CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

Well, I always liked attacking the Sicilian Najdorf with 6. Bg5 unless I could find my opponent liked to reply with the poisoned pawn variation.

What you play isn't always as important as who you play it against and how often you use it. In other words, don't make it too easy for your opponent to prepare against you. If you watched Kevin's games at Chapelle, you would have noticed the wide variety of openings he employed both as white and black. It's hard to prepare for that.

The 6.Bg5 line against Najdorf is probably the most testing IMO, though I think all of Black's main defences are playable. If we're talking about reliability then the Poisoned Pawn Variation does indeed seem the way to go. Black may have trouble winning (unless he tries something unreliable and risky), if White knows the theory and is happy to draw - which doesn't happen much unless Black is, say, Kasparov.

At the moment my repertoire is wide to a fault, though narrowing it to five first moves with White, and to at least five defences against each first move with Black, as I am thinking of doing, shouldn't make my opponents' preparation too easy, even if they knew my repertoire in advance, and assumed that I would faithfully stick to it.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

Finally, the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) sees it important to the CFC members that incumbents declare early if they are running again, and that new candidates come forward publicly. Although members have no direct vote for the CFC Executive, it does not mean they are not interested. Members need time to hear about their candidates, so they can formulate questions for them on policy, for them to answer. This way members can then advise their local governors who they would request they vote for at the incoming governors AGM on Tuesday, July 12 in Toronto. And they must find out from their local governors if they are intending to run again, and hope to be incoming, as well as outgoing, governors, because only then will they be voting.

It is critical that this be done early, since members may decide to vote for a different CFC Governor if their current one is unwilling to vote the way they wish. This is the one direct influence members have - to vote for the provincial representative governors. The executive race must accommodate the members' reality of when the CFC incoming governors are to be elected.

I would note that the CCC's position doesn't IMO quite square with the CFC Handbook at the moment, where Section 2, sub-section 17 states that Governors are not to be delegates:

"GENERAL POWERS OF INDIVIDUAL GOVERNORS

17. Each individual Governor, is hereby charged with the responsibility of exercising his own independent judgement in all matters which may come before the Assembly for consideration; he may act in accordance with the directions or advice given to him by his Provincial Organization, but such shall not affect his power or status to vote on any matters before the Assembly and regardless of whether or not his Province may be affected by decision of the matter under consideration. It is the general intention of this Section to define beyond any doubt, the status of each Governor, as that of a Governor in fact, and not that of a delegate."

Is it the CCC's intention to somehow amend this sub-section at some point?

Btw, how many people currently belong to the CCC?

[Bob Armstrong]

Cooperative Chess Coalition - Operation

I would note that the CCC's position doesn't IMO quite square with the CFC Handbook at the moment, where Section 2, sub-section 17 states that Governors are not to be delegates:

"GENERAL POWERS OF INDIVIDUAL GOVERNORS

17. Each individual Governor, is hereby charged with the responsibility of exercising his own independent judgement in all matters which may come before the Assembly for consideration; he may act in accordance with the directions or advice given to him by his Provincial Organization, but such shall not affect his power or status to vote on any matters before the Assembly and regardless of whether or not his Province may be affected by decision of the matter under consideration. It is the general intention of this Section to define beyond any doubt, the status of each Governor, as that of a Governor in fact, and not that of a delegate."

Is it the CCC's intention to somehow amend this sub-section at some point?

Btw, how many people currently belong to the CCC?

Hi Kevin:

I am wearing 2 hats, in my view.

I am a Governor, and as such exercise my own judgment how to vote. I have not told the CCC that I will invariably vote as they might wish. The group is democratic, and I am only one vote. So should it arise that I and the majority of the group differ, I have said only that I will speak on their behalf, and make clear it is the view of the CCC I am putting forward, as is always the case. But as to voting, I may well vote the way I see it, rather than the way CCC sees it. This is a situation CCC has accepted.

So, also, I am a Coordinator of the CCC, and as such am the main spokesperson for the group. Here I have said that I will faithfully put forward their views, even if I may hold a minority opinion. This does not inhibit me from expressing my own personal dissenting opinion.

I feel this is democratic, allows the CCC to function effectively, and all is in line with the Handbook.

The CCC has 12 " members ", and 5 " supporters ". We are still a small group but slowly growing. We continue to reach out to CFC members to learn about our program ( cooperativechesscoalition@gmail.com ), and to consider joining, if they like what they see. We feel that a small group with a focused and fully supported program, can accomplish much more than numbers might otherwise indicate. We are in this for the long haul ( there’ll be no quick fix ), and over time, we believe we will have some good influence on CFC affairs, and chess at all levels in Canada. And we believe our group will slowly grow as people get to know our program.

