PDA

View Full Version : 10. Other business



Lyle Craver
08-08-2015, 12:25 AM
Members are welcome to post items of new business here. Please note that while non-agenda items are most welcome, because posting is welcome in this area throughout the meeting items requiring an Assembly vote for implementation will be held over to the October Quarterly Meeting.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-09-2015, 11:51 AM
Michael Barron asked for elections of a youth committee but it was a day or so late for statutory notification so we can have a discussion about the youth committee here instead.

Michael Barron
08-09-2015, 12:05 PM
Dear Chess Friends,

We all know about successful CYCC organized by Windsor team last month.
Unfortunately, we all know about controversies surrounding this event - suffice to look at ChessTalk threads discussing Official protest regarding playing up decision and alleged Pairing manipulations.

We could add to this list other issues related to youth chess which were a source of controversies in the recent years:
Youth Olympiad teams members selection,
WYCC official representatives selection,
Pan American YCC official representatives selection,
North American YCC official representatives selection,
and so on...

Even today we know nothing about 2015 Youth Olympiad teams members selection (the event starts in 10 days - August 19) or 2015 WYCC official representatives selection (the deadline for registration is next week).

Obviously, the main problem here - is a lack of publicly available information and a lack of transparency in decision making process.

The CFC Youth Committee could solve this problem.

Thank you for your consideration!

Vladimir Drkulec
08-09-2015, 12:36 PM
In the case of this year's U16 Olympiad team in Mongolia the team will be

Zongyang Yu 2323 Montreal
Diwen Shi 2241 Calgary
Yinshi Li 2213 North York
Joey Zhong 2212 Toronto
Rachel Tao 1788 Windsor

We picked the highest rated applicants for girls and I believe the boys we took everyone who applied. The team was formed quite late as we didn't have enough players to form a team until after CYCC when some of the parents took to talking among themselves and were able to fill out the team roster.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-09-2015, 12:47 PM
I don't see how the existence of a committee could have averted the complaints about this year's CYCC as in one case even the CFC's harshest critics seem to agree that one of the complaints is without merit and the other has received little traction except among our usual critics. The problem I see with a committee which is anything but advisory is that we cannot give them a vote or any governance function without some fundamental adjustments in our rules or structures which would no doubt require a two thirds vote of the voting members and require additional payments to the CRA and might even require the regular members to vote depending on the details of the proposal.

Aris Marghetis
08-09-2015, 03:30 PM
I really don't get how such a committee would have, for example, made this year's CYCC more successful. In my humble opinion, and only one person was ONSITE more than I was, the volunteers who were willing to STEP UP and ACTUALLY WORK, made this event a success. This was despite the regular conspiracy theories that somehow return! :)

Garland Best
08-09-2015, 04:58 PM
It is pretty clear that the CFC Handbook is out of date, and in several sections is in conflict with the current NFP articles of incorporation.

I propose that a working committee be struck to create a new handbook in line with the current articles of incorporation. I see this a a two or three year project, where a new handbook is probably phased in a section at a time. The handbook will be supplemental to the articles of incorporation.

Garland Best
08-09-2015, 05:08 PM
We are all well aware of the inability to have a Canadian open this year. I have heard quite often that there were many attempts to find someone to host the Canadian Open, and that those efforts met with failure.

I would like to know in greater detail what efforts were made to find organizers. Who lead the attempts to find bids? What organizers in Canada were contacted? What were the responses? What were the main reasons persons were not willing to come forward to organize the open? What is the likelyhood that 2016 will not see a similar failure?

To not have a Canadian Open in Chess is akin to not having a Canadian Open in Tennis, or Golf. For the sporting organizations representing tennis and golf, such a failure is unthinkable.

Fred McKim
08-09-2015, 07:51 PM
.....To not have a Canadian Open in Chess is akin to not having a Canadian Open in Tennis, or Golf. For the sporting organizations representing tennis and golf, such a failure is unthinkable.

Those are professional events, which no doubt turn a profit for the organizers.

