PDA

View Full Version : 6. Officer and Committee Reports



Vladimir Drkulec
04-06-2014, 01:09 PM
This is reserved for officer and committee Reports

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2014, 04:57 PM
14/4/6

Public Relations Coordinator Report (PRC - Non-Executive Officer) - Bob Armstrong

Announcement:

I will not be standing for election at the April GTCL AGM for GTCL CFC Governor. I mentioned this in my report for the last meeting. I have enjoyed my volunteer time for the organization, and some of my major concerns initially have now been at least partly dealt with. Time to move on, since I have accumulated more new non-CFC projects than I had when I first became a governor, and I need back some of my volunteer time for them.

I have also decided, that though I could run as an ordinary member for the Public Relations Coordinator position, it is time to move on. I enhanced this position in the CFC Handbook initially, and became the first holder of this CFC Non-Executive Office. There is always benefit in new blood and new ideas.

I have however, spoken to Vlad about the possibility of splitting off the PRC news postings, and outsourcing them to my chess services company, Canadian Chess Consulting Service,….free for one year. I would then continue doing them for the company. This would free up some PRC time, that could be spent on other chess promotion activities. I imagine this would be a matter for the AGM.

General PRC Duties

Bylaw 3 of the CFC Handbook, under Duties of Officers in Section 8C, gives the mandate of the Public Relations Coordinator position (Created at the 2010 AGM) as:

“ 8C. The Public Relations Coordinator will be responsible for promoting the image of the CFC and for promoting chess generally to the public. As such the Public Relations Coordinator will, among other things:

- deal with mainstream media to promote significant chess news, such as Canadian Chess Champions, a new Canadian GM, major tournaments like the Can. Closed, Canadian Open, Can. Women’s Closed, CYCC, etc., the various benefits accruing from playing chess and other positive aspects of the chess culture.”

PRC Activity for the Quarter

Here is the update on activity since the 2014 Winter Meeting (January/14):

1. “News” Items Postings (on the CFC Facebook page, CFC members’ Chess Chat Forum, and Twitter)

In mid-May/13, the CFC website news was taken over from the PRC by the “on-line newsfeed”. The PRC postings (as noted in the heading) are entirely separate from the website and the on-line newsfeed, though we are all keeping up on what the other is doing. There is seldom duplication, but if there are, the duplications are significantly different since my posts are just very short news “blurbs”, while the on-line newsfeed coverage of the same item is much more detailed. As PRC I am still responsible for the CFC Facebook page, and the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum (which is fed into the CFC Twitter account). Duplicate posts are made on each.

Since January 1, 38 news item posts have been made (where only 15 had been made in the last quarter of 2013 – this had been an abnormally low total)! This is an average of more than 3 news posts per week; this is similar to the rate for the third quarter of 2013 (July – Oct. /13).

2. Press Releases: None. Generally there are not many chess items that the general mainstream media may consider “news” – this is a hard nut for the PRC to crack. They will sometimes bite on Junior Chess successes though. So it is not uncommon to have a quarter with no press release. Local organizers/teachers contacting local news media re local juniors, or local adults with a significant achievement, seem to get more response.

3. Media Contacts: None (had quite a few though in the last quarter of 2013, when the WCC was on).

4. CFC Facebook Page (Non-Profit Corporation): CFC has continued incremental building of the site - grew from 356 CFC FB Page “Likes” on Dec. 31/13 to 378 today, April 6. This is a slow-down in the rate of growth of membership. 2013 was generally more like 4-5 new “Likes” per week. But slowly, more Facebooker’s are finding our CFC FB page. The majority of “Likes” are not CFC tournament players, and many are not CFC members. We are reaching out in the social media to the non-CFC chess-playing public. We also have many players from other countries as “Likes”, who find Canadian chess interesting, and who now follow Canadian chess. I have significantly changed this page, by now making it a general chess information/news board, in addition to the posts of CFC news. This has been well received. So there are often more than one new posts per day - this fact of ongoing new material daily, brings page "Likes" back to the page more frequently, and so there is more exposure as well to the CFC news appearing from time to time during the week.

5. Discussion Boards: posted numbers of times on the members’ CFC Chess Chat Forum, and the CMA Chesstalk, answering CFC issues raised.

