Official protest to the CYCC organizers

[Caleb Petersen]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

I went to the CFC handbook section 708 and the parts that pertain to this issue are as follows.

{Motion Bunning/Taylor in 2002-3 GL1 From AGM}:
The Executive may allow exceptional players to move up to a higher age group. (crossed out)

CFC policy on playing up in an older section of the CYCC as articulated by then CFC youth coordinator Patrick McDonald February 2012:

If someone wants to play in an age category older than the one they qualify for, they can do so.

BUT: if they win a spot in a certain age category to play at the WYCC, that is the age category that we are willing to send them to the WYCC in.

IE: if one player who is 9 years old, wishes to play in the U14 section at the CYCC, and if they win a spot to go to the WYCC, the only age category that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the U14 section.

The same would go for girls that would like to play in the open section for their age group (or older) ... if a girl plays in the open section and wins a spot to go to the WYCC, then the only section that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the section that they qualified in at the CYCC.

My current conclusion to this (which very possibly could be wrong) is that

1. Any player who fits into the age category may play in the CYCC. (ie-Nicholas Vettese could play in the U18 if he wanted to).

2. The player who plays up is in essence in that section for that year of the CYCC, so using the previously stated example if Nicholas played in the U18 CYCC and won he would then have to play in the U18 WYCC and even if he could've won the U14 he can't play in that section at the WYCC.

3. There is no intentions of regulating when a player playing up must be announced.

That is what I've gotten from reading the handbook and this forum. If anyone could confirm or deny this I would appreciate it.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

Tell us one thing: does it really require a Governors' motion to set rules for the CYCC these days? It did not require a Governors' motion to change Canadian Closed tie-breaks (they are carved in the Handbook without any provision to have anything else but matches)

They are always subject to the terms of the bid and the rules of FIDE.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

My current conclusion to this (which very possibly could be wrong) is that

1. Any player who fits into the age category may play in the CYCC. (ie-Nicholas Vettese could play in the U18 if he wanted to).

He could as long as there was an under 18 Open. There was a request to move up from U16 girls to U18 girls. I told the person asking that they would have to play in the under 18 open and there would be no air fare to Greece since there would be no competitors. Though the question of whether we would have allowed the late playing up if we had a section of eight already comes to mind. It would have made the under 16 girls less viable as a section.

2. The player who plays up is in essence in that section for that year of the CYCC, so using the previously stated example if Nicholas played in the U18 CYCC and won he would then have to play in the U18 WYCC and even if he could've won the U14 he can't play in that section at the WYCC.

I would say that he couldn't be the official player in under 14 in that case because he would be last in line behind even the person who finished last in the U14 section at CYCC. To play as an extra player might be allowed if the executive could be convinced.

3. There is no intentions of regulating when a player playing up must be announced.

Not at the moment, though all it would take for that to happen would be for someone to make a motion though it would probably make more sense to convene a committee of voting members to rewrite the rules surrounding CYCC and organize them more coherently.

That is what I've gotten from reading the handbook and this forum. If anyone could confirm or deny this I would appreciate it.

I would say that your analysis is correct.

[Anish Nyayachavadi]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

Thank you Anish. I can certainly agree with all your points, diplomatically stated.
Would you be willing to concede that the title of the other thread "2015 CYCC Pairing Manipulation" was somewhat less diplomatic? which only escalated the tension. Entertaining yes, but not productive.

Bob thank you. Obviously it is a little biased for me to say anything about that thread (look at my last name) but I will say this. Moment the initial thread and subsequent posts were started it was a back and forth spit war (Conspiracy theorist being thrown around and what not). However, it only escalated after post #35 (the round two pairing questions and issues). I encourage you to read post #35 from a neutral perspective and come to your own conclusions and opinion. Nobody till this minute nobody has actually provided a response on those round 2 pairings (unlike for the round 1 pairings), instead it's been a war seeing how can insult each other more. If an answer was given to post #35 the dialogue could have been a lot more productive on what/why it happened and figuring out better ways to be more transparent to parents and players about the pairings.

Yes, the situation could have been handled better but when people are attacking and discussing the messenger and not the content, that's what happens.

[John Coleman]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

... nobody has actually provided a response on those round 2 pairings ...