The Canadian Open is not a professional event, and any potential organizers likely have to have some level of sponsorship (other than in the very biggest of cities, where the population base can help ensure a break even situation). Statistically speaking, I would say we are lucky that we were able to find organizers for over 40+ years, every single year. If this was to happen again in the next few years, then we may have a real problem.

Michael Barron
08-09-2015, 09:48 PM
I really don't get how such a committee would have, for example, made this year's CYCC more successful.

Aris,
Let me reiterate:
the main problem here - is a lack of publicly available information and a lack of transparency in decision making process.

CFC Youth Committee could make the information publicly available and decision making process more transparent.

If you still don't get it, please read the following threads on ChessTalk:
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?13584-Official-protest-to-the-CYCC-organizers
and
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?13684-2015-CYCC-Pairing-Manipulation

Don't you think such discussions on ChessTalk harm CYCC impression and your personal reputation?
Wouldn't it be better, if such issues were discussed by the CFC Youth Committee, rather than on ChessTalk?

Vladimir Drkulec
08-09-2015, 10:17 PM
Aris,
Let me reiterate:
the main problem here - is a lack of publicly available information and a lack of transparency in decision making process.

CFC Youth Committee could make the information publicly available and decision making process more transparent.

How exactly can they do that? I don't see how we could possibly be more transparent than we were on both of these threads.



If you still don't get it, please read the following threads on ChessTalk:
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?13584-Official-protest-to-the-CYCC-organizers
and
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?13684-2015-CYCC-Pairing-Manipulation

Don't you think such discussions on ChessTalk harm CYCC impression and your personal reputation?

Even the people that usually criticize the CFC are jumping off the bandwagon on the CYCC Pairing Manipulation thread so fast I can hear legs breaking.



Wouldn't it be better, if such issues were discussed by the CFC Youth Committee, rather than on ChessTalk?

It would be better but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.

Garland Best
08-09-2015, 10:18 PM
I disagree. Golf Canada and Tennis Canada are not a professional associations. They are volunteer organizations, with very similar mandates and structures akin to the CFC. And many of the chess players who play in the Canadian Open are Chess professionals. There may be a difference of magnitude in resources, but at some scale it could have happened. For instance this year's Ontario Open had the makings of a Canadian Open.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-09-2015, 11:18 PM
For instance this year's Ontario Open had the makings of a Canadian Open.

Hal talked to the Brantford group. No suitable venue for a Canadian Open was open for any reasonable time frame if I recall correctly.

Aris Marghetis
08-10-2015, 07:41 AM
How exactly can they do that? I don't see how we could possibly be more transparent than we were on both of these threads.



Even the people that usually criticize the CFC are jumping off the bandwagon on the CYCC Pairing Manipulation thread so fast I can hear legs breaking.



It would be better but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.

Thanks Vlad for replying so well. I fell asleep very early last night.

Egidijus Zeromskis
08-10-2015, 09:13 AM
but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.

At least it could have started the revision of the Handbook CYCC chapter, and to set guidelines for organizers and arbiters running the CYCC. The written procedures are easy to understand for players and parents as well.

At least from those two threads I got impression that:
CYCC policies are hidden in the CFC forum, and only known to very limited number of people, and probably 0.5% of players knew about possibility to play up.
There was no announcements about rating corrections done during the tournament (what influence pairings.)

Vladimir Drkulec
08-10-2015, 09:19 AM
I know on the whole playing up idea Aris, Michael and myself argued against the idea three years ago. It does create a problem for organizers if a large number of players ask to move up a section. At this year's Pan Am and NAYCC, players were allowed to play up changing sections on the last day as well so this decision aligned with FIDE in that respect. The crux of the complaints by a player who was not in the section affected by the decision was that we don't have detailed rules preventing last minute changes. We don't and thus none were applied in this situation. If the posters in question had wanted some action on this they should have sent an email to a governor or even to me or the youth coordinator and ask that this situation be addressed. Instead for reasons of their own they did their best to besot a very successful tournament. Last night I spent half an hour on the phone with the former coach of the player after he spent an hour with one of the CYCC organizers and he (the coach) was very disappointed with the behaviour as are most of the Windsor parents who are aware of this situation.

