The question is which one we like better. It is possible to like all of the alternatives but we have to proceed with one or another or continue with the status quo or if none of the above wins go back to the drawing board.
Printable View
SIGH! In my humble opinion, this was another reason not to rush this. We've cobbled together an allegedly only straw poll, and yet we're committing ourselves to the voting, when I'm sure more than Michael and I aren't sure which way to vote. Why not take one more meeting and get all aspects of this done right? We're like speeding to a stop sign.
I think, the only question Victor wants to clarify now, before Olympiad, is:
Will we use 2016 Olympiad performance for 2018 Olympiad selection?
And according to current poll results and discussion in this thread, the definite answer is NO.
All other decisions could be made after Olympiad, and for clarity we need to discuss every proposed change separately, one by one.
If the vote remains so close between the two alternatives and no one seems to be voting for the selection committee we will probably have to revisit this as a proper motion in the next meeting. We can also work out some of the details beforehand on the voting members forum.
Thank you Aris. Probably, the meeting is over, or almost over, so I want to share a couple of points.
1. About Olympiad performance. To be honest: among many different suggestions I wanted to propose, I was less sure with this one, than with every other proposal. However, I do believe, it's a good idea to take this performance into account.
Some players consistently play better for the team. The best example could be Armenian performance (3 Olympiad wins). Aronian many times performed above 2900 in team events.
Some players play much worse for the ream. One example is Svidler. Last Olympiad, he lost 20 rating points, which had a huge impact on general performance of Russian team. Unfortunately, it was not the only disastrous team event for him. As a result, he was not included into Russian team for this year. 2 low-rated players made the team instead of Svidler. Sure, I do not know what exactly happened, but it looks very possible, that Peter's last performance was taken into account.
Great results like Roussel-Roozmon in 2010, Hansen in 2012, Kovalyov in 2014 should be taken into account. The same, of course, about the negative side. I want to say again: my proposal does not give any disadvantage to a new player. One may win bonus points, another one may lose. The total impact is usually around 0. Sure, as a team captain, I want the total impact to be as great as possible.
2. The most important result of the straw pool: we have some minor chances to get rid of selection committee. That's why I separated between motion 1 and 2. Maybe, I had to make 6 different motions:
a) No selection committee
b) No CFC rating for National Team
c) Use the last rating instead of the highest
d) Bonus/penalties for last Canadian Closed
e) Bonus/penalties for the last Olympiad
f) Bonus for young age and tie-break.
However, b) and d) connected with one another. a) and f) are also connected. That's why I wanted to have less motions. Probably, it was too ambitious.
I have mentioned, that I got a supportive e-mail from on of the current team members. In my reply to him I wrote, "...even with some positive replies, I am not sure that CFC governors would accept my proposals."
I find it a weird situation when the potential Olympiad participants support the suggested proposals, and CFC governors do not.
I don't think its fair to say that the voting members don't support the proposals. I think they are evenly divided between the two. No one is voting for the selection committee so we are safe to say that it will be eliminated.