Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

[Victor Plotkin]

31% - (9/29) the forfeit rate. In many tournaments I have played it my life, this is by far the highest ever number. Usually it's around 10% or less. Actually with a few more forfeited players, it would have been very difficult to make a swiss pairings for the last round.

1624 - the lowest-rated player. Almost 600 points below the standard level for the Canadian Closed and almost 400 points below the announced level (2000). I understand that organizers did not care much about CFC rules, but at least they could follow their own rules.

Initially, I was sure that organizers decided to grant a "wild card" to some underrated talented junior. I was wrong. 1624-player was not a junior, he performed close to his rating (0.5/8). 250 dollars entry fee is great, but how about some rules?

8 points. Very rare, in a big swiss tournament 8/9 is not enough for the clear first place. In 2015, the winner got just 6.5/9 points. Sure, both Bator and Nikolay had a great tournament. However, the level of competitors was much below than usual. For example, in 2015 2 GMs and 7 IMs were playing. This year, only 2 GM (1 withdrew after round 5) and just 3 IMs (1 of them below 2200).

8th place - my result in this tournament. I did not play well, lost almost 20 rating points, played just 1 game with a higher-rated opponent, but somehow finished 8th. Just another example of a weak tournament.

Taking into account other factors (basement, 2 games a day schedule, weak arbiter) I can get the only possible conclusion about this event.

It was a total disaster.

[Tom O'Donnell]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

The continuing result of a decision made 20 years ago, namely switching the Closed from a RR with lousy prize funds and good competition to a Swiss with mediocre prize funds and lousy competition. Surely there is some way to combine the best of both.

[Steve Douglas]

Re: Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

The continuing result of a decision made 20 years ago, namely switching the Closed from a RR with lousy prize funds and good competition to a Swiss with mediocre prize funds and lousy competition. Surely there is some way to combine the best of both.

I realize there are many other factors to consider, but what about:

Hold the closed as Round Robin between 8 players with the first six by rating/invitation, etc., with the last two players to be determined by a Swiss event held the week/weekend before with the entry fees (after prizes/expenses) from the Swiss used to subsidize the RR?

Steve

P.S. and get rid of blitz playoffs

[Louis Morin]

Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

31% - (9/29) the forfeit rate. In many tournaments I have played it my life, this is by far the highest ever number. Usually it's around 10% or less. Actually with a few more forfeited players, it would have been very difficult to make a swiss pairings for the last round.

1624 - the lowest-rated player. Almost 600 points below the standard level for the Canadian Closed and almost 400 points below the announced level (2000). I understand that organizers did not care much about CFC rules, but at least they could follow their own rules.

Initially, I was sure that organizers decided to grant a "wild card" to some underrated talented junior. I was wrong. 1624-player was not a junior, he performed close to his rating (0.5/8). 250 dollars entry fee is great, but how about some rules?

8 points. Very rare, in a big swiss tournament 8/9 is not enough for the clear first place. In 2015, the winner got just 6.5/9 points. Sure, both Bator and Nikolay had a great tournament. However, the level of competitors was much below than usual. For example, in 2015 2 GMs and 7 IMs were playing. This year, only 2 GM (1 withdrew after round 5) and just 3 IMs (1 of them below 2200).

8th place - my result in this tournament. I did not play well, lost almost 20 rating points, played just 1 game with a higher-rated opponent, but somehow finished 8th. Just another example of a weak tournament.

Taking into account other factors (basement, 2 games a day schedule, weak arbiter) I can get the only possible conclusion about this event.

It was a total disaster.

Dear Mr. Plotkin

My boss (FQE director Richard Bérubé) asked me to respond to your offensive post. I have to mention this, because this is far from being an enjoyable task.

31% - (9/29) the forfeit rate. In many tournaments I have played it my life, this is by far the highest ever number. Usually it's around 10% or less. Actually with a few more forfeited players, it would have been very difficult to make a swiss pairings for the last round.

Yes this is huge, but not the organizer's fault. When one accepts to pay $250 for such an event, one should be expected to play all games.

1624 - the lowest-rated player. Almost 600 points below the standard level for the Canadian Closed and almost 400 points below the announced level (2000). I understand that organizers did not care much about CFC rules, but at least they could follow their own rules. Initially, I was sure that organizers decided to grant a "wild card" to some underrated talented junior. I was wrong. 1624-player was not a junior, he performed close to his rating (0.5/8). 250 dollars entry fee is great, but how about some rules?

The rule was 2000+ and was followed. All players in the Canadian Closed once had a FQE or CFC rating of over 2000.

8 points. Very rare, in a big swiss tournament 8/9 is not enough for the clear first place. In 2015, the winner got just 6.5/9 points. Sure, both Bator and Nikolay had a great tournament. However, the level of competitors was much below than usual. For example, in 2015 2 GMs and 7 IMs were playing. This year, only 2 GM (1 withdrew after round 5) and just 3 IMs (1 of them below 2200).