I think we need to get away from allowing who is screaming loudest on chesstalk determining what our actions should be on any particular matter.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-10-2015, 09:36 AM
At least it could have started the revision of the Handbook CYCC chapter, and to set guidelines for organizers and arbiters running the CYCC. The written procedures are easy to understand for players and parents as well.

A number of people said that they would update and rewrite the handbook but the work didn't get done.



At least from those two threads I got impression that:
CYCC policies are hidden in the CFC forum, and only known to very limited number of people, and probably 0.5% of players knew about possibility to play up.

If 80% had asked to play up then I probably would have stepped in and stopped anyone from playing up. As it was only 50% of the two requests to play up were allowed.



There was no announcements about rating corrections done during the tournament (what influence pairings.)

I do not know that there were no announcements about rating corrections. There were many announcements before every round. I did not hear all of them because I was occasionally busy doing other things. John Coleman posted that 20 out of 60 Windsor players started with the wrong ratings. It is not surprising that there were adjustments to correct this in subsequent rounds though some of this might have been due to using the highest of three available ratings.

Aris Marghetis
08-10-2015, 09:39 AM
At least it could have started the revision of the Handbook CYCC chapter, and to set guidelines for organizers and arbiters running the CYCC. The written procedures are easy to understand for players and parents as well.

At least from those two threads I got impression that:
CYCC policies are hidden in the CFC forum, and only known to very limited number of people, and probably 0.5% of players knew about possibility to play up.
There was no announcements about rating corrections done during the tournament (what influence pairings.)

Hi Egis, I do agree about a "new handbook". But I think that's different than what Michael is envisioning? If I am incorrect, my bad. I would support ANY volunteers who could work towards building a new handbook. However, it's gonna be quite some work, entailing ratifications at meetings like these, etc. My viewpoint is that would be REAL WORK, which we need. However, I do not support creating committees whose main role in life would be "massaging communications". I look back at what I just wrote, and I'm not sure that I've done a good job expressing it, the difference between getting real tangible stuff done, vs. just being involved and thus actually adding to the "slowy slush effect".

I completely disagree with your last point though. I don't remember seeing you there before every round, but for the first three rounds, I repeatedly explained what was happening with some of the ratings, on a microphone to everyone. Maybe I said it too simply to register, but the vast majority of players and parents who approached us between rounds seemed to understand what was going on, and offered to assist by providing more recent rating references. Some people (well maybe one) refused to accept what was going on. There were even other conspiracy theories that I was accused of onsite that haven't made it to ChessTalk yet. But I have a limited amount of "up time" while recovering from an emergency surgery, so I'm sure as heck not going to spend it trying to convince anyone who thinks something was done wrong. By the way, one of the challenges with using the most recent ratings is that it became apparent that in many rating systems, posting results will often backdate to the tournament date, which adds an extra layer of required checking. For example, if two events on a Thursday get rated on Friday and next Monday respectfully, they still show up with Thursday dates.

Egidijus Zeromskis
08-10-2015, 10:42 AM
I completely disagree with your last point though. I don't remember seeing you there before every round, but for the first three rounds, I repeatedly explained what was happening with some of the ratings, on a microphone to everyone.

As you could read it was my impression reading that thread. Your memory is absolutely right - I was not there. Looks you did everything right what was in your capabilities.

Take care of yourself. Not worth loosing limbs (or whatever you broke) for chess LOL

My mistake - I should not post here - I'm not returning as a Voting member. Somehow I thought that the committee discussion was for Outgoings.

Garland Best
08-10-2015, 01:37 PM
Vlad, as I posted in post #7 of this thread, "I propose that a working committee be struck to create a new handbook in line with the current articles of incorporation. I see this a a two or three year project, where a new handbook is probably phased in a section at a time. The handbook will be supplemental to the articles of incorporation."