6. New Media Links: This is a problem for the new PRC. I had to get a new computer in Oct./13. Unfortunately, in the transfer of information, some of my e-mail directory was lost. And unfortunately, two that were lost were my Canadian Media Digital/Print E-mail Group, and my Canadian TV/Radio Media e-mail Group. So the new PRC will again have to re-build the CFC media directories, used for press releases.

Paul Leblanc
04-06-2014, 05:02 PM
Median rating of Top 100 active in past 36 months: 2338. Has been stable at around 2345 plus or minus 10 since late 2009
Average Rating of players >1200 active in past 12 months: 1722. Has been stable at around 1720 plus or minus 30 since early 2009
Average Rating of all players >1200 active in past 36 months: 1702. Has been stable at around 1690 plus or minus 10 since late 2010
Average Rating of all players active in the past 12 months: 1364. After a steep climb from 1180 levels (2004 to 2010), this average peaked at 1440 in March 2013 and appears to be settling in somewhere near the current level.
Average rating of all players active in the past 36 months: 1216. This average has been climbing steadily from 1090 levels (2004 to 2010) and will probably find an equilibrium somewhere below the levels for players active in the past 12 months.
Changes in the latter two averages were likely attributable to the migration of 30 minute junior events from Regular to Active rating and hence the reduced production of low rated juniors.
There is no concern of inflation or deflation. The bonus point system appears to be working satisfactorily.

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2014, 05:39 PM
Median rating of Top 100 active in past 36 months: 2338. Has been stable at around 2345 plus or minus 10 since late 2009
Average Rating of players >1200 active in past 12 months: 1722. Has been stable at around 1720 plus or minus 30 since early 2009
Average Rating of all players >1200 active in past 36 months: 1702. Has been stable at around 1690 plus or minus 10 since late 2010
Average Rating of all players active in the past 12 months: 1364. After a steep climb from 1180 levels (2004 to 2010), this average peaked at 1440 in March 2013 and appears to be settling in somewhere near the current level.
Average rating of all players active in the past 36 months: 1216. This average has been climbing steadily from 1090 levels (2004 to 2010) and will probably find an equilibrium somewhere below the levels for players active in the past 12 months.
Changes in the latter two averages were likely attributable to the migration of 30 minute junior events from Regular to Active rating and hence the reduced production of low rated juniors.
There is no concern of inflation or deflation. The bonus point system appears to be working satisfactorily.

Hi Paul:

Congratulations. It seems like you've been able to tweak and prod and pull our original system into a good working rating system.

Bob A

Bob Armstrong
04-06-2014, 05:48 PM
Hi Paul:

Congratulations. It seems like you've been able to tweak and prod and pull our original system into a good working rating system.

Bob A

Hi again Paul:

There is some feeling of concern about the rating system sometimes in the membership/public. They hear some saying our CFC system is inflationary (elite players ratings are too high compared to their FIDE ratings); others that it is deflationary (older players ratings are going down). Your report shows stability in the system now.

Can I suggest that you post your report on the CFC News Forum, and on CMA's Chesstalk? I will then repost it on the CFC FB Page (which gets fed into our CFC Twitter Account). This may help counter some of the misconceptions as to where the CFC Rating System is NOW (as opposed to where it may have been in years past).

Bob A

Félix Dumont
04-06-2014, 09:46 PM
The rating system seems indeed to be more stable now... However, before stabilizing, ratings were already extremely inflated. Ideally, the CFC should do something to go back to more representative ratings... However, I guess most people prefer to have higher ratings, and so it's perhaps better for the CFC, from a business point of view, to keep the ratings like this.

Vladimir Drkulec
04-06-2014, 11:23 PM
The rating system seems indeed to be more stable now... However, before stabilizing, ratings were already extremely inflated. Ideally, the CFC should do something to go back to more representative ratings... However, I guess most people prefer to have higher ratings, and so it's perhaps better for the CFC, from a business point of view, to keep the ratings like this.

If we look at CFC versus USCF for some of the same players I am getting the impression that the CFC ratings are deflated at least for Windsor juniors which is the group that I am most familiar with. I understand that CFC ratings are inflated relative to FQE ratings.