I hate to add more fuel to the fire, but what probably happened was this: we know that the computer guy effed-up by not using the latest ratings at the start. It is probable that some players (or their parents) told the TD during or after round 1 that they were playing at the wrong rating, and the computer-guy corrected their ratings, and so the round 2 pairings were made with some players at the correct rating, some at the incorrect rating.

During rounds 2 and 3, the word got around, and many players/parents realised the initial ratings were wrong. I was at the event, but neither an organiser nor a TD, and I was being approached by parents. Eventually I wrote to the chief TD, estimating that at least 20 Windsor players were playing with incorrect ratings, plus an unknown number of non-Windsor players. I suspect the chief TD and the computer guy were up half the night checking all the ratings, and there were no pairing complaints subsequently.

[David Ottosen]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

When a simple question was asked about creating guidelines to prevent further situations like this from happening you come up with this? Impressive, what's next?

I suggest you determine the proper method for getting rules and policies changes into the CFC handbook. It's not generally done on the whim of the president.

Find a relevant governor here: http://chess.ca/governors-page#provincial-governors

Explain your position, and try to convince them that you wish a motion to be presented. The end.

[Keerti Nyayachavadi]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

I hate to add more fuel to the fire, but what probably happened was this: we know that the computer guy effed-up by not using the latest ratings at the start. It is probable that some players (or their parents) told the TD during or after round 1 that they were playing at the wrong rating, and the computer-guy corrected their ratings, and so the round 2 pairings were made with some players at the correct rating, some at the incorrect rating.

During rounds 2 and 3, the word got around, and many players/parents realised the initial ratings were wrong. I was at the event, but neither an organiser nor a TD, and I was being approached by parents. Eventually I wrote to the chief TD, estimating that at least 20 Windsor players were playing with incorrect ratings, plus an unknown number of non-Windsor players. I suspect the chief TD and the computer guy were up half the night checking all the ratings, and there were no pairing complaints subsequently.

John - I am sure you are not comprehensively challenged. Any new/old rating combination does not get you the pairing for round 2 as shown here Post 36 other thread There was a lucky coincidental escape for round 1, however there is no answer whatsoever except diverting it by contending it did not impact.

There is need for you to jump out of your well deserved rest in your retirement, you submitted promptly the Windsor Tuesday results on June 30 after reaching home around 10:30 pm, those got updated. However no rating combination could generate the pairing for round 2 with results of round 1, without manipulation.

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

I have sent an email to the CYCC organizers protesting about Sam Song playing in the U18 section.

On the preregistered list Sam Song is listed in the U16 Open
http://www.windsorchess.com/CYCC2015/list.php#u16o

With a CFC rating of 2211 he is 10th on the latest U16 list (which doesn't include 3 Quebec players rated above him).
http://chess.ca/players?player_search_age=16

For some reasons he was allowed to play up in the U18 http://www.chess-results.com/tnr180020.aspx?lan=1 instead of U16 http://www.chess-results.com/tnr178963.aspx?lan=1

The CFC rules regarding CYCC allow to play up in CYCC http://chess.ca/handbook#section-7 section 708
{Motion Bunning/Taylor in 2002-3 GL1 From AGM}:
The Executive may allow exceptional players to move up to a higher age group.

My questions are:
1. How is Sam Song an exceptional player if he is rated 13th in his age group?
2. Why was he preregistered in the U16 and then allowed to play in the U18 without any announcement? The U18 players found out about this after the 1st round pairings were posted.
3. Is CFC going to pay for his WYCC trip if he comes 1st or if he comes 2nd and the winner declines to go?

I think he realized he has better chances to qualifies to WYCC if he plays in the U18 (only IM Richard Wang is better rated than him) and switched from U16 to U18 in the last moment. Whoever allowed him to play up did a mistake and insulted all U16 players who are playing tough games to qualify to WYCC.

I was checking the on-line registration for the 2016 CYCC and I was "surprised" to see who's playing in the U16 section this year.
https://onlineregistration.cc/tourna...t.php?tid=n6Gl (click Sort By Sections)
At the next CFC on-line meeting can a voting member introduce a motion to say that a player who played in an older CYCC age category is not allowed to go back to his age category at the following CYCC? This way nobody will be able to dodge the strong players from his age group twice in a row.