If you agree with this, please say so, and let's get a call for volunteers for such a committee going within this meeting.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-10-2015, 04:08 PM
Vlad, as I posted in post #7 of this thread, "I propose that a working committee be struck to create a new handbook in line with the current articles of incorporation. I see this a a two or three year project, where a new handbook is probably phased in a section at a time. The handbook will be supplemental to the articles of incorporation."

If you agree with this, please say so, and let's get a call for volunteers for such a committee going within this meeting.

Sorry stepped out for a few hours to give a chess lesson and some go buy some tools.

I do think this is a great idea. Could we get some voting members willing to volunteer to be part of this group?

Vladimir Drkulec
08-10-2015, 04:22 PM
It is pretty clear that the CFC Handbook is out of date, and in several sections is in conflict with the current NFP articles of incorporation.

I propose that a working committee be struck to create a new handbook in line with the current articles of incorporation. I see this a a two or three year project, where a new handbook is probably phased in a section at a time. The handbook will be supplemental to the articles of incorporation.

I think the handbook isn't necessarily a supplement to the articles but a statement of the policies of the CFC. My intention is to keep to the provisions of the handbook as much as feasible as long as they don't conflict with the NFP act but it would be better if we could rewrite it with the NFP act in mind. We can lose quite a few sections particularly the articles of incorporation portion. It would be best if we started fresh and made sure that all portions of the handbook that dealt with a particular subject were organized together logically.

Garland Best
08-10-2015, 05:12 PM
I'll volunteer, but due to other commitments I decline to lead the committee. I ask that the committee consist of at least 3 persons.

Michael Barron
08-10-2015, 09:15 PM
How exactly can they do that? I don't see how we could possibly be more transparent than we were on both of these threads.

If we had Youth Committee, Sam Song would submit his request to the Committee, and this information would be publicly available on July 1st, rather than during 1st round.




It would be better but I don't see how the existence of a committee would preclude the occasional insanity on Chesstalk.

The existence of a Committee gives you a proper way to deal with all such issues.
I counted 24 your posts on those 2 threads.
Instead, a short note would suffice:
"Please submit your concerns to the CFC Youth Committee, which will deal with them".

Michael Barron
08-10-2015, 09:20 PM
I do agree about a "new handbook". But I think that's different than what Michael is envisioning? If I am incorrect, my bad.

Aris, the CFC Youth Committee would consider ALL issues, related to youth chess in Canada, including rules and regulations in the handbook.
Let me remind you:
When this Committee was working in 2010-2011, it prepared amendments to the handbook, which were discussed and approved by the Assembly of Governors.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-10-2015, 09:48 PM
Aris, the CFC Youth Committee would consider ALL issues, related to youth chess in Canada, including rules and regulations in the handbook.
Let me remind you:
When this Committee was working in 2010-2011, it prepared amendments to the handbook, which were discussed and approved by the Assembly of Governors.

Rules were different then. There was no NFP act. I don't believe that you can have a committee of non-members and give them the right to make rules or even propose rule changes. You could have an advisory committee chaired by the youth coordinator but you can't delegate director type authority to such a committee which is what you seem to be asking for.

Paul Leblanc
08-11-2015, 07:58 AM
I would be happy to re-write the rating section and the Chess Foundation section. They have been kept reasonably up to date and only require a bit of cleaning up.

Lyle Craver
08-11-2015, 09:07 AM
As secretary (assuming I still am next week) I should be involved in this.

My preference would see us working towards a 2 column format between old and new with differences highlighted. This would need to be vetted by somebody with skill on the NFP and voted by the Assembly and would definitely be a constitutional amendment.

I am working on the assumption that MOST of the changes needed are changes of names (e.g. "Governor" -> "Voting Member"). I am also assuming that the Governor consensus that Handbook changes be kept to the minimum required to the new Act and that there is not at this time an appetite for major changes. That was the consensus in 2013-14 and 2014-15 and I see no evidence that VM views have changed.

One thing that is absolutely critical is that it contain a date effective line since future revisors of the Handbook (which I expect to be chiefly integrated passed motions) need an easy way to verify from where they need to start work. Time is precious enough without duplicating other peoples' work!

Vladimir Drkulec
08-11-2015, 12:41 PM
As secretary (assuming I still am next week) I should be involved in this.

