiosity at this point) : is playing up allowed?

2) CYCC :
a) is playing up allowed?
b) specifically, what are the qualification rules from CYCC Qualifiers, vis-a-vis playing up?

3) provincial YCC :
a) is playing up allowed?
b) specifically, what are the qualification rules to get to the CYCC, vis-a-vis playing up?

4) CYCC Qualifiers :
a) is playing up allowed, or can the Organizer decide?
b) specifically, what are the qualification rules to get to the CYCC, vis-a-vis playing up?

Please reply with the answers you know for sure, so that at least we can all try to be as consistent as possible during the upcoming CYCC Qualifier "season". Then, if we are indeed leaning towards changing any of the rules regarding Canadian YCC events, then it might be prudent to try and implement changes between CYCC seasons, say Autumn.

Thanks and regards, CYCC Qualifier Organizer.

[Patrick McDonald]

I am willing to state the rule that I will apply until over-ruled by some authority:

If someone wants to play in an age category older than the one they qualify for, they can do so.

BUT: if they win a spot in a certain age category to play at the WYCC, that is the age category that we are willing to send them to the WYCC in.

IE: if one player who is 9 years old, wishes to play in the U14 section at the CYCC, and if they win a spot to go to the WYCC, the only age category that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the U14 section.

The same would go for girls that would like to play in the open section for their age group (or older) ... if a girl plays in the open section and wins a spot to go to the WYCC, then the only section that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the section that they qualified in at the CYCC.

Oh, and BTW: the age categories are by Year of Birth. we will not consider someone being born on December 31 as a different section as someone born on December 30 just as we will not consider someone born on January 1 as a different section as someone born on January 2.
We do not need to consider the month nor day of birth, only the YEAR of birth. That should make it simple for everyone.

[Mark S. Dutton, I.A.]

But I thought that FIDE did not allow playing up during the WYCC. That would change my position. Does someone know definitively? I suggest we proceed from that point.

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=110&view=article

D.VI.04. World Youth (Girls) -10,12,14 Championships

D.VI.04. World Youth (Girls) -8,10,12,14 Championships

Regulations for the World Youth (Girls)-8, 10, 12, 14 Championships.
Approved by the 1988 General Assembly and amended by the 1989, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997 and 1998 General Assemblies.

Frequency
1.

The World Youth Chess Festival for Peace shall be organized annually under the aegis of FIDE and endorsed by the United Nations by a federation entrusted with the task by the General Assembly at least one year in advance. (GA `94)The Festival shall include as separate competitions:

the World Boys-8, 10, 12, 14 Championships, and the World Girls-8, 10, 12, 14 Championships.

In the following "he, him, etc." stand for "she, her, etc." as appropriate.

Participation
2.

The participant must not have reached his 10th, 12th, or 14th birthday, respectively, on January 1st of the year in which the tournament is held. For example, each participant in the Boys (Girls)-14 competition of 1989, must be born before 1.1.75.
3.

(GA `93) The players placed 1-3 in a previous World Youth Championship, and the champions of Continental Boys (Girls)-8, 10, 12 and 14 championships, shall have the personal right to participate in the World Youth Championship of the corresponding age-category or a higher age-category if the stipulation of Art. 2 is met. This privilege may be exercised once exclusively in the subsequent year following the year of qualification.
4.

In addition to the players mentioned in Art. 3, each FIDE member-federation shall have the right to send one representative to each Championship. The organizing federation shall have a second place in each Championship, and shall hold a substitute player in each tournament to complete the required number of participants. Girls may take the place of boys, so a federation may be represented by a girl in the boy`s section and a girl in the girl`s section.

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=110&view=article

[Michael Barron]

If I may suggest, we need to take a step back, and fix this thoroughly. First of all, from the posts I am seeing here, and various private emails I am receiving, there seem to be conflicting views on whether YCC "playing up" (for lack of a better term) is allowed or not. I will happily respect and follow whatever the current rule actually is, not what anyone thinks it should be (until of course the rule gets changed, etc). We also need to take precaution to provide the definitive reply, as it applies to each different YCC level :

1) WYCC (just for my curiosity at this point) : is playing up allowed?

