If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
I'm sorry because I misunderstood your statement. I have no intentions to be the CFC president but the first thing to do as a president it will be to update the handbook. Something like the USCF bylaws with updates after every CFC meeting if necessary. I'm not familiar with the USCF and I'm not saying to copy their business model but to make everything more transparent to the members. The Standards of Conduct for the executives and Code of Ethics are also good to have.
A few people have promised to work on their portions of the handbook. Hopefully in the next few months that will happen and we can publish a new handbook or repository of policies and rules. At this point I am just too busy to involve myself in this. Organizing the three tournaments has added the equivalent of a second CFC presidency to my workload. I will probably be able to turn my attention in this direction after August if I live that long.
A few people have promised to work on their portions of the handbook. Hopefully in the next few months that will happen and we can publish a new handbook or repository of policies and rules. At this point I am just too busy to involve myself in this. Organizing the three tournaments has added the equivalent of a second CFC presidency to my workload. I will probably be able to turn my attention in this direction after August if I live that long.
A suggestion! You could save yourself an enormous amount of time, energy, and stress, by not responding to every Tom, Dick and Harry on this site. And using all that time and energy to find yourself some decent helpers. Most successful people are judged by the company they can entice......
I'm going to explain the rule using an example. I hope you'll understand my point.
As you know, each age group has junior and senior players. Let's assume I'm a junior player registered in the U16 group where 3 other strong senior players are also registered. Few days before the CYCC I decide to change my section to U18 where I have more chances to qualify to WYCC. The CFC rule allows me to play up so nobody can complain. Next year I'll be a senior player in the U16 and all the strong players will move up in the U18. This way I have another shot to qualify to WYCC by playing again in the U16 group without breaking any rule.
Every year after the WYCC is done I hear people complaining that CFC is wasting money by sending chess tourists to this tournament. If CFC doesn't want to encourage competition by stopping this type of behavior than let's continue to send chess tourists to the WYCC.
Rene, I completely understand your issue. But your issue really seems to deal with one player only and it also seems to deal directly with your son. (I haven't looked at the crosstables closely but that's what it looks like.) I don't personally agree with you that the rules should be changed. As I said, this sort of thing has been hashed out before and there have been some foolish motions passed only to be quickly "unpassed" once the implications were better understood.
By your reasoning, if I were to "play up" in one of Hal Bond's Guelph Pro-ams from the U1700 section to the U2000 section, then I should be forever constricted to playing up in the U2000 section in future Guelph tournaments regardless of whether my rating placed me squarely in the 1700 section.
You want to change the rules to correct what you believe to be a "loophole" being exploited by a particular player who "played up" at last year's CYCC. I would disagree with making that change. And furthermore, you want the rule change to be retroactive on that player and directly affect their placement in this year's CYCC. As Vlad said, that would open up the CFC to litigation, and legitimately so since to retroactively implement a rule change targeted at one specific player just smacks of unfairness.
By your reasoning, if I were to "play up" in one of Hal Bond's Guelph Pro-ams from the U1700 section to the U2000 section, then I should be forever constricted to playing up in the U2000 section in future Guelph tournaments regardless of whether my rating placed me squarely in the 1700 section.
Steve
I disagree. There is a huge difference between tournament a that separates the players by rating, and tournament b that separates the players by age. Age group levels vary greatly from year to year whereas rating sections don't nearly as much. You will always have players between 1600 and 2000 in the U2000 at the Guelph Pro-Am with the exception of players playing up (which is discouraged by a $20 fee). You could have ten 2200+ players in a section one year, and the next year have only two or three 2200+ players in the exact same age group. Thus I don't think the comparison is a valid one.
I disagree. There is a huge difference between tournament a that separates the players by rating, and tournament b that separates the players by age. Age group levels vary greatly from year to year whereas rating sections don't nearly as much. You will always have players between 1600 and 2000 in the U2000 at the Guelph Pro-Am with the exception of players playing up (which is discouraged by a $20 fee). You could have ten 2200+ players in a section one year, and the next year have only two or three 2200+ players in the exact same age group. Thus I don't think the comparison is a valid one.
If I am 10 years old I am "under 18", "under 16", "under 14" and "under 12".
If I am a 1000 rated player I am "under 1800", "under 1600", "under 1400", and "under 1200".
You can't change the rules at the last minute just because you dislike how another player is "using" the rules. If you want to change the rules, then go ahead and make a motion to do so. I would disagree with such a rule change. To impose such a rule change at the last minute would be ridiculous.
