2016 CYCC List of Players

[Aman Hambleton]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

I have concluded that every comment from Keerti Nyayachavadi is legendary in its own way.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

I complained about the lack of standards with regards to entrants starting with the first version of this event almost 20 years ago. Nothing much has changed since.

Allowing literally anyone to play has little effect on most sections. Take the U18, or any of the girls' sections. Almost every contender will meet every other contender and the players in the bottom half of the rating list will have almost zero effect on the final standings.

But in sections like U8 to U14 this glut of non-contenders has a big negative impact on determining who will win because all of the main contenders will not have the chance to meet each other. Ideally tournaments should try to eliminate the random element with prizes, and expenses, this substantial, imo. It is ridiculous to be allowed to participate in a national championship when you have never played a slow game and the limit of your "strategy" is Scholar's Mate.

Tom, I share your concerns but from my standpoint I would rather see more participation than less. I will agree that it's ridiculous to have players at the CYCC who have never played a long time-control game, etc. But that's where we are right now. Ideally, you would have almost *all* of these players playing in a provincial qualifier first, having gone through a previous regional qualifier. Thus you would only see "elite" players (by age group) at the national level.

That's not likely going to happen soon, given the CFC's commitment to fund CYCC winners to the WYCC, the current lack of structure for regional/provincial qualifiers. It's improving, but it will take a while. The next big step for the CFC regarding the CYCC is to make it exclusive/elite.

I don't think there's any serious risk of stuff being watered down too much given that it's still 7 rounds and at the lower-age levels where you have the "glut" it's really hard to figure out who's likely the strongest anyway, because of the nature of the group in terms of sudden rating/strength changes.

I would *love* to see a CYCC where the only way you could even get there was to qualify through a provincial YCC supplemented by some direct qualifiers. I doubt that will ever happen but one can hope.

I would also like to see any "excess" funds that the CFC receives from its share of the CYCC, after they've paid for the WYCC delegation be use to sponsor a Canadian Junior. One can hope.

Steve

P.S. Congrats on your performance in the recent Senior's tournament. I followed several games online when both they and I were available. Much fun.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

ha ha thanks for sharing your copy right in a forum!!!

Thanks for keeping things on-topic.

Are you drunk? seriously. I never said that the the sections are separated by ratings? After dividing by age, starting rank in each section done by ratings are used for pairing. All with no regular/slow ratings but only active/semi-rapide ratings should be treated unrated and then sorted in alphabetical order - as was done in CYCC 2014 in Montreal. Not mixing up slow and active ratings for starting rank.

You're the one that brought ratings up. The only purpose of using ratings for pairing orders is to: a) make sure that someone is in the appropriate section if sections are determined by ratings (i.e most tournaments); b) ensure that the highest-rated players won't be paired until the last round possible.

Beyond that, the only reason is to let players know what the rating of their opponent is.

For any tournament, when you are using ratings for the pairing order (i.e. the usual way), you want to ensure you have the best ratings available. There are *lots* of organizations that provide ratings. Which do you choose? To list somebody as "unrated" when they *are* rated somewhere (and it is known) would be wrong.

Steve

P.S. There is a reason why if you are considered "unrated" in a tournament you get to compete in the bottom section and can only win the "unrated" prize (i.e. you can't win the section prize).

[Peter McKillop]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

....

I would also like to see any "excess" funds that the CFC receives from its share of the CYCC, after they've paid for the WYCC delegation be use to sponsor a Canadian Junior. One can hope.

Steve

I've been after the CFC for years, maybe a decade or more, to improve the level of disclosure in their financial statements with regard to youth programs. No disclosure means no scrutiny, no discussion, no constructive criicism, and ultimately no accountability.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

I've been after the CFC for years, maybe a decade or more, to improve the level of disclosure in their financial statements with regard to youth programs. No disclosure means no scrutiny, no discussion, no constructive criicism, and ultimately no accountability.

Hi Peter:

There should definitely be better disclosure. It's better now than it used to be but there's still work needed. I'm not sure exactly which hobby-horse you're on here. I don't think there's anything untoward going on at the moment, or at least anything beyond the usual untidiness that comes from having amateurs/volunteers in charge of things. Are you suggesting that there is skulduggery or just wanting more detailed statements?

Steve

[Kerry Liles]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

Hi Peter:

There should definitely be better disclosure. It's better now than it used to be but there's still work needed. I'm not sure exactly which hobby-horse you're on here. I don't think there's anything untoward going on at the moment, or at least anything beyond the usual untidiness that comes from having amateurs/volunteers in charge of things. Are you suggesting that there is skulduggery or just wanting more detailed statements?

Steve

Without detailed statements it is hard to tell whether there is any skulduggery or anything else... Peter may be still smarting (as many of us are!) from the OCA fiasco from a number of years back where a $100K grant (yes!) was basically squandered and a lot of that money seem to find its way to 'salary' or 'admin' fees - again, there was NO accounting so it is hard to tell where exactly it went but it sure as hell wasn't into anything anyone could see to do with chess.

Reminds me of federal money that goes apparently without need for accounting to mismanaged indigenous bands... but I digress only slightly...

It should be a no-brainer to have complete transparency especially when the organization is desperately trying to convince people to join!!

[Peter McKillop]

Re: 2016 CYCC List of Players

Hi Peter:

There should definitely be better disclosure. It's better now than it used to be but there's still work needed. I'm not sure exactly which hobby-horse you're on here. I don't think there's anything untoward going on at the moment, or at least anything beyond the usual untidiness that comes from having amateurs/volunteers in charge of things. Are you suggesting that there is skulduggery or just wanting more detailed statements?

Steve

Hi Steve. No, I don't think anything nefarious is going on but, as Kerry suggested, you can never be 100% certain if the financial statements are weak on disclosure/transparency AND are prepared in-house (no independent oversight). What I'm more concerned about is that mistakes, errors in judgement, overlooking efficiencies and good alternative ideas, etc., are a fact of life in any business but particularly so in small, volunteer-managed organizations like the CFC. There needs to be a high degree of transparency so that all members at least have the opportunity to make a positive contribution. I'd feel better if the executives and voting members had access to a detailed breakdown of youth programs' revenue and expenditures for decision making but, as I understand it, even that minimal level of disclosure is not happening.