Handbook and rules

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Handbook and rules

I thought I was in your ignore list.

You were but apparently the ignore list doesn't work when you change computers. I usually take people out again periodically to see if they have returned to rational discourse.

Can you really nominate someone you consider a hater? I actually think the current president is doing a pretty good job, considering its a volunteer position and no one wants it (Well, there is Mr. Frarey..). Of course, as long as the president does not use CFC funds to get himself a free vacation trip to Olympiads.

If I wanted a vacation it would not be to Azerbaijan.

Making decisions without consulting the governors and constantly bending the law can be annoying as well.
I am too busy with coaching currently to be involved in the CFC more then as a governor, nomination declined.

Too bad said Atlas to Hercules.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Handbook and rules

I honestly find it fun sometimes to post on chesstalk, also, to support the Ben's and the Peter's out there...but I am tired of the 'rational discourse' tonight.
Do you have something to say on the thread topic?

[Pierre Denommee]

Re: Handbook and rules

Writing the Handbook shouldn't be a task for an attorney. It will be a long and tedious task with absolutely no guarantee that the Voting Members will approve the final product. That should be enough to rebut many candidate.

In order to make a real handbook, one must first decide on the format of the master document and divide the book into chapters with identical numbering scheme. The the stuff has to be separated into Constitutional matters (goes to Ottawa, need to pay for it) Bylaws and the rest such as the rules of the game. At lest in Quebec, Voting Members never vote on the rules of the game. they mostly comes from Above (FIDE, FIBA, ACBL, FIVB...) with a provincial association not being in any position to change the rules in any significant manner. The Rules of the Games and related stuff usually goes into the Arbiters' Handbook and the rest in the Federation Handbook.

I have done the FQE Official Rules of Chess may times. With very little changes, this could become an Handbook template for Libre Office. The problem is what to put in it. I see it as almost mandatory that at some point in the far future, the Voting Members will rescind all previous stuff and consider legal and binding only the current Handbook. The sport dispute and resolution centre of Canada has a list of mandatory stuff on a Hanbook. They are all relevant to us except carding because chess players as not eligible for carding. The other sections being Athlete selection, Doping (marginally, officially we apply FIDE anti-doping rules but since nobody will pay for the tests... could be replaced by cheating), Disciplinary Measures and Governance. The harder being Governance which includes but is not restricted to, the following

• improperly conducted decision-making/election processes in sport organizations;
• abuse of power and authority by board members;
• conflicting interpretations of by-law;
• undeclared conflicts of interests in the management of sport organizations; or
• affiliation and recognition of member organizations (clubs, provincial organizations, etc.)

This is where you will see the Directors saying that they are good guys, that such rules are useless and would needlessly reduce their ability to govern. You will also see VM stating that we should thrust the Executive and in the end, nothing will be done. When a wrongdoing occurs, wouldn't it be better if no rules have been violated because no rules exist? Unfortunately, this is the perception of the CFC of the men on the street.

Something as trivial as the transition to the NFP Act has been tedious and that has been done just before the deadline because it was mandatory. Any attempt to make a non mandatory change to the way the CFC is governed will be very hard to pass if things goes the usual way. Getting the required 2/3 majority is hard, for even trivial changes vastly favourable to the CFC.

Most who would volunteer for such work know very well they will work long hours to be likely greeted by a negative vote at the end unless almost nothing has been changed.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Handbook and rules

Yes, absolutely disgusting.
I don't have a personal opinion about exemptions yet, its a complicated issue with the Canadian Closed being announced so late...but such things should certainly be decided by a governor vote on a case by case basis. Just like the original motions about the Olympiad qualification were voted on.

You are misunderstanding the role of the voting members. The government changed the law to make not for profit corporations to standardize their operations.

The role of the voting members:

https://corporationscanada.ic.gc.ca/...g/cs05006.html

The role of the directors:

https://corporationscanada.ic.gc.ca/...g/cs05004.html

But whatcha gonna do..don't like the conditions of the tournament - organize it yourself. Don't like the dictatorship style of governing by the executive..do the job yourself. Right, Mr. Drkulec?