My preference would see us working towards a 2 column format between old and new with differences highlighted. This would need to be vetted by somebody with skill on the NFP and voted by the Assembly and would definitely be a constitutional amendment.

I am working on the assumption that MOST of the changes needed are changes of names (e.g. "Governor" -> "Voting Member"). I am also assuming that the Governor consensus that Handbook changes be kept to the minimum required to the new Act and that there is not at this time an appetite for major changes. That was the consensus in 2013-14 and 2014-15 and I see no evidence that VM views have changed.

One thing that is absolutely critical is that it contain a date effective line since future revisors of the Handbook (which I expect to be chiefly integrated passed motions) need an easy way to verify from where they need to start work. Time is precious enough without duplicating other peoples' work!

I would probably have to be involved with the vetting and possibly as an observer.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-11-2015, 12:41 PM
I would be happy to re-write the rating section and the Chess Foundation section. They have been kept reasonably up to date and only require a bit of cleaning up.

Excellent!

Lyle Craver
08-11-2015, 02:47 PM
Please understand that when I referred to a 2 column format I meant that at some point the VMs would have to approve it and that things would go a lot smoother if they could see the old and the new side by side paragraph by paragraph. I was absolutely NOT talking about maintaining 2 separate documents going forward. In my opinion we probably SHOULDN'T change anything but the bylaw section - for instance except with possibly doing things like ensuring addresses etc. who REALLY needs a revision on things like "So You Want to Run a Chess Tournament" or the info on Swiss pairings or Sonnenborn-Berger etc.

On the other hand, the Charter and Bylaws stuff is definitely a legal document and we would most definitely need all our ducks in a row on that.

As for vetting things I would definitely expect most of that to be done by the President, Secretary, FIDE Rep and whoever else el Presidente felt needed to be involved and if it was done paragraph by paragraph as I suggested would probably be an easier task as any changes would be more obvious.

Michael Barron
08-11-2015, 03:05 PM
Rules were different then. There was no NFP act. I don't believe that you can have a committee of non-members and give them the right to make rules or even propose rule changes. You could have an advisory committee chaired by the youth coordinator but you can't delegate director type authority to such a committee which is what you seem to be asking for.

Sorry, if I was not clear enough... :(

No, I'm not asking to delegate director type authority to such a committee.
I propose an advisory committee chaired by the youth coordinator.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-11-2015, 03:16 PM
Sorry, if I was not clear enough... :(

No, I'm not asking to delegate director type authority to such a committee.
I propose an advisory committee chaired by the youth coordinator.

That is quite doable.

Michael Barron
08-11-2015, 10:36 PM
That is quite doable.

Thank you, Vlad!

So, what should we do to create such committee?

Vladimir Drkulec
08-11-2015, 10:42 PM
Thank you, Vlad!

So, what should we do to create such committee?

Frank Lee is already working on it and has been talking to parents. He is in Singapore at the moment with intermittent internet.

Hal Bond
08-13-2015, 09:56 AM
We are all well aware of the inability to have a Canadian open this year. I have heard quite often that there were many attempts to find someone to host the Canadian Open, and that those efforts met with failure.

I would like to know in greater detail what efforts were made to find organizers. Who lead the attempts to find bids? What organizers in Canada were contacted? What were the responses? What were the main reasons persons were not willing to come forward to organize the open? What is the likelihood that 2016 will not see a similar failure?

To not have a Canadian Open in Chess is akin to not having a Canadian Open in Tennis, or Golf. For the sporting organizations representing tennis and golf, such a failure is unthinkable.

Garland - the CFC has had too much to do and too few people doing it for as long as I can remember. We are never short of critics though. The 2015 Canadian Open is just the latest example, and hopefully a wakeup call.

I am not the National Tournament Co-ordinator, but I contacted 6 organizers about 2015. I won't name them because they did not ask to be involved. 3 of them said "no way" rather quickly, the other 3 bailed after more thought. The reasons ranged from concerns about dates (the event was pushed to August) to lack of manpower, cash, an agreeable venue, time. There was also concern about doing a mediocre job in light of those challenges. I even looked at holding it myself along side the Closed (which was another imperative) but could not get the space. The CFC also offered $2-3K in seed money, and we considered buying into the FQE's AIDEF tournament and calling it the Canadian Open.