Rene, I completely understand your issue. But your issue really seems to deal with one player only and it also seems to deal directly with your son. (I haven't looked at the crosstables closely but that's what it looks like.) I don't personally agree with you that the rules should be changed. As I said, this sort of thing has been hashed out before and there have been some foolish motions passed only to be quickly "unpassed" once the implications were better understood.
Steve,
There's always a first time and this has nothing to do with my son (please do your homework before you make any presumptions). The 2015 WYCC organizers didn't update the U18 list until they posted the 1st round pairings. The U16 player had few days to prepare for the other 7 U18 players (it was a round robin) and managed to win an important game in the first round. The player who lost that game was the favorite for the 2nd place in the U18 and got "robbed" of the WYCC spot because of this. I thought it was completely unfair and that's why I started this protest. Nobody took responsibility for this "omission".
By your reasoning, if I were to "play up" in one of Hal Bond's Guelph Pro-ams from the U1700 section to the U2000 section, then I should be forever constricted to playing up in the U2000 section in future Guelph tournaments regardless of whether my rating placed me squarely in the 1700 section.
Are you serious? It will be really nice if you can roll back your age same as your chess rating.
FYI: USCF is using a "current floor" and a player can't play below it regardless of his current rating.
As Vlad said, that would open up the CFC to litigation, and legitimately so since to retroactively implement a rule change targeted at one specific player just smacks of unfairness.
I agree. If the U16 player wants to prove me wrong he should ask the organizers to let him play in the U18. This will be fair play.
Steve,
There's always a first time and this has nothing to do with my son (please do your homework before you make any presumptions). The 2015 WYCC organizers didn't update the U18 list until they posted the 1st round pairings. The U16 player had few days to prepare for the other 7 U18 players (it was a round robin) and managed to win an important game in the first round. The player who lost that game was the favorite for the 2nd place in the U18 and got "robbed" of the WYCC spot because of this. I thought it was completely unfair and that's why I started this protest. Nobody took responsibility for this "omission".
I apologize for my statement that I thought your son was involved. I already stated that I had not looked up the relevant cross-tables. In any event that is irrelevant. From what you say above it seems you are really peeved about something that happened *last year* and now you want to change the rules and make them retroactive upon that player. That would be unfair (to everybody) IMHO.
Are you serious? It will be really nice if you can roll back your age same as your chess rating.
FYI: USCF is using a "current floor" and a player can't play below it regardless of his current rating.
Yes I am serious. If I qualify for a given section based on certain criteria, why shouldn't I be allowed to play in that section? You want to bring in a rule (retroactively) that states if I ever deviate from the lowest available section I can never play in that section again. And a 15-year old already has a "floor". He can never play in the U14 section again.
I agree. If the U16 player wants to prove me wrong he should ask the organizers to let him play in the U18. This will be fair play.
You can't just bring in a rule change retroactively. It will never fly and could potentially lead to litigation. In this case, instead of what you are proposing, why not bring a motion restricting section changes after a certain date to prevent last-minute queue-jumping? That would likely get more "traction".
Steve
Last edited by Steve Douglas; Thursday, 12th May, 2016, 03:47 PM.
Reason: removing over the top argmentative last comment
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.
Hi Rene: I have scanned the posts on this topic only, and so maybe shouldn't tread into this one. But ignorance generally doesn't deter me! But I have a number of general points to make:
1. The rules for the CYCC should be clear, and posted well in advance. They should then not be played with unless it is absolutely needed. In that case a full public explanation is required, since the CYCC participants had been preparing based on the published rules. Has all this been the case here?
2. You can do anything legally allowed by the rules in place......there is no onus on someone to be fair or not to take advantage, to their own benefit. However, once an unfair rule comes to light, then it should be amended before the following year's event. Usually it is bad practice to start changing published rules the night before the event. Is Sam covered by this for 2016?
3. It seems to me that in the past, the biggest problem has been CFC communication with participants. Change of participant decisions has been allowed at the very last minute, or such decision was not publicly announced until the very last minute. It seems to me that there must be a deadline by which participants must choose their section. Has there been a deadline associated with the CYCC, and in particular, the 2016 CYCC? If so, did Sam meet it?
Hi Rene: I have scanned the posts on this topic only, and so maybe shouldn't tread into this one. But ignorance generally doesn't deter me! But I have a number of general points to make:
1. The rules for the CYCC should be clear, and posted well in advance. They should then not be played with unless it is absolutely needed. In that case a full public explanation is required, since the CYCC participants had been preparing based on the published rules. Has all this been the case here?