The voting members elect the board to run the corporation. The voting members can remove the directors and elect the directors. The voting members are not supposed to run the affairs of the corporation from day to day which is what you seem to be advocating. If that was the case then the voting members would be the directors and would share in the liability of running the corporation which currently only the directors share.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Handbook and rules

Really, well lets do some enlightenment then - maybe I am not the only one who misunderstands.
Last I heard, governors (call it voting members, if you like) still vote on tournament bids. There have been discussions in cases with just one bid before. Governors still vote on motions - do these have any effect? If the directors can make exceptions and exemptions without consulting the voting members, that's just 'running the affairs of the corporation day to day'?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Handbook and rules

Really, well lets do some enlightenment then - maybe I am not the only one who misunderstands.
Last I heard, governors (call it voting members, if you like) still vote on tournament bids. There have been discussions in cases with just one bid before. Governors still vote on motions - do these have any effect? If the directors can make exceptions and exemptions without consulting the voting members, that's just 'running the affairs of the corporation day to day'?

Strictly speaking we have not created a framework for these motions. They are not bylaws. I think of them as the accumulated policies of the CFC. The old handbook while still being followed by the current directors as much as is possible does not stand on solid legal ground. It is not NFP act compliant and the law is very clear that in all things we do must be compliant with the act. It is one of the duties of the directors to ensure that the corporation remains compliant with the NFP act and that we must not do anything which contravenes the NFP act. Various people are working on updating the handbook but the completion date seems to be ever receding. I would like once the work of updating the handbook is done to put the new handbook on a more solid footing but as I said that sometimes seems to be a bit pie in the sky at the moment.

In the case of one off decisions which deal with operations that is the province of the directors and sometimes the executive director. If we want to change a bylaw that bylaw is valid until the next annual meeting of the voting members, assuming it is passed by the directors. That bylaw would no longer be valid if the directors pass it and fail to submit to the members or if the members fail to ratify the bylaw. Bylaws deal with matters of governance and not the terms and conditions of a tournament.

In the past, voting members could vote on various national tournaments at the AGM. If no bids were submitted by the AGM the bids moved to the directors (AKA executive). Typically in the situation like last year when there were no bids for any tournament at the AGM (CYCC, CO, NAYCC) the bid should go to the directors. It did not because I was involved in the bidding and then additional bids arose very late after we had organized bids from Windsor for all three tournaments. My default position is to consult the voting members where time permits on such matters but it is not necessarily the rule particularly where the bids come very late. Part of the reason that I organized the tournaments was that there were no bids or the bids had fallen through and I did not want to have another summer without the Canadian Open and no CYCC and no NAYCC which would have given us a big black eye with FIDE and the CFC membership.

Originally NAYCC was supposed to be organized by Larry Bevand and the CMA (awarded by the executive) and we only found out in September or October that they were having trouble getting a venue in Toronto where the tournament was supposed to take place. In such situations because I was part of the bidding after consulting with stakeholders it is prudent to go to the voting members but strictly speaking the NAYCC is not even a CFC tournament, it is a FIDE America tournament and just because the CFC awards the tournament it doesn't mean that FIDE America will do the same and FIDE America is the real decision maker.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Handbook and rules

Maybe I am a bad in-between-the-lines reader..well lets see what I gathered, correct me if I am wrong.

- stories about last year's tournaments which a team of Windsor organizers put together (irrelevant).
- voting members no longer have to be consulted on tournament bids.
- all pre NFP motions are meaningless, just a guideline and the directors may choose to follow them or not to
- nothing about the status of new motions, whether they are meaningless or not. specifically the recent Olympiad motions.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Handbook and rules

Maybe I am a bad in-between-the-lines reader..well lets see what I gathered, correct me if I am wrong.

- stories about last year's tournaments which a team of Windsor organizers put together (irrelevant).

Relevant because they are an instance where the voting members voted on tournaments even though by the old handbook rules the votes were not required since no bids had been put forward by the AGM. You brought up the question of voting on tournaments.

- voting members no longer have to be consulted on tournament bids.

If multiple bids come in at or before the AGM they still are consulted. If there are no bids or one bid then the bid will be presented and move to the directors. This was the rule pre-NFP.

