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.
How big of a contingent would there be if we held an event like CYCC in the interior of BC particularly if the entry fee was less than the current CYCC model say something like $100 or $50. Fill in your number here and tell me how many kids you can deliver.
Your suggesting a CYCC qualifier? Aki and I could do that if there was an incentive to play in a CYCC, the entry fee of the qualifier was $50, maybe 30 kids.
If we had one year to reach out to more of the surrounding area maybe 40 to 50. There could be more but we would have to investigate. There use to be a lot of chess in this region. A lot of grandparents play chess.
Your suggesting a CYCC qualifier? Aki and I could do that if there was an incentive to play in a CYCC, the entry fee of the qualifier was $50, maybe 30 kids.
If we had one year to reach out to more of the surrounding area maybe 40 to 50. There could be more but we would have to investigate. There use to be a lot of chess in this region. A lot of grandparents play chess.
I was thinking of some kind of an online CYCC with a parallel path to get the equivalent of official player status at WYCC and the World Cadet Chess Championship. This is of course only possible if we get that pesky money that we are talking about. Good call on the YCCs. We could make the local YCCs as a qualifier for both or we could hold YCCs online for the online CYCC. I am going to have to talk to some people and flesh this out.
I've no stake in this. I just see it as a bit corrupt. The CYCC should move around. It is for chess playing children of Canada by the way. It shouldn't be monopolized. Especially by the president.
I forgot to mention Kingston. Another great city. Great location for the NAYCC.
I'm not sure how the president is monopolizing this. There's no secret as to what his own personal preferences might have been, but what exactly are you suggesting? He has one vote of the many required to pick a bid.
As I understand it the Vancouver bid was for the CYCC only, and *only after it was pointed out that it did not meet the CFC's rules for the portion of the entry fees to be paid to the CFC to support the WYCC team*, did the Vancouver bid become modified to accommodate this "trivial" requirement.
I have no reason to believe that the non-conformity of the was anything more than a mistake, but nonetheless, the bid was non-compliant and the whole notion of groups submitting bids and then being able to modify them when they run into trouble is unfortunately very typical of what has happened in the past with the CFC.
Perhaps you didn't notice that there wasn't a Canadian Open in 2015. Why? Because nobody bid for it. So there wasn't one.There *was* a successful CYCC.
This year there were two bids for the CYCC. There were also two bids for the Canadian Open. Both groups wanted to host both. The Vancouver group wanted just the CYCC.
The CFC ignored the youth market for years. Suddenly the CMA sprung up and was successful. The CFC responded by continuing to ignore that market (and brought in the anyone but Larry restriction for being part of the CFC executive). They belatedly realized that maybe they were a bit (bit?) wrongheaded, realized that they were the gateway to the WYCC and suddenly the CYCC was born.
The CYCC is something of a cash cow for the CFC and/or organizers. It is hard to lose money hosting a CYCC. You can even do it in Kapuskasing and people will show up. A Canadian Open is a different kettle of fish. There is much more risk involved. Thus organizers prefer to try to host both in consecutive weeks. A significant number of players in the CYCC will play in the Open. And for those players who have chess-playing parents, there's a good chance the parents will also play in the Open. In other words, the CYCC acts as a good lead-in to the Canadian Open.
Thus the CFC (governors/voting members) are going to prefer having one group host both in the same place back-to-back. They know that combo will be successful. Canadian Open organizers also prefer to host the CYCC as well. It reduces their financial risk and allows economies of scale and re-use of resources. There was a minor scandal in 2002 when the organizers did a relatively bare-bones CYCC in order to prop up the prize fund of the Canadian Open.
Getting back to the issue of your complaint....
If I were a voting member/governor (I am not and never have been), and all else being equal, my first choice for the CYCC this year would have been Vancouver. But all else wasn't equal. The Vancouver bid, as first presented was for the CYCC only, and even then it was financially non-compliant. The other two bids were for both the CYCC and the Canadian Open and were financially compliant.
My last choice would have been Windsor, but they made an excellent bid. The mandate of the president and the other voting members is to *select the best bid*.
In closing this minor rant (I can produce bigger ones) I think a couple of comments that were made in the discussion thread on the CFC forum and have been echoed or repeated on here are worth reflection. Fred McKim stated that this is about the best the CFC has been in years with respect to major events. There were *three* bids for 2016 events. The 2017 events are already set. They are asking for bids for 2018!
I don't think some people realize the importance of this. I've been (very tangentially) been involved in the past in the preparation for minor business conventions. The lead-time is tremendous. I've chatted with several chess organizers many times and the better ones almost always say that to do an event properly the proper lead time should be about 18 months.The CFC has frequently scrambled to put stuff together in 3 months.
I applaud what Aris is doing in Ottawa. He's already announced the 2017 Ontario Open and that planning is now underway. Go Aris!