Félix Dumont
04-07-2014, 12:23 AM
I was comparing to FIDE or FQE. USCF ratings are also inflated. However, as I said, perhaps inflated ratings are a good way to retain players (as ironic as it may seems).

Vladimir Drkulec
04-07-2014, 01:47 AM
I was comparing to FIDE or FQE. USCF ratings are also inflated. However, as I said, perhaps inflated ratings are a good way to retain players (as ironic as it may seems).

We have a few Windsor kids who have higher FIDE ratings and performances than their CFC rating. Long term we should look at a way to reconcile CFC and FQE ratings.

Garland Best
04-07-2014, 10:03 AM
That can only happen if the two rating systems were merged. As long as one maintains 2 separate rating systems, there will always be differences between the ratings, particulary if the calculations are performed differently.

Lyle Craver
04-07-2014, 11:51 AM
In fairness, technical discussions going back at LEAST as far as the presidency of Francisco Cabanas have been going on at irregular intervals on this subject. The methodology for comparing ratings is well known and it's largely an element of statistics. There are lots of legitimate reasons why there would be some differences - for my money the important thing is that the average rating in the rating pool remains level since generally players enter the rating pool, improve their chess which shows in the rating and eventually leaves (some of us quicker than others).

Garland Best
04-07-2014, 01:07 PM
To address Felix's point, I believe it would be neccessary to tabulate and compare the CFC, FQE, and FIDE ratings of CFC and FQE members with more than one rating. One could then compare the ratings with reasonable certainty, although other factors might come into play.

Just as an exercise, I looked up Sambuev's CFC and FIDE ratings. The gap is narrowing. In May 2011, hir CFC rating was 2753, and today it is 2727. Meanwhile his FIDE rating was 2515 and now it is 2571. So the gap has narrowed by 86 points. I know that this is only one person but it is one indicator that things may be improving.

Paul Leblanc
04-07-2014, 03:12 PM
I also believe the FIDE/CFC gap is very slowly narrowing for the top players. I think having more events rated under both systems would help.
Kevin Pacey recently posted a link to the USCF Rating System which includes a conversion formula for CFC to USCF ratings. The difference varies by rating level.
I would certainly support a merger of CFC and FQE ratings. Hey, I might even lose my job :)

Richard Bérubé
04-08-2014, 05:25 PM
Tournament coordinator report Richard Bérubé

Organizor in Halifax will not be able to put in place a bid for WYCC and Canadian Open 2015 because of lack of sponsorship

Here is the letter sent by Mr. Stirling Dorrance on march 18 of this year :

«Hello Everyone,
I had planned to send this e-mail just after New Years, but in early January I had found what I thought would be our major sponsor...but alas, once again a no go :(
So, it is with great disappointment and regret that I have to inform you that I will no longer be able to follow up with the potential bid to host the CYCC/CO for 2015 in Halifax.
When I had first looked into the possibility hosting (this past summer 2013), there were many positive components:
First off, I had found 3 potential businesses ( minor sponsors) interested in making financial contributions. I felt that along with this, if I could find a major sponsor, we could host in 2015.
Secondly, I had been given a very attractive and gracious offer from Félix Dumont (and the FQE) to assist in our bid to host-- the offer consisted of equipment, advertising and financial assistance.
However, in the past few months, all three of my potential minor sponsors have backed out and I have yet to find a major sponsor. So not withstanding the gracious offer of assistance from the FQE, having found no sponsors (major or minor), the entry fees we would have to charge, to potentially break even, would be above and beyond what Ottawa had charged in 2013.
I feel that with these extremely high entrance fees we would have to charge, we would make our 2015 event to costly for many players to attend.
So in light of this (and other organizational issues), I find there are too many factors against us, thus making it necessary to withdraw Halifax as a potential host of the CYCC/CO 2015.

I thank you for your time and understanding,

Stirling »



So, we are still in searching mode for an organizor for those tournaments.

Richard Bérubé
Tournament coordinator

Vladimir Drkulec
04-08-2014, 07:20 PM
Thank you Richard for that report.

We are in our usual position of looking for organizers of several major tournaments.

Paul Leblanc
04-09-2014, 10:10 AM
It's a shame. I was looking forward to getting to Halifax next year.

