Selection of Olympiad Team

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

Voting on the motion without the statutory notification means that anyone could go to court and win the right to overturn the results of the vote based on the NFP act which requires prior notification of any motions to be voted on. It is not an option. It is the law. One of the duties of the executive is to ensure that the CFC remains compliant with all applicable laws including the NFP act. There is no point in doing anything which can easily and successfully be challenged in court because it is contrary to the laws that govern the CFC.

To get anything on the agenda the voting members can send a motion to the executive (either me or the secretary Lyle Craver will usually work best) at least three to five weeks before the next scheduled meeting. The law actually is that voting member motions require three to five months of notice before an AGM if my memory is correct but we get around that by making voting member motions director motions and probably will continue to do that as long as I am president.

Since the 3-5 months law is not being followed anyway...and, as far as I know, Victor communicated his motions before the meeting started to the executive, there was no reason not to proceed.
...and just to quote your own post:

"We have three or four ways of proceeding. The first is to put the question on the ballot immediately but make sure that the voting is extended to give everyone a chance to vote. The second is to adjourn the meeting for three weeks to six weeks but not close it and to come back and deal with this question then. The third is to defer it to the next meeting which could come as quickly as four weeks to six weeks from now specifically to deal with this. The reason to extend it to six weeks would be to provide sufficient time after the Olympiad to give notice of this proposal to the new voting members. A fourth idea would be to vote now to determine which of the two mutually exclusive proposals we go ahead with and then work out the details for three to six weeks from now or for the next meeting which might be as soon as six weeks from now. I am open to each of these possibilities based on the consensus of the voting members on this question."

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

Since the 3-5 months law is not being followed anyway...and, as far as I know, Victor communicated his motions before the meeting started to the executive, there was no reason not to proceed.
...and just to quote your own post:

"We have three or four ways of proceeding. The first is to put the question on the ballot immediately but make sure that the voting is extended to give everyone a chance to vote. The second is to adjourn the meeting for three weeks to six weeks but not close it and to come back and deal with this question then. The third is to defer it to the next meeting which could come as quickly as four weeks to six weeks from now specifically to deal with this. The reason to extend it to six weeks would be to provide sufficient time after the Olympiad to give notice of this proposal to the new voting members. A fourth idea would be to vote now to determine which of the two mutually exclusive proposals we go ahead with and then work out the details for three to six weeks from now or for the next meeting which might be as soon as six weeks from now. I am open to each of these possibilities based on the consensus of the voting members on this question."

The three to five month rule is not being followed because there is a way around it by making all motions directors motions. There is no way around the three week notice rule. There was no consensus at the last meeting. The two mutually exclusive options both had approximately the same number of votes more or less so there was no real favourite. The voting would have to have been extended three weeks and there was no motion to vote upon because the straw poll did not identify which of the two alternatives the voting members preferred.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

It seems a bit odd to talk about revamping the rules after one of the most successful open (men's) Olympiad teams ever.

It could have been better. Just check who is one place higher. LOL
With that kind of play what Kovalyov and Hansen showed, Sambuev or Preotu would not spoil anything LOL

[Fred McKim]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

The three to five month rule is not being followed because there is a way around it by making all motions directors motions. There is no way around the three week notice rule. There was no consensus at the last meeting. The two mutually exclusive options both had approximately the same number of votes more or less so there was no real favourite. The voting would have to have been extended three weeks and there was no motion to vote upon because the straw poll did not identify which of the two alternatives the voting members preferred.

As I have said repeatedly, the two motions are just that, two separate motions - that probably both would have passed during the meeting (although there probably would have been amendments to the second motion).

So as far as I'm concerned they are both on the floor for the next meeting as was decided. The straw poll was taken to help Victor in terms of reframing either one in the wording.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

As I have said repeatedly, the two motions are just that, two separate motions - that probably both would have passed during the meeting (although there probably would have been amendments to the second motion).

So as far as I'm concerned they are both on the floor for the next meeting as was decided. The straw poll was taken to help Victor in terms of reframing either one in the wording.

The problem is that they are mutually exclusive and at some point we have to choose one or the other or the status quo. I was hoping we would have some clear direction after the straw poll and we don't aside from most people not being interested in staying with the status quo.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

The three to five month rule is not being followed because there is a way around it by making all motions directors motions. There is no way around the three week notice rule. There was no consensus at the last meeting. The two mutually exclusive options both had approximately the same number of votes more or less so there was no real favourite. The voting would have to have been extended three weeks and there was no motion to vote upon because the straw poll did not identify which of the two alternatives the voting members preferred.

I do not want to argue with you, Vlad. You are the president. You know better the rules and you know how to play with them. I just want to remind you your post about Selection Committee. During the last AGM, I posted "we have a minor chance to get rid of Selection Committee" and you replied "No one is voting for the selection committee so we are safe to say that it will be eliminated". Changed your mind?