The second comment was made by (I think) Lyle Craver about the availability of forms on the USCF site for putting in bids for events, etc. I have no doubt the CFC process is opaque for newcomers. The CFC should put an effort into making the process easier and more accessible, including standardized bid forms, sample bid submissions, and general guidelines as to what is expected, particularly which decisions rest with the CFC, and which are up to the discretion of the organizer (I seem to recall a recent controversy about CYCC participants playing up at the last minute).
Steve
P.S. I agree with Paul Leblanc's comments about the current CFC president. He is not perfect. He is frequently non-presidential when he chooses to engage in "debate" on ChessSquawk. He doesn't seem to have any inclination to "stay above the fray". And I don't think anybody really wants to hear about his various health issues. However, he seems to be a very hard worker and, he *does* post regularly. At the very least the members know who is president, what he is doing, and what he is thinking. Does anybody here remember the (relatively) recent tenure of David Lavin?
I'm not sure how the president is monopolizing this. There's no secret as to what his own personal preferences might have been, but what exactly are you suggesting? He has one vote of the many required to pick a bid.
I think that some people thnk that it is my duty as president to be neutral no matter what is in the bid. My duty is to act in the best interest of the CFC as I perceive it and consider all the factors that might contribute to evaluating the conflicting alternatives.
As I understand it the Vancouver bid was for the CYCC only, and *only after it was pointed out that it did not meet the CFC's rules for the portion of the entry fees to be paid to the CFC to support the WYCC team*, did the Vancouver bid become modified to accommodate this "trivial" requirement.
It looked to me like they used the same template that was used for Windsor 2010 and Vancouver 2012. In those days you gave the winners $1000 and nothing else. A parent was drafted to be head of delegation and there were no coaches. Our approach to WYCC has changed. We also use the youth fund to things like the U16 Olympiad.
I have no reason to believe that the non-conformity of the was anything more than a mistake,
It all comes down to the assumptions you make. I have no problem with bidders making a profit if that profit comes from fundraising or the $75 that belongs to the organizer. I don’t like to see a profit from the funds that should go to the kids who go to WYCC etc.
but nonetheless, the bid was non-compliant and the whole notion of groups submitting bids and then being able to modify them when they run into trouble is unfortunately very typical of what has happened in the past with the CFC.
If theirs was the only bid, we might have allowed it.
Perhaps you didn't notice that there wasn't a Canadian Open in 2015. Why? Because nobody bid for it. So there wasn't one.There *was* a successful CYCC.
Ultimately it came down to those health issues you don’t want to hear about or there might have been a Canadian Open. We talked about it a lot. The support fell away.
This year there were two bids for the CYCC. There were also two bids for the Canadian Open. Both groups wanted to host both. The Vancouver group wanted just the CYCC.
Actually that was also true for the Windsor group. Initially they wanted only the two youth events. I told them, I would not allow it.
The CFC ignored the youth market for years. Suddenly the CMA sprung up and was successful. The CFC responded by continuing to ignore that market (and brought in the anyone but Larry restriction for being part of the CFC executive).
That rule is no longer in place. I doubt anyone could justify it under the NFP act.
They belatedly realized that maybe they were a bit (bit?) wrongheaded, realized that they were the gateway to the WYCC and suddenly the CYCC was born.
I think Larry even ran the first one or two of them. Larry was a governor for a time but at one point decided that he could be far more powerful outside of the at times dysfunctional structure that was the CFC. Obviously he was right.
The CYCC is something of a cash cow for the CFC and/or organizers.
We have raised expectations of what we are going to do at WYCC so its not as much of a cash cow. A good CYCC is necessary under the structure which has been in place the last few years where we spend money raised for junior chess on junior chess. I’m a kids coach. Frank Lee is both a kids coach and a parent of chess kids. I think we redressed the imbalance in the force.
It is hard to lose money hosting a CYCC.
Not that hard if you see some of the proposals from prospective venues.
You can even do it in Kapuskasing and people will show up. A Canadian Open is a different kettle of fish. There is much more risk involved. Thus organizers prefer to try to host both in consecutive weeks. A significant number of players in the CYCC will play in the Open. And for those players who have chess-playing parents, there's a good chance the parents will also play in the Open. In other words, the CYCC acts as a good lead-in to the Canadian Open.
Thus the CFC (governors/voting members) are going to prefer having one group host both in the same place back-to-back. They know that combo will be successful. Canadian Open organizers also prefer to host the CYCC as well. It reduces their financial risk and allows economies of scale and re-use of resources. There was a minor scandal in 2002 when the organizers did a relatively bare-bones CYCC in order to prop up the prize fund of the Canadian Open.
That will not happen in Windsor. The bulk of the Windsor players in the Canadian Open will be kids.
Getting back to the issue of your complaint....