Lyle Craver
04-09-2014, 05:44 PM
Over time where you have geographically separated pools of players ratings can move out of synch. I remember one case about 25 years ago where Manitoba ratings had become badly deflated and there had briefly been talk of a MB rating boon - but the Canadian Open was in Winnipeg that year and nearly all the Manitoba players played well above their ratings and that was the end of the talk of a rating boon!

In general when you have a pool of players with roughly an equal number moving in and out of tournament play ratings DO deflate because nearly everybody who quits quits at a higher rating than they started with - which is hardly surprising since most players do learn from their earlier tournaments games and improve.

Lyle Craver
04-09-2014, 05:54 PM
To address Felix's point, I believe it would be neccessary to tabulate and compare the CFC, FQE, and FIDE ratings of CFC and FQE members with more than one rating. One could then compare the ratings with reasonable certainty, although other factors might come into play.

Just as an exercise, I looked up Sambuev's CFC and FIDE ratings. The gap is narrowing. In May 2011, hir CFC rating was 2753, and today it is 2727. Meanwhile his FIDE rating was 2515 and now it is 2571. So the gap has narrowed by 86 points. I know that this is only one person but it is one indicator that things may be improving.

Two points in relation to Garland's posting: (1) CFC, FQE and FIDE events tend to be played under different conditions not least of which being time controls - for some players this is a bigger deal than others (2) one must not assume that in a particular geographical area there is a single rating pool with identical characteristics over the range 1000-2800. Mr Sambuev plays few non-masters while your average 10 year old is unlikely to play any. Juniors in areas where multiple rating systems are in place can also see huge swings - if a 12 year old establishes a CFC rating, plays in AEM or ICC events for 3 years and comes back to CFC events it is highly possible the 15 year old could be playing two full rating classes above their previous strength. I well remember one tournament about 15 years ago where I (a longtime borderline A/B player) had the tournament of my life beating one FIDE master, two experts, drawing an expert and losing to an A player (! that last game was one of those wild Sicilians where it was clear the game was simply not going to be drawn and one false move would determine the game), gaining about 150 rating points but in my very next event losing to two 1400 rated brothers who had spent all summer playing 50+ games a day on ICC ....

Fact is an essential assumption of most rating systems is that all serious games will be rated under the same system - and this hasn't been the case for at least 15 years. It's one of the biggest problems ratings auditors in Canada and the US face.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-09-2014, 09:09 PM
In general when you have a pool of players with roughly an equal number moving in and out of tournament play ratings DO deflate because nearly everybody who quits quits at a higher rating than they started with - which is hardly surprising since most players do learn from their earlier tournaments games and improve.

The bonus system compensates loss of rating points by quitting players.

Paul Leblanc
04-10-2014, 11:24 AM
Regional Rating Disparity: At the 2012 Canadian Open in Victoria, BC players collectively gained over 2400 rating points.

Egidijus Zeromskis
04-10-2014, 12:39 PM
Regional Rating Disparity: At the 2012 Canadian Open in Victoria, BC players collectively gained over 2400 rating points.

Do you have numbers for other years?

Paul Leblanc
04-13-2014, 12:31 PM
No, I did the calculation by hand and I was interested in the event because I helped run it.
I think BC did well in Ottawa last year too.

Lyle Craver
04-13-2014, 07:15 PM
Agreed - as long as you have separate rating systems: CFC Regular, CFC Active, FQE, USCF, FIDE etc. you will always get differences.

From a statistical point of view rating is simply an average performance estimate - and on any given day you never know which opponent is going to face you at the board. I have beaten people 500 pts higher than me and lost to 450 below me. "Having a good day" and "having a bad day" are concepts not reflected by the rating system. 25 years ago when I lived in Winnipeg I knew a number of players who ALWAYS played 200 points above their CFC rating when they went to Minneapolis twice a year. They figured it was due to their being out of their home environment and it being 'party time on the road'.

Again - on any given day one never knows which player you're going to face at the board and this is particularly true the further you get from master strength.

(I'm definitely not running for the job of ratings auditor but DO have the academic background to read the technical papers from the USCF and FIDE on rating systems and had some great chats with one of my former professors, the late Nathan Divinsky on this subject)