- all pre NFP motions are meaningless, just a guideline and the directors may choose to follow them or not to

All pre-NFP motions are not meaningless because the executive promised to follow the handbook as much as possible and we are still honour bound to follow that promise where it does not contradict the NFP Act or does not involve an impossibility or impossible situation or an unfair situation. The job of the executive/directors is to cut the gordian knots and maneuver the CFC out of the cul de sac's that the old handbook has maneuvered us into. The basis for making the handbook legal and binding beyond the current executive is doing the work to update it, resolve the inconsistencies with the NFP act and then to present it to the directors who will propose a motion that this portion of the handbook be adopted as policy by the CFC. It will have to pass a vote of the directors. It will then become CFC policy. After this the policy will have to be presented to the voting members who can accept it, reject it or amend it. We are not at the stage where the handbook has been updated to reflect all past motions. At that point we will need to discard everything which is not NFP act compliant and present a motion to the board of directors to accept the NFP act approved handbook either in whole or in pieces which seems to me the more likely scenario.

Olympiad regulations are one section. CYCC/WYCC regulations are another section. Canadian Open regulations are another section. Canadian Closed regulations are another section and so on. The directors are always main court of appeal though the voting members can appeal and indeed overrule non-time limited matters.

- nothing about the status of new motions, whether they are meaningless or not. specifically the recent Olympiad motions.

The status of new motions are meaningful only to the extent that promises were made that we would continue to use the handbook as a guideline. We need volunteers to help update the handbook at which point we can make them legally meaningful with a vote but until we ratify each and every section individually and ensure that they are compliant with the NFP act all these motions could be rendered meaningless by a different executive which would not necessarily be bound by the promises of the current executive. I have made a number of requests for volunteers over the years to work on this and some very few have responded and the work proceeds slowly. I hope that this work will be brought to completion but it largely depends on the efforts of others.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Handbook and rules

"The situation with the next Canadian Closed shows that the time of rules (motions) is over. CFC doesn't need to follow any rules (motions) anymore. CFC executive can do everything. Vlad's posts on the thread "Canadian Closed in Montreal" shows his new approach." - Victor Plotkin

..so we are back to square one. The new motions are meaningful (the word meaningless sounds more true) only if the executive holds their promises. The executive does not hold its promise of delivering a Canadian Closed like the handbook says it should (free entry for IMs, accomodation for GMs etc). The executive stomps over the motion about Canadian Closed participation for players who will be considered for the Olympiad teams. The executive may choose when their promise should be sustained and when to take their words back. A new executive may choose not to make such a promise at all. If the voting members don't like the current directors, they may vote them out, but since no one wants to be in their place, things will remain the same. The empire strikes back, and there is no new hope.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Handbook and rules

The executive does not hold its promise of delivering a Canadian Closed like the handbook says it should (free entry for IMs, accomodation for GMs etc).

I did not promise a free lunch and bread and circuses for all. We have to balance the needs of the elite against the needs of the everyday player who in the end is the one paying the bills with his membership and rating fees. The only way that delivering a Canadian Closed according to the specifications that the governors set is by finding sponsors. When we do find sponsors they are treated with disrespect by certain players hence our sponsors tend to be one off situations where we have to look again for new ones at every event. When they are deciding what to sponsor they do a due diligence and chesstalk comes up in a google search and they see the backbiting and sniping and wonder why they should want to get involved in it.

I did learn a lot from the Caesars Summer of Chess. Mainly I learned to add by subtracting. I learned how to talk to potential sponsors (well probably I already knew) but I did know from the experience the previous year when I went in with a group of people not to do so again. I went in alone and got much more in an hour or two of meetings by myself than we did the previous year with lots of moving parts and people who thought the story that they had to tell was all about their needs and their difficulties.

If I was organizing the Canadian Closed I would try to hold those promises but I am not in a position to do so at this time. Even if the financing dropped in my lap trying to do so this year would likely kill me, literally and not figuratively. I am under multiple doctors' orders to make my priority getting healthy. The governors passed requirements which made it almost impossible for an organizer to put on the Canadian Closed without incurring significant losses. Organizers warned at the time the rules were passed that it would put a chill on the number of organizers who would be willing to take on the task and the risk. The organizers predictions came true. Don't get mad because we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear every year or even every other year.

If we look at the small pool of organizers that could put on something like this most of them do not want to do so. We have to keep going back to the same well over and over again. The well's water level is getting pretty low and the water is not looking too healthy and you are not helping with the constant negativity.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Handbook and rules

I did not promise a free lunch and bread and circuses for all. We have to balance the needs of the elite against the needs of the everyday player who in the end is the one paying the bills with his membership and rating fees. The only way that delivering a Canadian Closed according to the specifications that the governors set is by finding sponsors. When we do find sponsors they are treated with disrespect by certain players hence our sponsors tend to be one off situations where we have to look again for new ones at every event. When they are deciding what to sponsor they do a due diligence and chesstalk comes up in a google search and they see the backbiting and sniping and wonder why they should want to get involved in it.