2) CYCC :
a) is playing up allowed?
b) specifically, what are the qualification rules from CYCC Qualifiers, vis-a-vis playing up?

3) provincial YCC :
a) is playing up allowed?
b) specifically, what are the qualification rules to get to the CYCC, vis-a-vis playing up?

4) CYCC Qualifiers :
a) is playing up allowed, or can the Organizer decide?
b) specifically, what are the qualification rules to get to the CYCC, vis-a-vis playing up?

Please reply with the answers you know for sure, so that at least we can all try to be as consistent as possible during the upcoming CYCC Qualifier "season". Then, if we are indeed leaning towards changing any of the rules regarding Canadian YCC events, then it might be prudent to try and implement changes between CYCC seasons, say Autumn.

Thanks and regards, CYCC Qualifier Organizer.

Aris,

I think, nobody is know for sure - that's why we have this discussion.
In such circumstances, the decision of Youth Coordinator is final - please see his post:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?p=16579#poststop

If somebody disagrees with the decision of Youth Coordinator, he should submit a Motion to set a different rule.

If you want to know my opinion, I agree with Valer:
players should be strongly encouraged to play within their age group at all times and at all levels including CYCC and CYCC qualifiers. If there are special circumstances when playing up is desired, those should be treated on a case by case basis.

[Aris Marghetis]

Aris,

I think, nobody is know for sure - that's why we have this discussion.
In such circumstances, the decision of Youth Coordinator is final - please see his post:
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/showthread.php?p=16579#poststop

If somebody disagrees with the decision of Youth Coordinator, he should submit a Motion to set a different rule.

If you want to know my opinion, I agree with Valer:
players should be strongly encouraged to play within their age group at all times and at all levels including CYCC and CYCC qualifiers. If there are special circumstances when playing up is desired, those should be treated on a case by case basis.
But that post does not cover all of my questions. It is very possible he didn't see my list.

[Andrei Botez]

http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=110&view=article

D.VI.04. World Youth (Girls) -10,12,14 Championships

D.VI.04. World Youth (Girls) -8,10,12,14 Championships

[...](GA `93) The players placed 1-3 in a previous World Youth Championship, and the champions of Continental Boys (Girls)-8, 10, 12 and 14 championships, shall have the personal right to participate in the World Youth Championship of the corresponding age-category or a higher age-category if the stipulation of Art. 2 is met. This privilege may be exercised once exclusively in the subsequent year following the year of qualification.
4.
[/URL]

The player that I mentioned was WC in U16G in previous year, so the following year (still being U16G) she played in U18G section.

Thanks Mark for clarifying this.

[Michael Barron]

But that post does not cover all of my questions. It is very possible he didn't see my list.

Well, Aris, what could I say?

If I were Youth Coordinator, I would answer all your questions... ;)

[Aris Marghetis]

I am willing to state the rule that I will apply until over-ruled by some authority:

If someone wants to play in an age category older than the one they qualify for, they can do so.

BUT: if they win a spot in a certain age category to play at the WYCC, that is the age category that we are willing to send them to the WYCC in.

IE: if one player who is 9 years old, wishes to play in the U14 section at the CYCC, and if they win a spot to go to the WYCC, the only age category that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the U14 section.

The same would go for girls that would like to play in the open section for their age group (or older) ... if a girl plays in the open section and wins a spot to go to the WYCC, then the only section that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the section that they qualified in at the CYCC.

Oh, and BTW: the age categories are by Year of Birth. we will not consider someone being born on December 31 as a different section as someone born on December 30 just as we will not consider someone born on January 1 as a different section as someone born on January 2.
We do not need to consider the month nor day of birth, only the YEAR of birth. That should make it simple for everyone.
Hi Patrick, thanks for this, and would you be willing to reply to the more specific post :

**** Aris Marghetis "If I may suggest, we need to..." 02-13-2012, 09:48 PM.

My CYCC Qualifier is this Monday, and I would prefer to be as prepared as possible.
If there is no further direction at this time, I will apply my alleged "common sense" ;)

Thanks again, and best regards.