2. You can do anything legally allowed by the rules in place......there is no onus on someone to be fair or not to take advantage, to their own benefit. However, once an unfair rule comes to light, then it should be amended before the following year's event. Usually it is bad practice to start changing published rules the night before the event. Is Sam covered by this for 2016?
3. It seems to me that in the past, the biggest problem has been CFC communication with participants. Change of participant decisions has been allowed at the very last minute, or such decision was not publicly announced until the very last minute. It seems to me that there must be a deadline by which participants must choose their section. Has there been a deadline associated with the CYCC, and in particular, the 2016 CYCC? If so, did Sam meet it?
Bob A
Hi Bob:
I just amended my last post because I had not really commented on the last-minute aspect of the section change which is probably the biggest burr under Rene's saddle. I agree that section changes should not be allowed last-minute. There should be a cut-off beforehand. And maybe it should be required that once you are registered for a section, you can't change (or change after a certain date).
If I am 10 years old I am "under 18", "under 16", "under 14" and "under 12".
If I am a 1000 rated player I am "under 1800", "under 1600", "under 1400", and "under 1200".
You can't change the rules at the last minute just because you dislike how another player is "using" the rules. If you want to change the rules, then go ahead and make a motion to do so. I would disagree with such a rule change. To impose such a rule change at the last minute would be ridiculous.
Steve
I think you missed the point of what I was saying. Your argument (in the post I replied to) was based upon the presupposition that playing up in a open tournament can be compared to playing up in a youth tournament. I was challenging that presupposition because I think it is essential to differentiate between the two kinds of categorization of players.
Part of the reason why I argue(d) this is that playing up in an open tournament with rating categories is always objectively more difficult than not playing up. In age categories no such "rule of difficulty" exists because each year of players is of a different strength level, and therefore it can in certain instances be advantageous to an individual to play up, and in certain cases it can be more advantageous to not play up. Therefore any comparison between the two categorizations of players in regard to playing up is invalid in principle. That was all I was trying to say with my post.
I would also add that Sam cannot be faulted for playing up seeing as 1. It is allowed within CFC rules and 2. The CYCC organizers approved his playing up. It likewise cannot be held against the CYCC organizers because 1. It is allowed within CFC rules and 2. by adding another player the U18 was turned into a round robin, making things easier. The rules allowing such a loophole are the issue, and therefore they must be altered to close that loophole. I hope we can all agree that an alteration is better then no alteration, however I am aware that 1. there are disagreements as to what alteration should occur and 2. it is low on the priority list of the executive and voting members.
There's always the possibility of amending the qualification to the section. For example, U18 can be changed to 16-17, or something similar. No exceptions.
I am generally opposed to that idea for a number of reasons, not least of which is that players should be encouraged to experiment. For example, what if a girl wants to play in the "Boys' " U12, but is discouraged from doing it because she may not be allowed to play in future Girls' CYCCs?
"Tom is a well known racist, and like most of them he won't admit it, possibly even to himself." - Ed Seedhouse, October 4, 2020.
I'm going to explain the rule using an example. I hope you'll understand my point.
As you know, each age group has junior and senior players. Let's assume I'm a junior player registered in the U16 group where 3 other strong senior players are also registered. Few days before the CYCC I decide to change my section to U18 where I have more chances to qualify to WYCC. The CFC rule allows me to play up so nobody can complain. Next year I'll be a senior player in the U16 and all the strong players will move up in the U18. This way I have another shot to qualify to WYCC by playing again in the U16 group without breaking any rule.
Every year after the WYCC is done I hear people complaining that CFC is wasting money by sending chess tourists to this tournament. If CFC doesn't want to encourage competition by stopping this type of behavior than let's continue to send chess tourists to the WYCC.
Hello all,
Disclaimer: I am speaking with no knowledge of CFC rules and legal issues, so please pardon if something I say is incorrect. Also, I will speak my mind and be politically incorrect, so I hope no one bashes me for this.
Well let's be clear: Sam is selecting his groups based on personal benefit. Why? Why not gain more opportunities to go to WYCC, gain more university application material and so forth? We cannot possibly blame Sam for doing what is best for him. I want to make this clear; this is not an attack on Sam or his family, I am sure they are great people, and they have played by the rules so to speak. He has done nothing wrong in this regard.