I did learn a lot from the Caesars Summer of Chess. Mainly I learned to add by subtracting. I learned how to talk to potential sponsors (well probably I already knew) but I did know from the experience the previous year when I went in with a group of people not to do so again. I went in alone and got much more in an hour or two of meetings by myself than we did the previous year with lots of moving parts and people who thought the story that they had to tell was all about their needs and their difficulties.

If I was organizing the Canadian Closed I would try to hold those promises but I am not in a position to do so at this time. Even if the financing dropped in my lap trying to do so this year would likely kill me, literally and not figuratively. I am under multiple doctors' orders to make my priority getting healthy. The governors passed requirements which made it almost impossible for an organizer to put on the Canadian Closed without incurring significant losses. Organizers warned at the time the rules were passed that it would put a chill on the number of organizers who would be willing to take on the task and the risk. The organizers predictions came true. Don't get mad because we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear every year or even every other year.

If we look at the small pool of organizers that could put on something like this most of them do not want to do so. We have to keep going back to the same well over and over again. The well's water level is getting pretty low and the water is not looking too healthy and you are not helping with the constant negativity.

Very Trump-like: blaming everyone else but yourself.

Maybe if the CFC had received their next installment of $20K from FIDE that was promised from Kirsan, there would be a better Closed. Or better still, if Kasparov had won the FIDE Presidency, there would have been a capital investment that Canada would have benefited from.

Maybe if those sponsors found ChessTalk in their due diligence, they found out that the CFC President supported a criminal for FIDE President instead of one of chess' greatest players who was prepared to make huge investments into chess worldwide. Maybe they found the CFC President totally disrespecting Sid Belzberg, who himself invested lots of his own money into Canadian chess. Maybe they found the CFC President coming out against global warming and calling all the evidence "fudged data" and all the scientists fraud artists. Maybe they found the CFC President saying the only source of truth in the media comes from FOX News (run by a sexual predator, and it's top nightly show hosted by yet another sexual predator), and saying all liberals are scum. Maybe the CFC President has cultivated an image of himself that is something potential sponsors don't want to be associated with in any way, shape or form. He even publicly admits -- boasts, actually -- that in the '90s he was such a badass with the online community that he was getting death threats.

Now we have the above posting, blaming everyone else, including the people who tried to help get sponsorship in meetings with Vlad. Poor Vlad had to ditch them all and do everything himself, they were the problem.

And again with the whining about health issues... basically admitting that he is unfit for even BEING the CFC President. Sponsors must be delighted to learn that chess in Canada is in such dire straits that it is run by a guy with one foot in the grave because no one else will do it.

I think Vlad Drkulec has offered up on ChessTalk more negativity then everyone else combined.

Canadian chess to prospective sponsors must seem like The Gong Show.... but without the Gong.

I'd think about helping out myself if I was in Canada... but for the adult market, I don't believe in the product. Standard chess is a great game, a beautiful game.... for a niche market of adults who generally tend to have very tight pursestrings. That niche market is shrinking, while kids are flocking to chess in growing numbers. So if I were a sponsor, I'd think only about the youth aspect and forget about the adults. Chess is becoming checkers, in a glacial process that is unstoppable.

To get chess beyond a niche market with adults, and be rid of all these financial compromises year after year, is possible.... if we redefine chess. That is the necessary next step.

Poker had its "singularity" around the year 2000 -- the introduction of the "hole cam" for poker TV coverage. With chess, unfortunately, the singularity is not as simple as a piece of trivial technology, such as measuring players' respiration and heartbeat during a match (sorry Agon).

For chess it is more difficult, it requires going against the grain of history. The key is to bring in all those who are currently excluded from FIDE but who nevertheless have an interest in chess. That's 600 million people worldwide versus roughly 250,000 members of FIDE. Any business person would have to like those numbers, yet.... chess has a history, a reputation, that acts like a ball and chain. The chain needs to be cut.