If I were a voting member/governor (I am not and never have been), and all else being equal, my first choice for the CYCC this year would have been Vancouver. But all else wasn't equal. The Vancouver bid, as first presented was for the CYCC only, and even then it was financially non-compliant. The other two bids were for both the CYCC and the Canadian Open and were financially compliant.
My last choice would have been Windsor, but they made an excellent bid. The mandate of the president and the other voting members is to *select the best bid*.
Actually, I probably would have been content to let the voting members decide on the merits but the point of order had to be addressed and I would have argued against it based on the need to raid the foundation to support such a bid given the current expectations of what we do at a WYCC. The hard part about being president is having to say no a lot. If this bid had been accepted there would have been lots of angry parents at the WYCC and WCCC.
In closing this minor rant (I can produce bigger ones) I think a couple of comments that were made in the discussion thread on the CFC forum and have been echoed or repeated on here are worth reflection. Fred McKim stated that this is about the best the CFC has been in years with respect to major events. There were *three* bids for 2016 events. The 2017 events are already set. They are asking for bids for 2018!
This is more normal than the status quo when I arrived as president.
I don't think some people realize the importance of this. I've been (very tangentially) been involved in the past in the preparation for minor business conventions. The lead-time is tremendous. I've chatted with several chess organizers many times and the better ones almost always say that to do an event properly the proper lead time should be about 18 months.The CFC has frequently scrambled to put stuff together in 3 months.
I applaud what Aris is doing in Ottawa. He's already announced the 2017 Ontario Open and that planning is now underway. Go Aris!
The second comment was made by (I think) Lyle Craver about the availability of forms on the USCF site for putting in bids for events, etc. I have no doubt the CFC process is opaque for newcomers.
We have bid forms as well and the website where they can be found was pointed out to the Vancouver team.
The CFC should put an effort into making the process easier and more accessible, including standardized bid forms,
Not very useful frankly. Every bid is different. What you need is someone who is very good with spreadsheets to do a sample budget, sample bid submissions, and general guidelines as to what is expected, particularly which decisions rest with the CFC, [/QUOTE]
All that is set out in the handbook though in a slightly confusing manner. The big gotcha is the provision for the bookseller. I knew about it because the provision was off in a random section of the handbook in 2010 when John Coleman did it in Windsor.
and which are up to the discretion of the organizer (I seem to recall a recent controversy about CYCC participants playing up at the last minute).
Steve
P.S. I agree with Paul Leblanc's comments about the current CFC president. He is not perfect.
WHAT? NOT PERFECT? Ack!
He is frequently non-presidential when he chooses to engage in "debate" on ChessSquawk. He doesn't seem to have any inclination to "stay above the fray".
There is a good reason for that. If you let people continuously badmouth the CFC without response then readers and those who google the CFC might come to the conclusion where there is smoke there is fire. If you challenge questionable assertions and explain decisions then the thoughtful reader might say there is another side to this story and not believe the gloomy guses.
And I don't think anybody really wants to hear about his various health issues.
There goes your free subscription to the daily ailment.
However, he seems to be a very hard worker and, he *does* post regularly. At the very least the members know who is president, what he is doing, and what he is thinking. Does anybody here remember the (relatively) recent tenure of David Lavin?
I do and thought he was effective. I was surprised when he lost the election.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Sunday, 22nd May, 2016, 10:27 PM.
The CYCC could be a stand alone tournament for youth excellence. If it is hard to lose money hosting a CYCC that could mean the tournament could be held anywhere in Canada for the benefit of children.
If the Canadian Open were well run, in a nice place, with extra curricular activities for a wide range of tastes. easily accessible and close to good coffee, players would come, wherever it was held.
If the Canadian Open needs the CYCC to exist maybe the CFC could re evaluate.
Windsor won all three of the major events CYCC,CO and the NAYCC with the same number of votes except one.
Quebec city and Kingston lost their bids with the same number of votes except one.
The Vancouver bid never made it back on the table because of a mistake on the application. It was small and easily fixed but wasn't supported.
For example Western Canada gets the CYCC once in x amount of years? In the case of last year, where there was a lone bidder, then open it up to a traditional bidding process?
The Chess Challenge (Chess and Math) tries to rotate among the West, Ontario, Quebec, and the East.
From 2004 to 2016 it has/will been/be held in the provinces: MB, ON, NB, QC, AB, ON, QC, BC, PEI, ON, MB, QC, SK.
Scott, I personally would wholeheartedly support any reasonable bid that came for the Canadian Open on its own. However it appears these days that no one is willing to bid for just the Canadian Open. Last year is proof of that.
I urge all Chesstalk readers to talk with their local organizers about the possibility of hosting the CO in 2018, and start preparing for a bid next summer.
[QUOTE=Garland Best;100204.
