28i - CYCC Qualification rules - Brammall(2) amendment

[Bob Gillanders]

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

I will repeat my post from the original motion thread, since this new one has been opened for discussion

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

[Stuart Brammall]

I agree that they are both an improvement, and will take either over none, though I think I still prefer the first option.

Still more preferable would be if someone could find a different way to promote participation-- I would like to see the CYCC remain the best of the best for youth players.

[Bob Armstrong]

In my opinion, what I call the Itkine/Brammall original CYCC amendment cannot simply be voted on as simultaneously being able to be put into the CYCC section with the revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ). The two overlap. They are alternatives, and one must be chosen over the other as far as I can see.

I note that Stuart prefers the Itkine/Brammall original amendment. Though I feel the revised Brammall amendment (2) may be superior, I am caught by the fact that we brought the Itkine/Brammall original amendment specifically on behalf of a CFC member, Victor Itkine, a member of the CYCC Organizing Committee, the Youth Committee, and a CYCC parent. Members cannot bring motions on their own - they require governor assistance. Since both amendments are significant improvements in my opinion, and either are acceptable to me, I have now decided to maintain my role as assisting Victor, and I will be voting for the Itkine/Brammall original amendment and against the revised Brammall (2) amendment. Victor has also privately advised us that he prefers the original over the revised.

My second point goes to how to vote on these two motions, since they are really alternatives. If they are just both straightforwardly voted on independently, and both should pass ( a distinct possibility ), then we will have two competing sections for the CYCC section, that are in conflict. I don't think this issue should be left to the Handbook Updating Subcommittee to sort out re making the CYCC section then consistent. I think we should deal with it now, and configure the voting so both cannot be passed simultaneously.

I see two possible ways of doing this. One is to make them into one vote, where we have to chose A ( the Itkine/Brammall original amendment ), B ( the revised Brammall amendment (2), OR C ( neither ). The other would be to somehow stagger them and make one follow the other - that is for example, first vote on the Itkine/Brammall amendment. If it is defeated, then going on to the revised Brammall (2) amendment poses no problem, and it can either be accepted or rejected. Should the Itkine/Brammall amendment pass however, the voting instructions for the second motion shall state that should the revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ) be passed, it will REPLACE the just passed Itkine/Brammall amendment.

I put these 2 possibilities on the table for the President and Secretary as notice that I don't think it is as straightforward to deal with these alternative amendments as has been assumed up to now. Maybe someone has another solution?

Anyway, that is my assessment of what I perceive as a logistics issue with these two motions. Do others agree that there is a problem here?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

There is indeed a problem. That being the 2009-13. All the debtae here has just shown why it should never have been adopted in the first place.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

"the top players by rating in each age group"

Who will be responsible for monitoring and sorting ratings? What is an age group?

e.g., 13-14? or <=14

CNN publishes 13-14 what makes a problem as it does not confirm with the age limit for the U14.

Let's take September issue ( http://www.chess.ca/CCN/SEP10.pdf )
Top Under 14 years
1 Qin, Zi Yi (Joey) 14 ON 2362
2 Semianiuk, Konstantin 14 ON 2141

Top Under 12 years
1 Wang, Richard 12 AB 2302

***

I think that all qualification tournaments are becoming a joke with all these exceptions.

[Bob Gillanders]

As I understand it, the mover and seconder of Brammall(2) amendment prefer the initial Itkine/Brammall over Brammall(2).

Brammall(2) amendment is thus withdrawn.

[Stuart Brammall]

Hey Bob G.,
The issue is this, I would prefer either to none... in the event that the first is defeated I would like the second to be voted on.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob G:

As seconder of each motion, I agree with Stuart - If the Itkine/Brammall amendment is deafeated, I'd then like to see a try with Brammall(2).

They are both beneficial - I just feel Itkine/Brammall should prevail if the governors agree. But if they prefer Brammall(2), then let's pass it.

Thanks for simplifying the procedure on this !

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Next week, after we get a chance to digest our (hopefully) new & improved CYCC qualification rules, we can give consideration to further amendments. I see developing these rules as an evolutionary process.

I will be very interested to hear from our CYCC organizers, our Youth Committee, our National and Provincial Youth Coordinators, and all our dedicated youth organizers and volunteers, as to where we stand and if they feel further changes are required.