That being said, being a chess player myself, there is something that feels "wrong" about this issue. Perhaps I am just a naive person with a child's mind, but I feel this action does violate the "spirit and integrity" of chess to me. Maybe some of you will find this to be sentimental BS, but I do believe that a responsibility that the CFC carries is to not only raise funds, but also to preserve the integrity of the game. Again, Sam's actions themselves are in no way unsportsmanlike if the rules permit to do so - it is not Sam's decision that must be changed, but the rules that must be changed.
I do believe however, that a sudden change in rules a month or two before the CYCC may not be fair to Sam. So here is my proposal for this issue in the future that hopefully can resolve this issue once and for all.
As a player and speaking from my own experience, I strongly believe that the only point of jumping a section should carry the intention of playing STRONGER OPPONENTS. However, when groups are assigned by age instead of rating, it is possible that a lower age can be much more competitive than a later age (ex. the 1999 year is ridiculously stacked in comparison to other years). Years ago, when I was still playing CYCC, I could've played up and avoided this 1999 massacre of a group. But somehow, someway, it feels wrong to "strategically" jump a group with the sole intention of avoiding competition.
I read a post in which someone suggested that anyone should be allowed to jump groups. I agree with this 100%. Instead of having a rule so ambiguous such as "only exceptional players are allowed to jump", why not open it for everyone? My idea is as follows: PLAYERS SHOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO JUMP GROUPS IF THE GROUP THEY INTEND TO JUMP TO IS STRONGER THAN THEIR OWN GROUP. I realize this is also ambiguous so I will give an example to as how this could work. For instance, if you are U16 and wish to jump to U18, (Suppose the U18 has 6 players) - the average rating of the top 2 players in the U18 group MUST be greater than the average rating of the top two players in the U16 group. In sections with more than 8 players, the average rating may include the top 3 players, and with more than 16 players, the average will consist of the top 4 players, etc. Of course these numbers are arbitrary, but I am sure you understand my idea.
I believe this will offer young, aspiring youth to challenge themselves if they wish to play against stronger competition while also shutting down the issue of "strategically jumping" groups. For example, if someone in U12 wishes to challenge himself, but U14 is weaker than U12, then it makes sense to play U12, no? But if someone is jumping for the sole intention of avoiding strong players and winning CYCC, then this rule would prevent them from doing so.
In my opinion, this is a relatively common-sense solution to the problem and although I do not expect immediate action to be taken, I hope that this problem will be resolved sometime in the near future so we can avoid having this debate year and year again.
Again, Sam did nothing wrong. It is just that the rules must be changed, and yes maybe I am naive, but I strongly believe we should do whatever it takes to avoid this "strategic" element of tournament entry. Leave the strategy to the chess board only, that's the way chess should be to me at least.
I hope I was able to offer something new and didn't piss anyone off too much.
I'm not sure why this is becoming such a big issue? What's wrong with the current rules.....in the normal course of events, playing up an age category wouldn't be attractive for a junior. What seems to have been wrong is that last year a junior "gamed the system". Actually, there's nothing wrong with that, except that he was allowed to do it at the last minute, so his competitors couldn't also "game the system"! Unfair imho.
As to playing down, same argument....if you want to allow this sort of thing, let everybody have a shot at it!
It could prove difficult to set the rules for this, and an easy solution is to just prohibit jumping categories, but doesn't that run counter to the WYCC rules?
Last edited by Fred Harvey; Thursday, 12th May, 2016, 05:51 PM.
I hope I was able to offer something new and didn't piss anyone off too much.
Michael Song
That was a totally constructive post that shouldn't upset anyone. The issue for me about reopening playing up in CYCC for discussion is the rule in the NFP act that states that we cannot revisit something that has been decided for a period of five years. Of course, there is probably a way around that. Someone could reasonably argue that any pre continuation under the NFP act discussions and motions shouldn't count as we were in a sense reborn as a non-profit and shed many of our old bylaws and rules after the continuation. There was much destruction wrought during that process. I have mitigated some of that by holding to the promise that we would continue where possible to follow the handbook. Of course, there is no legal constraint on a future president to do the same so a priority if I remain president for another term is to transition and update the handbook so that it has some weight in the NFP act compliant world.
I remember one case in which this 5-year rule was not followed or ignored.
On Jan 2013 governors discussed the motion to increase the number of required games for Olympiad Team from 10 to 20. The motion was defeated that time, but was accepted 2 years later, after 2014-Olympiad.
Providing this case doesn't mean that I would like to change the current rules. It's really unclear to me.
Tweet
Are you serious? It will be really nice if you can roll back your age same as your chess rating.
Comment