28h. CYCC Qualification rules - Brammall amendment

[Stuart Brammall]

Also, please note that this places no restriction on players qualifing after May 1st... It ensures that invitations can be sent out to twelve players on May 1st, and further players can qualify after that through more YCCs if they occur.

[Vladimir Birarov]

I am trying to make the best of a bad situation...

Stewart,
Can you, please clarify what makes this situation "bad"? Since new rules were announced we have 2 YCCs completed and other 11-12 on their way. Plus last year WYCC qualifiers, plus 3 local players per section. It will definitely assure sufficient participation in CYCC, and all who suppose to qualify will qualify.

[Stuart Brammall]

It's bad because next year there might not be any YCCs. (or rather, just OYCC, BCYCC, AYCC, and NOYCC)

Have you ever stopped to think why YCC have not been happening for the past many years? Here is why: there is no demand for them.

I personally think that forcing players to play in events obviously below there skill level to "qualify" (when it is already clear who plays chess at the required level) is something akin to extortion.

Quite frankly if I was a youth player I would be considering boycotting these YCCs, simply for the reason there is no control over how strong they have to be, what time control they use, or whether they are held in kid's parents basement.

That is why it is a bad situation.

And if you spell my name like that again I will be forced call you Bladimir.

[Vladimir Birarov]

It's bad because next year there might not be any YCCs. (or rather, just OYCC, BCYCC, AYCC, and NOYCC)

Any reason or just gut feelings?

Have you ever stopped to think why YCC have not been happening for the past many years? Here is why: there is no demand for them.

You're absolutely right. Now we do have demand for them.

I personally think that forcing players to play in events obviously below there skill level to "qualify" (when it is already clear who plays chess at the required level) is something akin to extortion.

I don't think anyone will play "in events obviously below their skill level". Taking example of Ontario, where we have 10 YCCs, whoever thinks his "skill level" high enough to qualify from OYCC will go directly there, everyone else will pick another YCC.

... simply for the reason there is no control over how strong they have to be, what time control they use, or whether they are held in kid's parents basement.

Right again! But it's understandable and forgivable in our first year of running YCCs.

And if you spell my name like that again I will be forced call you Bladimir.

All right, you can boycott my posts ...

[Stuart Brammall]

I suggest you look up the results of the Northern Ontario YCCs, where you will find instances of individuals with negative performance ratings... something which I did not realize was possible until I saw it. If you think those events are suitable qualifiers... well, we will disagree.

[Stuart Brammall]

Bob A. has agreed to second the new motion.

I leave it to Lyle or Bob G. to determine whether it needs a new thread. I would like to have both this motion and the previous to be considered.

Motion follows:

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Motion – Adding Minimum Qualifiers for CYCC

January 19, 2011

Moved: Stuart Brammall:; Seconded: Bob Armstrong


That section 1003 of the CFC handbook be amended to include the following:

(e) If less than 12 players have qualified for an age group 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.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Commentary:

Thus the text of section 1003 will be:

1003. Players: {Motion 2009-13 2009 AGM Nadeau/Lavin}
The following players shall be eligible to participate in each Youth Tournament provided they comply with the formal entry requirements of Article 1007:
(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.
(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.
(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}
(d) The host organizer may nominate three players for each category from the host location. {Amendment of Original Motion Barron/Langer}
(e) If less than 12 players have qualified for an age group 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.


This will ensure that each group always has twelve qualifiers, but will motivate the top players to play in the YCCs because if they do not and the twelve spots are taken they will not be able to play. This will sufficiently protect the event if in any given year the YCCs fail.

[Vladimir Birarov]

I suggest you look up the results of the Northern Ontario YCCs, where you will find instances of individuals with negative performance ratings... something which I did not realize was possible until I saw it. If you think those events are suitable qualifiers... well, we will disagree.

And I suggest you, Stuart, not to mix all the problems into one discussion. You amendment

(e) If less than 12 players have qualified for an age group 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.

comes to ensure that we won't miss any of our best players, and I'm trying to say that this year alone shows that they will have enough YCCs and other ways to make it without this amendment.
I believe, no one will argue that having 14 new junior CFC tournaments is a good development. Quality of qualifiers and qualified players - it's completely different story, and we'll need to deal with it at later stages when minimum YCC infrastructure will be in place.

[Bob Armstrong]

Bob A. has agreed to second the new motion.

I leave it to Lyle or Bob G. to determine whether it needs a new thread. I would like to have both this motion and the previous to be considered.

Hi Stuart:

I take it you mean discussed when you say considered.

But I think we can't have both motions voted on - if both passed, the second one passed will replace the first one, no?? I think we have to chose after hearing debate, which one seems more acceptable.

Lastly, and here we go again - how do we get rid of the first motion, now filed?? We've been in a procedural morass about " withdrawing a motion ". I think the Chair would have to ask the assembly to cancel the motion or some such thing - and if one governor objected, I don't know if that governor can force the motion to a vote, now that its been filed. Can the procedural legal beagles ( of whom I am not one - I've never used Robert's Rules of Order ) tell us what to do, if Stuart and I decide that we want to proceed with the new version, rather than the old version, that is currently on the florr for vote? I hate to do this to everyone....at some point, someone knowledgeable has to draw up a set of procedural explanations for the CFC on these motion problems that are continually arising, and no one for sure knows the answer.

Bob

[Stuart Brammall]

You amendment comes to ensure that we won't miss any of our best players, and I'm trying to say that this year alone shows that they will have enough YCCs and other ways to make it without this amendment.

No, no that is not the reason at all, in fact if twelve are qualified by May 1st then the proposed motion has no effect, regardless of who the twelve are... they could be the bottom twelve.

The purpose is to ensure a minimum number of players are qualified for each section. I realize already that you don't care about the quality of the participants.

Suppose we have 9 weak players qualified through YCCs in Northern Ontario, Newfounland, and Northwest Territories--- the proposed rule would then qualifiy the top three players in the rating list in addition to these 9.

[Bob Armstrong]

Just want to say that I prefer the new version of the motion over the old.

I think the predominant desire is that the YCC's have as many participants as possible, and that it be the main qualification route.

I see the extra system qualification route as a back-up for the YCC system.

But I will go with the version the majority of the governors seem to want. They are both an improvement.

Bob