What to do about 2016? I guess we need to start poking sooner, but anyone who has run or can run a Canadian Open already knows about the vacancy.

Garland Best
08-13-2015, 12:54 PM
Ok, you just proven my point. You contacted six organizers. Let's go through a list of possible locations for a Canadian Open.

Vancouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Regina
Saskatoon
Winnepeg
Brandon
London
Hamilton
Windsor
Kitchener
Toronto and GTA
Peterborough
Kingston
Ottawa
Montreal
Quebec City
Fredricton
St. John
Charletown
Halifax
St. Johns

That's 23 possible venues, and I'm just listing larger cities. Do we not know organizers in most of these areas? This is why we need to name someone as a Tournament Coordinator, to reach out to all possible candidates. It's like doing cold-calling in sales.

Hal, I am not claiming that you are not working hard for the CFC. You do an admirable job as FIDE rep, you organize a number of major tournaments and so on. I can say the same for Vlad. But the fact that we had this happen in 2015, and that it can potentially happen again in 2016 tells me that something has to change in our approach.

Vladimir Drkulec
08-13-2015, 01:56 PM
Ok, you just proven my point. You contacted six organizers. Let's go through a list of possible locations for a Canadian Open.

Vancouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Regina
Saskatoon
Winnepeg
Brandon
London
Hamilton
Windsor
Kitchener
Toronto and GTA
Peterborough
Kingston
Ottawa
Montreal
Quebec City
Fredricton
St. John
Charletown
Halifax
St. Johns

That's 23 possible venues, and I'm just listing larger cities.

I think you can safely scratch Regina and Saskatoon off the list unless you want to import the organizing committee from elsewhere. A larger city does not in and of itself make a plausible venue. I have had people contact me about the funds held in trust for Saskatchewan but when I explained that they had to start a provincial association to have access, the conversation abruptly ended.



Do we not know organizers in most of these areas? This is why we need to name someone as a Tournament Coordinator, to reach out to all possible candidates.


Naming any random someone for that post without taking into account the personality of the candidate is a recipe for disaster or at least ineffectiveness.



It's like doing cold-calling in sales.

Hal, I am not claiming that you are not working hard for the CFC. You do an admirable job as FIDE rep, you organize a number of major tournaments and so on. I can say the same for Vlad. But the fact that we had this happen in 2015, and that it can potentially happen again in 2016 tells me that something has to change in our approach.

I think that the Sault Ste. Marie bid is a clue of what has to change. We have to start earlier and have these tournaments nailed down two years in advance so there is still lots of time to resolve any problems.

Fred McKim
08-13-2015, 02:30 PM
The Canadian Open has for better or worse advanced to a point where it cannot realistically be held without significant sponsorship. Some organizers are simply never in a position to be able to do this.

Hal Bond
08-13-2015, 03:22 PM
Vlad and Fred - thank you for your comments. Garland's idealism is remarkable. Just name someone and make it so!

Most of our organizers in Canada are not dialled into their municipal deciders or other partners who can help bring about our wildest dreams. They run a club. Maybe a weekender or two.

Do we have 23 organizers in Canada who can deliver a Canadian Open? Definitely not on speed dial, and definitely not those who haven't defacto declined! If the tournament was sustainably interesting this number would triple easily. I suspect that no one wants to run a Canadian Open by simply brokering entries. They need a leg up somewhere in order to afford a marquis player or bolster the prize fund. Or pay for a venue and a professional staff.

Alternatively we move to professional event organizers. Their fee is typically 35% of gross revenues. That means a cash infusion from a touristic grant and/or a sponsor. These infusions occur occasionally but not often enough. I suspect that this infusion access will be the secret ingredient going forward.