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

The problem is that they are mutually exclusive and at some point we have to choose one or the other or the status quo. I was hoping we would have some clear direction after the straw poll and we don't aside from most people not being interested in staying with the status quo.

Voting about Selection Committee (motion I) was clear. 20 out of 22. Is it enough?

[Ken Craft]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

Straw polls are simply how people are leaning on an issue at a given time. The precise language of a motion will determine how people will decide vote. I look forward to seeing the proposed motion and seeing it debating so that I can give due consideration before casting my vote. That's my fiduciary responsibility.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

I do not to argue with you, Vlad. You are the president. You know better the rules and you know how to play with them. I just want to remind you your post about Selection Committee. During the last AGM, I posted "we have a minor chance to get rid of Selection Committee" and you replied "No one is voting for the selection committee so we are safe to say that it will be eliminated". Changed your mind?

I haven't changed my mind. I argued for a straight rating system years ago. It would have been nice to have a direction of straight rating or the more complicated formula. For the next meeting we should prepare a series of motions to be voted on with a mind to choosing one or another of the alternatives.

[Ian Findlay]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

Of course there is no perfect system, but I really like Victor's idea of giving incentive to play in the Canadian Closed and giving younger players an edge - proposal #2. I am not sure about taking the average of CFC and FIDE rating 5 months before. Before passing any motion though, I think it is imperative to ask the top players what they think. At there level, I would think that FIDE rating should be used and forget about the CFC rating. Victor do you know if the top players have any opinions?

One drawback of Victor's proposal, because Canada's top players often are not very active. Would you prefer a player who has an an average rating of 2500 but did not play the last two years, hence 2490 score according to proposal #2 or a 25 year old player who played 100 games and saw his rating go from 2350 to 2480, but came 4th in Canadian Championship. Clearly I think the 2nd player should go and this was probably one of the intentions of the selection committee.

The second problem could be Player A 'score' of 2520, player B '2510'. Player A has a history of misbehaving and not being a team player. Player B is well liked and is a team player. It is easy for the selection committee to select Player B.

Having said all this, I still would vote for Victor's proposal II. Also, it should be noted that not every year will we have such a generous sponsor and many of the top players will just simply refuse to go!

[Hugh Brodie]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

I would love to keep the tradition of the winner of the Closed being automatically selected. However - unless there are lots of incentives to attract players from across the country - the winner will most likely be a player who lives in (or near) the host city.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

Of course there is no perfect system, but I really like Victor's idea of giving incentive to play in the Canadian Closed and giving younger players an edge - proposal #2. I am not sure about taking the average of CFC and FIDE rating 5 months before. Before passing any motion though, I think it is imperative to ask the top players what they think. At there level, I would think that FIDE rating should be used and forget about the CFC rating. Victor do you know if the top players have any opinions?

One drawback of Victor's proposal, because Canada's top players often are not very active. Would you prefer a player who has an an average rating of 2500 but did not play the last two years, hence 2490 score according to proposal #2 or a 25 year old player who played 100 games and saw his rating go from 2350 to 2480, but came 4th in Canadian Championship. Clearly I think the 2nd player should go and this was probably one of the intentions of the selection committee.

The second problem could be Player A 'score' of 2520, player B '2510'. Player A has a history of misbehaving and not being a team player. Player B is well liked and is a team player. It is easy for the selection committee to select Player B.

Having said all this, I still would vote for Victor's proposal II. Also, it should be noted that not every year will we have such a generous sponsor and many of the top players will just simply refuse to go!

Ian, thank you for your support. A few points.

1. Top players share my opinion about CFC rating "it's a joke".

2. In your example inactive 2500 player is not eligible to play, because he does not meet 20 games requirement. So if Kasparov decides to immigrate to Canada and play for us, he needs to play 20 games before the Olympiad to qualify.

3. About misbehaving player. It's a very difficult question. We can not measure it with the numbers and bonuses/penalties. I have to say, not always Selection Committee selected a good team player. In 2012, for example, notoriously difficult person was selected. Opposite, 2016 nominee, Alex LeSiege was a very good teammate.

I have to say it again. My proposal is not perfect. Nothing is perfect. However, I am sure it's better than the current rules.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

I would love to keep the tradition of the winner of the Closed being automatically selected. However - unless there are lots of incentives to attract players from across the country - the winner will most likely be a player who lives in (or near) the host city.

I though about it. Should the winner of Canadian Closed get an automatic spot? Another option was to give him a generous bonus - say 50 or even 70 points. Still, I prefer to stay with the current privilege to the champion.

I am not sure about your point with the host city. J.Hebert won in Guelph in 2009. B.Sambuev won twice and was living every time close to the host city (Guelph and Montreal), but it's just a coincidence.

[Ian Findlay]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

Hi Victor,

Sorry, I did not see the 20 game requirement in your proposal. A good idea. The top players I have talked to also agree that for our top players, FIDE rating is much more relevant than CFC rating.

[Rene Preotu]

Re: Selection of Olympiad Team

6 motions on CFC forum
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...7434#post27434