PS: Just in case you didn't know, the answer for question #3 is YES. CFC paid for his WYCC trip last year in Greece where he played in the U18 as the official player http://chess-results.com/tnr187413.a...&wi=821&snr=85

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

I was checking the on-line registration for the 2016 CYCC and I was "surprised" to see who's playing in the U16 section this year.
https://onlineregistration.cc/tourna...t.php?tid=n6Gl (click Sort By Sections)
At the next CFC on-line meeting can a voting member introduce a motion to say that a player who played in an older CYCC age category is not allowed to go back to his age category at the following CYCC? This way nobody will be able to dodge the strong players from his age group twice in a row.

PS: Just in case you didn't know, the answer for question #3 is YES. CFC paid for his WYCC trip last year in Greece where he played in the U18 as the official player http://chess-results.com/tnr187413.a...&wi=821&snr=85

They could but it would not apply to this year's CYCC.

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

They could but it would not apply to this year's CYCC.

Why not if the CFC meeting is in May and the CYCC is in July?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

Why not if the CFC meeting is in May and the CYCC is in July?

Rule changes never apply to this year's cycle. To do otherwise would open up the possibility of litigation. I also doubt that a rule change aimed at one player would get any traction.

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

Rule changes never apply to this year's cycle. To do otherwise would open up the possibility of litigation. I also doubt that a rule change aimed at one player would get any traction.

What makes you think it won't happen again? From your point of view it's OK to do this trick because the actual system allows it? How long it will take to get an updated CFC handbook so the parents can find the rules without searching through the CFC meetings and motions?


{Motion Bunning/Taylor in 2002-3 GL1 From AGM}:
The Executive may allow exceptional players to move up to a higher age group.





















CFC policy on playing up in an older section of the CYCC as articulated by then CFC youth coordinator Patrick McDonald February 2012:

If someone wants to play in an age category older than the one they qualify for, they can do so.

BUT: if they win a spot in a certain age category to play at the WYCC, that is the age category that we are willing to send them to the WYCC in.

IE: if one player who is 9 years old, wishes to play in the U14 section at the CYCC, and if they win a spot to go to the WYCC, the only age category that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the U14 section.

The same would go for girls that would like to play in the open section for their age group (or older) ... if a girl plays in the open section and wins a spot to go to the WYCC, then the only section that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the section that they qualified in at the CYCC.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

What makes you think it won't happen again? From your point of view it's OK to do this trick because the actual system allows it? How long it will take to get an updated CFC handbook so the parents can find the rules without searching through the CFC meetings and motions?

FIDE allows you to play up in their tournaments. It probably is not desirable to allow it. I recall arguing against it. The majority had a different view and their view prevails.

I had people who had volunteered to update the handbook. I am not aware that it went anywhere thus far. I do not have time to update the handbook myself at this time. If you or someone else is willing to do it I would be willing to see to it that the updated results were posted. Really the handbook should be rewritten from start to finish as there is lots of stuff that really doesn't belong there and is scattered throughout. We should also have a new/better website which is easier to maintain but that is not even on the back burner at the moment.

[Sasha Starr]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

FIDE allows you to play up in their tournaments. It probably is not desirable to allow it. I recall arguing against it. The majority had a different view and their view prevails.

I had people who had volunteered to update the handbook. I am not aware that it went anywhere thus far. I do not have time to update the handbook myself at this time. If you or someone else is willing to do it I would be willing to see to it that the updated results were posted. Really the handbook should be rewritten from start to finish as there is lots of stuff that really doesn't belong there and is scattered throughout. We should also have a new/better website which is easier to maintain but that is not even on the back burner at the moment.

Why are you and the other executives clinging to power for so long already when the most obvious things like Handbook and Website are not even on the burner? To endorse Iliumzhinov? Done already, what's next? Endorsement of Filatov in 2018?

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Official protest to the CYCC organizers

FIDE allows you to play up in their tournaments. It probably is not desirable to allow it. I recall arguing against it. The majority had a different view and their view prevails.

I'm wondering if you really read my post or you're a Master of Diversion. I have nothing against playing up. I don't agree with playing "down" the next year after you played up.

I do not have time to update the handbook myself at this time. If you or someone else is willing to do it I would be willing to see to it that the updated results were posted. Really the handbook should be rewritten from start to finish as there is lots of stuff that really doesn't belong there and is scattered throughout.

You've been using these lines since you became the CFC president. I think this should be the number 1 priority for the next president.