Garland Best
08-13-2015, 04:30 PM
I think part of the problem is raised standards on what is required to be called a Canadian Open. A marquis player is not a requirement. A large prize fund is not a requirement. A venue capable of handling 200+ players over 9 days is. Lower the bar.

OK, I'm going to take another swing at this. Outline to me the minimum requirements to have a Canadian Open in 2016. Also tell me what the CFC is willing to kick in to make it happen. You don't have to announce it on the board, an email will suffice. I will then shut up and run away with that information to see what ideas I can come up with. You can do the same with respect to the CYCC as well. However the CYCC is not my priority. The Open is.

Fred McKim
08-13-2015, 05:40 PM
I think part of the problem is raised standards on what is required to be called a Canadian Open. A marquis player is not a requirement. A large prize fund is not a requirement. A venue capable of handling 200+ players over 9 days is. Lower the bar.

OK, I'm going to take another swing at this. Outline to me the minimum requirements to have a Canadian Open in 2016. Also tell me what the CFC is willing to kick in to make it happen. You don't have to announce it on the board, an email will suffice. I will then shut up and run away with that information to see what ideas I can come up with. You can do the same with respect to the CYCC as well. However the CYCC is not my priority. The Open is.

Hi Garland. I was TD of the 2001 CO, and ended up as co-organizer after the principal person behind the bid moved. We played in a very small University town (Sackville, NB), with the nearest airport 30 minutes away in Moncton and a bigger airport 2.5 hours away (Halifax).

To me here are the minimum expectations
Days >=8
Rounds >=9
Players >=200 (in smaller communities maybe 175)
Master Level Players ..... how about prizes available to masters >= $10K - but in order to get your players up, you probably need to land at least 2 or 3 GM's at least 6 months prior to the event.
Entry Fee = whatever the market will bear

Fred McKim
08-13-2015, 05:45 PM
Hi Garland. I was TD of the 2001 CO, and ended up as co-organizer after the principal person behind the bid moved. We played in a very small University town (Sackville, NB), with the nearest airport 30 minutes away in Moncton and a bigger airport 2.5 hours away (Halifax).

To me here are the minimum expectations
Days >=8
Rounds >=9
Players >=200 (in smaller communities maybe 175)
Master Level Players ..... how about prizes available to masters >= $10K - but in order to get your players up, you probably need to land at least 2 or 3 GM's at least 6 months prior to the event.
Entry Fee = whatever the market will bear

However, I would not vote against a solitary bid only because of the prizes available to master players. And there have been events in the past 25 years with < 125 players.

Aris Marghetis
08-13-2015, 08:15 PM
I might be offbase here, but one of my suspicions is that the CO has in recent years morphed into trying to be something bigger than it is. I'm not sure how many COs and QOs I've played in, maybe a dozen? and I can say that Sackville was one of my favourites! In my humble opinion, once you start aiming for the big foreign names, it starts to jig the whole financial structure, quickly leading to a daunting challenge to accommodate 300 players, etc. I suspect the vast majority of 1500-2000 players just want a chesscation where they can regularly meet up with old friends, maybe golf during the day, grab beers after their round, etc. At the same time, we keep pressuring different people to run the event the same way, 9 rounds over 8 days, right after the CYCC (which is right after the World Open), before the Quebec Open, etc. I think we could see more interest if we let potential Organizers figure out winning formulas FOR THEIR SITUATION. That's what the Quebec Open has done for decades. That's what North Bay did for years. I think we might be pleasantly surprised at some fresh new ideas, and not jump all over them on ChessTalk. But this is going to take time and genuine effort. I am quite disappointed at what appears to be complaining towards the CFC that we didn't have a CO. The CFC is just a bunch of volunteers. More people need to step up more, drive rather than complain.

Fred McKim
08-13-2015, 09:29 PM
Another idea is to come up with a rotation scheme something like the Chess Challenge

This Rotation could start next year at any number, I'm going to assume that 2017 is taken

1. West
2. Ontario (not GTA)
3. Quebec & Atlantic
4. GTA

If someone can do a successful full court press on AB, we could have 2016 and 2017 in the bag and start talking to potential orgainzers in group 3.