I urge all Chesstalk readers to talk with their local organizers about the possibility of hosting the CO in 2018, and start preparing for a bid next summer.[/QUOTE]
What would you consider to be a reasonable bid for the Canadian Open with a few extra features you'd add?
Could someone take the time and include some numbers for the benefit of those reading this thread from here.
Links to the information?
Thanks.
Last edited by Scott Richardson; Tuesday, 22nd December, 2015, 03:34 PM.
You might want to edit your previous post because some of the quoting is off. As it stands one of us may be putting foots in the others mouth.
Anyway, the things I would add are:
I'm pretty sure that Larry ran the first version of the CYCC. The CFC took it away from him because only the CFC could be the gateway to the WYCC.
For years many parents wondered exactly where their entry fee for the CYCC went. Some years it seemed to go nowhere. Other years at least a chunk of it went to funding WYCC entries. I'm glad to know that it is now policy that the CFC's portion of the entry fee goes to funding the WYCC team. I think it's always been intended to be that for years, and frequently has. Unfortunately it has, in the past, frequently not.
I may be doing a disservice to Mr. Lavin with my comment. I was speaking in the context of communication. There have been several CFC presidents in the past decade that either did not communicate on-line at all, or promised to communicate and then became very silent about six months into their mandate. It's quite possible I'm misremembering. If so I will modify my original post.
I stand by my view that you are too inclined to descend into the muck to prove a point. There are many times it's simply not necessary. I do understand the frustration, but sometimes less is more.
The CYCC could be a stand alone tournament for youth excellence. If it is hard to lose money hosting a CYCC that could mean the tournament could be held anywhere in Canada for the benefit of children.
If the Canadian Open were well run, in a nice place, with extra curricular activities for a wide range of tastes. easily accessible and close to good coffee, players would come, wherever it was held.
If the Canadian Open needs the CYCC to exist maybe the CFC could re evaluate.
Windsor won all three of the major events CYCC,CO and the NAYCC with the same number of votes except one.
Quebec city and Kingston lost their bids with the same number of votes except one.
The Vancouver bid never made it back on the table because of a mistake on the application. It was small and easily fixed but wasn't supported.
Just painting a picture.
Hi Scott:
You keep insinuating that the decision was somehow corrupt. As Garland Best said, the reality is that unless the CYCC is included in a bid, nobody bids for the Canadian Open. Windsor and Quebec bid for both. Vancouver bid for the just CYCC. If Vancouver had bid for both, and had the CYCC bid been compliant, you would have every right to be outraged if Vancouver had been voted down. But *that's not what happened*.
The governors/voting members can only vote on the stuff before them and one of the things they care about is the Canadian Open, particularly since it went walkabout in 2015.
Instead of blaming putative regionalism among the governors/vm's maybe you should encourage Vancouver to put in a good bid for both events.
You keep insinuating that the decision was somehow corrupt. As Garland Best said, the reality is that unless the CYCC is included in a bid, nobody bids for the Canadian Open. Windsor and Quebec bid for both. Vancouver bid for the just CYCC. If Vancouver had bid for both, and had the CYCC bid been compliant, you would have every right to be outraged if Vancouver had been voted down. But *that's not what happened*.
The governors/voting members can only vote on the stuff before them and one of the things they care about is the Canadian Open, particularly since it went walkabout in 2015.
Instead of blaming putative regionalism among the governors/vm's maybe you should encourage Vancouver to put in a good bid for both events.
I really mean my last statement about putting in a good quality bid for both events. It's more likely to succeed and personally I would love to see/attend an event in Vancouver.
If you actually took a look at the bid, a good portion of the "organizers" are parents who Vlad gets money from for coaching their children. Of course he is going to support his city! Like politician, his sole interest is appeasing who pays the bills, not the health of Canadian chess. A fool would understand how much better the Quebec and Vancouver bids were. Sound, respected organizers (CMA, yourself, FQE, etc.) vs. unscrupulous Windsor parents supported by Vlad. Financially, the Quebec bid also makes more sense, also. The Vancouver bid also makes plenty of financial sense also.
Scott, your argument about middle-class families is true. In both this years and last years CYCC, the "official photographer" (I won't mention names, you probably know who it is) was from B.C. He/She had three children playing in this/last years CYCC. They had their plane fare, hotel all paid for using the registration fees, not sure if it was CFC arm-twisting the organizers. I'm pretty sure you can find plenty of photographers in Windsor and especially Montreal, that wouldn't require thousands of dollars to accommodate. But sadly, for some hard working chess playing families in B.C, they can't all be "official photographers" and receive special treatment. Considering Vlad supports a Putin, ISIS loving crony, it only makes sense that he would start to emulate him.
Wowzers! I'm not sure how to follow this. Now Putin's involved. Sid, Nigel, can you help here?? I know how to use a camera! Can I get on the CFC gravy train too?
Tweet
Comment