Clearly, you were not living in Canada when Igor Ivanov or Kevin Spraggett had a perfect or almost perfect score in the Canadian Closed. I even remember that Ivanov once won both the Canadian Open and the Canadian Closed, despite the fact that both events were held simultanously.

8th place - my result in this tournament. I did not play well, lost almost 20 rating points, played just 1 game with a higher-rated opponent, but somehow finished 8th. Just another example of a weak tournament.

By your own admission, you were out of form, making this tournament even weaker.

Taking into account other factors (basement, 2 games a day schedule, weak arbiter) I can get the only possible conclusion about this event. It was a total disaster.

Should you have been able to see outside, you would have realized that the playing room was at first floor, not in a basement. True, there were no windows in the playing room, but you were the very one suggesting not to play in the open area where there were huge windows in the ceiling.

The schedule of 2 games a day is becoming the norm in many international events. Even if this was not so, the FQE was asked at the very last minute to organize the event and the CFC did not give any money. This was simply not possible to do better given the circumstances. The FQE lost a fair amount of money in this event, and would have lost even more if the event would have lasted 9 days instead of 5.

The arbiter was not weak at all. His decision about the inverted rook was confirmed both by the CFC appeal committee and the FIDE arbiter commission.

It was a total disaster.

Perhaps you should consider organizing this event next time.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Hi Louis,

1. My post was not offensive at all. It was just about the unpleasant reality.

2. The 2000+ rule was NOT followed. From the announcement "open to rated players over 2000 CFC, FIDE or FQE + provincial champion. Was the 1624 player a provincial champion? Did he have 2000 rating at time of registration? Probably, not.

So, why do you argue? It was a clear violation of your rules. Just accept it.

3. You don't agree that finish with 8/9 and not get clear first place it's very rare? Your example with I.Ivanov is absolutely irrelevant.

4. Arbiter's decision was indeed confirmed by NAC. At the same time, many NAC members were "not so happy" with the arbiter's job. "Not so happy" - because I want to be politically correct here.

5. Please don't tell me what should I do. It's not your business. In my opinion as a player, as a Master Representative, as a 3 times National Team Captain, as a FIDE Trainer - organizers did a very poor job.

6. Trust me, if I "make the tournament weaker" - the tournament is pretty strong (at least for Canadian standards). So far, it was not too many Canadian tournaments with my rating below the average rating of the tournament.

[John Brown]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Why even bother with a Canadian Championship. There should only be a Total of all the Provincial and Territory Champions ONLY.
So a round robin would be very easy on a low number. The CFC does not know the meaning of a Canadian Championship. They only know that they restrict players from different Provinces and Territories based on the Most stupid thing going Ratings. Canadian Championship should be played with the champions from across Canada.

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

A major problem is that there is not a lot of financial resources available in Canada to support professional / semi professional chess players. In the absence of these resources, organizers are unable to provide the conditions or prize funds that support these sorts of players in other countries. It also means that round robins are not financially viable and our swiss tournaments need to have low rating floors in Master's Sections to bring in more entry fees. This makes it harder for master level players to get norms and doesn't provide them with the sort of competition they would find in tournaments elsewhere.

It seems that the one source of money that is available comes from junior players and their parents. I believe that the current CFC president believes that money collected through junior chess events should be used to support junior chess and not be used to subsidize adult and elite level events. I think its a reasonable position and don't think money should be harvested from kids to fund events for weekend warriors or even elite level adults.

So, much of the solution boils down to getting pools of money to support elite chess in Canada. Where should this come from? An Angel? Corporate Sponsorship? Government Grants? All of the above? Somewhere else? I'm not sure, but it seems like something worth discussing.

[Sam Sharpe]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Thanks for your insights, Victor. Player feedback should always be welcome by organizers, even when it's not a positive review. Knowing what to improve upon is better than no feedback at all.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

A major problem is that there is not a lot of financial resources available in Canada to support professional / semi professional chess players. In the absence of these resources, organizers are unable to provide the conditions or prize funds that support these sorts of players in other countries. It also means that round robins are not financially viable and our swiss tournaments need to have low rating floors in Master's Sections to bring in more entry fees. This makes it harder for master level players to get norms and doesn't provide them with the sort of competition they would find in tournaments elsewhere.

There is some money available, usually from government entities and local tourism bureaus. Last year we got $5,000 for chess from the Windsor Essex Pelee Island Tourism Bureau for the Canadian Open/CYCC/NAYCC which was applied to the Canadian Open. Sault Ste Marie got $40,000 from their local government. The numbers were okay though somewhat disappointing. We were told that the $15,000 prize fund was not enough. As the chief organizer I was not going to ask the families that backed our original bid to fork over large amounts of money to increase the prize fund so we made the tournament self sustaining. This year the prize fund was $40,000 but that didn't result in a materially larger turnout.