[Nikolay Noritsyn]

Re: Handbook and rules

I did not promise a free lunch and bread and circuses for all. We have to balance the needs of the elite against the needs of the everyday player who in the end is the one paying the bills with his membership and rating fees. The only way that delivering a Canadian Closed according to the specifications that the governors set is by finding sponsors. When we do find sponsors they are treated with disrespect by certain players hence our sponsors tend to be one off situations where we have to look again for new ones at every event. When they are deciding what to sponsor they do a due diligence and chesstalk comes up in a google search and they see the backbiting and sniping and wonder why they should want to get involved in it.

I did learn a lot from the Caesars Summer of Chess. Mainly I learned to add by subtracting. I learned how to talk to potential sponsors (well probably I already knew) but I did know from the experience the previous year when I went in with a group of people not to do so again. I went in alone and got much more in an hour or two of meetings by myself than we did the previous year with lots of moving parts and people who thought the story that they had to tell was all about their needs and their difficulties.

If I was organizing the Canadian Closed I would try to hold those promises but I am not in a position to do so at this time. Even if the financing dropped in my lap trying to do so this year would likely kill me, literally and not figuratively. I am under multiple doctors' orders to make my priority getting healthy. The governors passed requirements which made it almost impossible for an organizer to put on the Canadian Closed without incurring significant losses. Organizers warned at the time the rules were passed that it would put a chill on the number of organizers who would be willing to take on the task and the risk. The organizers predictions came true. Don't get mad because we can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear every year or even every other year.

If we look at the small pool of organizers that could put on something like this most of them do not want to do so. We have to keep going back to the same well over and over again. The well's water level is getting pretty low and the water is not looking too healthy and you are not helping with the constant negativity.

Did you read the first post of this thread..and you still have the guts of doing the 'certain players driving sponsors away' talk publicly? LOL. That certain player (politician) seems to be you.
Just like the topic-starter, I am not happy that you are above the law. I can live with a Canadian Closed where IM's pay an entry fee and GM's get no accommodation. Make a motion to make it legal first. I can live with some people getting an exemption from the Canadian Closed participation motion. Make a motion to make it legal first.
Or maybe you are right, I should stop being constantly negative, because Mr.Drkulec knows best.

[Paul Leblanc]

Re: Handbook and rules

I remember when (I believe it was) Bob Armstrong proposed the conditions for holding the Canadian Closed. I thought it was agreed that it was something to strive for but not an absolute requirement for awarding the event.
Vlad is right that it is unlikely any organizer in Canada would take on this event under the conditions proposed. Why would they?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Handbook and rules - Can. Cl. Cond.

I remember when (I believe it was) Bob Armstrong proposed the conditions for holding the Canadian Closed. I thought it was agreed that it was something to strive for but not an absolute requirement for awarding the event.
Vlad is right that it is unlikely any organizer in Canada would take on this event under the conditions proposed. Why would they?

I'd like to note that the mover of the motion for new Canadian Closed Conditions was GM Mark Bluvshtein (Then actively playing), IIRC. I was just the seconder.

Bob A

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Handbook and rules

I remember when (I believe it was) Bob Armstrong proposed the conditions for holding the Canadian Closed. I thought it was agreed that it was something to strive for but not an absolute requirement for awarding the event.
Vlad is right that it is unlikely any organizer in Canada would take on this event under the conditions proposed. Why would they?

I agree with you, Paul. Indeed, this motion put some strict conditions on the organizer. From Vlad's posts I understand that Vlad initially didn't like this rule; he just "inherited" it as a CFC president.

At the same time I don't agree that this rule is just a recommendation. I believe, the organizers followed this rule all 3 times since 2009 (2011, 2012, 2015).

If Vlad was so unhappy with this rule he had plenty of time to cancel it. He is a CFC president almost 4 years; there were more than 10 on-line governor's meetings under his presidentship. Since we have 7 executives among about 30 active voting members, and some of voting members are organizers themselves, Vlad's chances to cancel this rule were extremely high. He just didn't care to do it.

Usually we have 7-8 IMs in the Canadian Closed. 8 X 150 = 1200 CAD. Most of Canadian GM live in Montreal, likely no more than 2 players (including the champion T.Krnan) need the accommodation. Say, you need 400 CAD for 5 days/person. 400 X 2 = 800. 1200 + 800 = 2000 CAD. Maximum, probably less.

Is 2000 CAD a good reason to break rules? I don't think so.