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

[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Brammall(2) amendment is thus withdrawn.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.

[Ken Craft]

I'll be bringing a motion to rescind whatever the amended regulations are to the next meeting.

[Fred McKim]

In applying this amendment it will have to be clear if the players need current CFC memberships or not.

It will also need to be clear that players from younger age groups will not count toward the top ten in an older age group.

At present the CFC query page can't accommodate this, and somebody would have to do this by hand. If the players didn't have to be members this would be particularly difficult. If the players could play less than 15 games this would be difficult, as it's the value the query page uses. Activity requirement swould also be difficult.

These same points also apply to the highest rated player in each province automatically qualifying. This needs to be clarified.

[Michael Barron]

In applying this amendment it will have to be clear if the players need current CFC memberships or not.

It will also need to be clear that players from younger age groups will not count toward the top ten in an older age group.

At present the CFC query page can't accommodate this, and somebody would have to do this by hand. If the players didn't have to be members this would be particularly difficult. If the players could play less than 15 games this would be difficult, as it's the value the query page uses. Activity requirement swould also be difficult.

These same points also apply to the highest rated player in each province automatically qualifying. This needs to be clarified.

Thank you, Fred!

This amendment really doesn't make any sense!

On behalf of the CFC Youth Committee I ask all Governors to vote against this motion.