It seems that the one source of money that is available comes from junior players and their parents. I believe that the current CFC president believes that money collected through junior chess events should be used to support junior chess and not be used to subsidize adult and elite level events. I think its a reasonable position and don't think money should be harvested from kids to fund events for weekend warriors or even elite level adults.

CYCC is the source of funds for junior chess and those funds are collected on the basis that they will be used to fund teams to WYCC and WCCC. We have expanded the use to other events like NAYCC and the U16 Olympiad though the expenditures on these tournaments tend to be much lower.

As the organizer of last year's NAYCC, I was gravely disappointed with all the things that went on at this year's NAYCC starting with the fact that the organizers scheduled it to conflict with the Canadian Open. There were many other problems as well including a reduced support for official players and a number of other actions by the organizers which put norms in serious jeopardy and flagrantly ignored FIDE laws of chess.

So, much of the solution boils down to getting pools of money to support elite chess in Canada. Where should this come from? An Angel? Corporate Sponsorship? Government Grants? All of the above? Somewhere else? I'm not sure, but it seems like something worth discussing.

I think that governments, usually through local tourism programs are the best bets for raising funds. This of course does not mean that there is an easy way to package a Canadian Closed for this type of sponsorship.

[Eric Gedajlovic]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Junior chess can be self supporting and even be organized at a profit due to the large numbers of players. Juniors and their parents actually do a lot for other groups in the chess community. They support chess professionals by hiring them as coaches and attend regular swiss tournaments as well and their entry fees make those more viable.

Large swisses can also often be self supporting especially when they attract large numbers of juniors, but sponsorship is very helpful if you want to increase the prize fund and / or offer conditions to IMs and GMs in order to support them and to get them to give up other income and training opportunities to attend these tournaments. Talking to organizers in France it seems that cities and towns often sponsor chess events through their tourism departments and these funds are used to attract titled players and stage stronger tournaments that offer norm opportunities. Incidentally, towns also often offer free space for these tournaments and for local chess clubs.

Elite level chess tournaments such as the Canadian Closed or a Canadian Women's or Junior Closed, or round robins offering GM and IM norms are very difficult to run on a cost recovery basis. They need sponsorship from a company, organization, town/ province / fed agency, an angel OR they need to be funded through transfers from other chess tournaments that are capable of generating a surplus. There may also be other viable models as well.

Whether the lack of support for elite - level chess in Canada is a major concern or not depends on your perspective. Most juniors and their parents are probably best served if the money generated by junior chess is recycled to support junior chess. The same is true of weekend warriors and hobbyists who play in weekend swisses and the few 9 rounders staged in Canada during the summer.

Where does this leave the few players in Canada who are playing at the elite-level or who can seriously aspire to play at that level? I am not sure. Ideally, they would get some government support like athletes do for their training and for travel to international competitions. They would also be given better and more plentiful conditions and the opportunity to compete for generous prize funds in Swiss tournaments. They would also be offered attractive participation fees to participate in round robin norm tournaments that give opportunities to others to gain titles and become world class players themselves. All this takes money and the question is whether or not we are willing and able to support our elite chess players in Canada. Our results at the last Olympiad suggest that our players can compete on the world stage, but they have done so by pursuing opportunities elsewhere to hone their craft and to access financial resources. This has been serendipitous for supporters of our Olympiad teams, but not something we can take a lot of credit for as a community.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

...FQE was asked at the very last minute to organize the event and the CFC did not give any money.

Wow ...truly pathetic.

What kind of CFC leadership goes begging? And then, adding to the insult doesn't offer any financial support?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Wow ...truly pathetic.

What kind of CFC leadership goes begging? And then, adding to the insult doesn't offer any financial support?

Actually, the FQE is giving 8 000$ per year to the CFC for... eh... we're not sure what...

I wouldn't blame the organizers for the fiasco that this tournament was. The issues about the Canadian closed are more systemic.

[Neil Frarey]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Actually, the FQE is giving 8 000$ per year to the CFC for... eh... we're not sure what...

I wouldn't blame the organizers for the fiasco that this tournament was. The issues about the Canadian closed are more systemic.

CFC leadership not only hustles the FQE for 8k a year but they (CFC) can't find a dime to support their own national event???

That's insane.

If it wasn't so pathetic ... it would be laughable.

I don't blame the orgs either, Mathieu. Kudos to them for keeping their cool and enduring such an incompetent CFC leadership!

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

Actually, the FQE is giving 8 000$ per year to the CFC for... eh... we're not sure what...

I wouldn't blame the organizers for the fiasco that this tournament was. The issues about the Canadian closed are more systemic.

You are making an unfounded and inaccurate statement.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: Re : Some numbers from the last Canadian Closed

You are making an unfounded and inaccurate statement.

Care to explain to me in more details? I'm open to change my opinion on that issue.