28h. CYCC Qualification rules - Brammall amendment

[Michael Barron]

Stuart,

This idea of Victor Itkine was discussed by the Youth Committe, and defeated.

I still see no reason to exclude our best players from participation at provincial level.
They have no problem to qualify, but we should encourage them to participate.

Beside, there is an issue of fairness.
With voluntary "rating gifts" we can't ensure the integrity of CFC rating system across the country.
Jason Cao is just one example.
But in general, young players in BC, where majority of "adult" tournaments are non-rated, or in SK, where such tournaments almost non-existent, are severely underrated.
In such situation we can't compare ratings from different provinces.

For example, in the last CYCC were 4 champions from BC (plus Jason Cao, who tied for first), and all of them were rated lower, than their Ontario rivals.

[Stuart Brammall]

I understand that, and am not arguing against qualifying tournaments in general, I just feel they should be used to qualify wildcards.... I also see no problem with pre-qualifing players you already know will be competetive.

As I said months ago, I feel the best system for qualification (besides an open event ) would be to have some sort of rating floor, and then in addition to have provincial YCCs to qualify anyone else who is competetive... Say qualify the top 20 in an age group, then hold the YCCs (and only one per province) and the top 3 in each age group who are not already qualified by being in the top twenty also qualify.

Unfortunately you don't really want a qualification system, what you want in an enforced participation system... they are not the same at all.

[Stuart Brammall]

So this is the sort of event I was worried about:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4465

I have to admit I thought David had more class... charging kids $40, donating $6 to the CFC, no prizes, 30 minute games all in one day. Extortion.
Total. System. Abuse.

Although I thought I would get to call someone else on it first.

[Bob Armstrong]

I have now considered both what I call this Itkine/Brammall original amendment, and the alternative revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ). These are altenative amendments in my opinion and cannot both coexist in the CYCC section should both be passed.

So I am now withdrawing my support for the revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ), though I did second it. I will be voting against it ( I think we should have to choose between the two amendments ). I will be voting in favour of this Itkine/Brammall amendment.

I have given a full explanation of my reasoning for this in a post today on the other thread dealing with the Brammall amendment (2).

Bob

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4465

no prizes

Please reread an announcement.

Prizes: CFC Medals for the first three places.

Free refreshments will be provided

[Fred McKim]

So this is the sort of event I was worried about:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4465

I have to admit I thought David had more class... charging kids $40, donating $6 to the CFC, no prizes, 30 minute games all in one day. Extortion.
Total. System. Abuse.

Although I thought I would get to call someone else on it first.

I think that the idea is that the rest of the money goes to the winners for their expenses towards the CYCC. It should obviously say this.

[Stuart Brammall]

I think that the idea is that the rest of the money goes to the winners for their expenses towards the CYCC. It should obviously say this.

Really? I'm pretty sure you are incorrect (again I know David fairly well).

But regardless I feel it only makes sense that we would regulate such events, rather than just allow a free for all...

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Stuart:

This is the first year of the system, and it is already late for getting YCC's off the ground.

We may have to tolerate less than favourable tournaments this time, because it seems too late to now impose regulation standards on them - a number are already on stream.

But I agree that some standards need to be imposed for next year, to prevent exploitation due to the " qualification " nature of the tournament.

Bob

[Fred McKim]

Really? I'm pretty sure you are incorrect (again I know David fairly well).

But regardless I feel it only makes sense that we would regulate such events, rather than just allow a free for all...

If you're correct, this should not have been allowed as a YCC, in my opinion.

[Ellen Nadeau]

Sorry I just returned from out of country and am catching up on the meeting. If I understand correctly, there was a lot of unnecessary discussion.

A variation was discussed along these lines:

e) If less then 12 players have qualified for an age goup by May 1st through the means outlined in sections 1003, (a)-(d), then the top players by rating in each age group (provided they have played at least ten rated games in the last year) will be added to the qualified list until 12 are qualified in each group

.

I cannot conceive of any situation where this could possibly be implemented.
If we use the other criteria for qualifications and even assume there are 0 YCC's being run that year, The other means of qualification would have a minimum of 12 qualifiers per category by May 1st. Each province has top rated (10 provinces) = 10 players qualified. There has always been at least 2 players for each section in the CYCC's of the previous year so they would qualifiy this way that makes 12 players per section bfore YCC and before the host site nominates players.

I may have missed some important postings ,I'm trying to get up to speed before voting but this and any similar amendment is useless from what I see so far.