Aris,
If you prefer it this way, I will wait for proper procedures to be followed.
Aris,
If you prefer it this way, I will wait for proper procedures to be followed.
I don't think we should be tacking charges onto arbiters or making people pay to direct as Pierre has rightly pointed out. Most do it out of love for the game of chess and not to make large sums of money. I think I would have to go back to 2010 or 2013 to recall a situation where a non-FA or lower level arbiter made any significant mistake in a tournament that I was involved in within Canada either as a coach or a player. There have been plenty of instances where international arbiters, FIDE arbiters and national arbiters have made serious mistakes in other countries and perhaps one or two in Canada that currently escape my recall.
I would like to talk to you about the FQE program but I think we should also devote a section of the handbook on how to organize a tournament, how to direct a tournament, how to submit a tournament for rating to the CFC and so on. There is no reason why we can't have more people organizing matches and tournaments that are CFC rated. We definitely don't want to discourage people from doing so.
I feel that most of the ideas presented in just these posts are worth folding into a greater initiative that includes both Organizational and Arbiter-ing angles.
However, for years now, we seem to take turns voicing one of more of them, but any progress in implementation seems fleeting, or frankly, re-postponed.
The vision here is to structure a CFC "wing" to focus on Arbiter-ing angles, which in my opinion anyway, clearly would include Tournament Organization, etc.
The next step is for a proposal to be built. I offer to support Hal and Pierre. If/when such a proposal is built, the next step, I guess within months, would be to submit the proposal to the CFC Executive, for any feedback, improvements, etc. Finally, any resulting motion would be officially presented to us voting members.
Is there anyone who is willing to say something like: "why not, put together a proposal and we'll see where it goes from there"?!
Aris, I think I wrote that "Probably the real motion could be presented during the next quarterly meeting."
Seems taht Aris, Hal, and Pierre have a vision what they would like to accomplish, just need to formalize it. To my understanding the result will be a larger number of educated arbiters/organizers. This should be welcomed with open arms.
.*-1
Thank you Egis! Hal and I have been considering this for a while. We thought of Pierre given his experience with the FQE program / Quebec representation / etc.
We're hoping for others' positive responses as well. I also "volunteered" Pierre, so he may not be interested in either the proposal and/or the Secretary position?
Aris,
I would be honoured and willing to serve.
I think we need to be aware that simply using the FQE process in any way, shape, or form likely comes with a "cost".
4.I Rating Auditor
There have been very few regular rated events since my last report. Furthermore, my ability to oversee the rating system is on hold until the website is complete and
the rating audit tool re-created to match the new website.
As our President pointed out in another agenda item, once live play resumes we will have lost members who will be replaced by new members (probably with lower ratings). I will keep an eye out for deflation when the rating program is recreated.
Meanwhile, 37 players have earned the 200 point regular rating COVID-19 rating bonus through online Quick-rated chess. Five of those earned a second 200 point bonus. I intend to extend this incentive when it expires in March.
Until now I haven't paid much attention to Quick ratings. It would be nice to have statistics to monitor that rating pool but I don't. One interesting fact is that our higher rated players have not made the switch to online CFC Quick rated chess.
Paul Leblanc
Treasurer, Chess Foundation of Canada
CFC Voting Member