Lastly, the section you quote was dealing with national/provincial relations in Canadian chess. The Provinces founded the CFC as a federation. The Provinces elect the CFC Governors. The issue was whether the Province could order their governors how to vote at the CFC level. The section wanted to make clear this was not the case. The CFC governors were to be independent representatives, not " delegates ".

Does this section then apply to any formed group within the CFC membership? Is the section only speaking to the national/provincial debate? An organized group might want to endorse a CFC governor on the condition that s/he vote the majority will of that group at all times. Does this section forbid this? I'm not sure how it should be interpreted. I'd be interested to hear other opinions.

Bob

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

A dictionary definition of the word 'delegate' would seem to apply if a governor were to act on the wishes of his provincial association, or one or more CFC members, or anyone else, IMO.

One could argue that the context within sub-section 17 was meant to apply just in regard to not being a delegate of a provincial association, but that was not written explicitly.

However explicit emphasis was placed (in the final sentence of sub-section 17) on stating that the status of a Governor is to be a governor, presumably meaning to govern rather than be [any sort of] a delegate.

Just my opinion.

[Ken Craft]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

The job of Governors is to govern.

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

The job of Governors is to govern.

In my post prior to yours, I also (almost) implied that that's what the Handbook seems to say, i.e. that governors govern (and thus that's all they should/need do?!).

The question is, does anyone want to change that, and/or make governor-candidates explicitly delegates of their voting constituents, at least in regard to one thing (i.e. to vote for a certain CFC presidental candidate, if any are already announced before provincial/league AGMs), as the CCC would have it.

I recall you seemed to be in favour of one member one vote, Ken, in regard to presidential/Executive selection. That could make some of the above academic.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

The job of Governors is to govern.

Why is chess in Canada failing?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

In my post prior to yours, I also (almost) implied that that's what the Handbook seems to say, i.e. that governors govern (and thus that's all they should/need do?!).

I also seem to recall that one now former CFC president sent governors a thick manual [edit: by email] that included a description of the roles and responsibilities of Directors of non-profit corporations in Canada. That included many things beyond just governing. The confusion in my mind at the time was whether in the case of the CFC that applied to just the CFC 'Board of Directors' (literallly 'Directors'), or whether it also applied to CFC governors (most non-profit organizations may or may not not have such a sub-class), as that CFC president seemed to assume/wish.

[Bob Armstrong]

Is Canadian Chess Failing?

Hi Gary:

I'm not sure chess in Canada is failing. Seems to me that internet chess in Canada is alive and well. Chess in Toronto seems to have made a decent rebound after the last few years. Alberta chess seems quite active, and the Victoria Grand Pacific Open looks like it will be record-breaking.

It is certainly the case though that CFC is not growing.

It has not helped that CFC lost its charitable status, about which it really couldn't do much. It doesn't help that governments in Canada don't define chess as a " sport ", which would get funding. It doesn't help that chess has great difficulty getting under the funding definitions of other departments.

The CFC, IMHO, has been running well this past year, especially when compared with the previous number of years. But we are not utilizing all the talent we have. The 2011 Spring CFC Governors’ On-line Meeting will end shortly ( started Apr. 1 ). Attendance was 53% ( 32/60 governors ) – this has to be somewhat disappointing, given that there was 70% turnout at the 2010 Fall Meeting, and the 2011 Winter Meeting. CFC can use the opinions of all its governors, in figuring out how to move forward - utilizing only 50% loses potential.

And as the Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) has been pointing out, CFC has not been able to engage its membership in active participation in the CFC, and all levels of chess in Canada. CFC has volunteer spots that go unfulfilled years at a time, with almost 1500 adult members. Is there something wrong with this picture? What is it systemically that is keeping CFC members from being more interested in CFC affairs, provincial affiliates, and the administration even of their local clubs. A good analysis of this issue has yet to be done.

So I'd rather say chess in Canada is rather stalled than failing. We are all having trouble finding our way forward, though we seem to be minimally keeping the ship afloat. It's going to take, not only the talent of all the governors, but also a drawing on the wide pool of abilities in the membership, to set a clear path for organized chess to move forward.

Bob

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

Over the years, at every point in time I can recall (even in the CFC's salad days of the 1980's), various people have told me that the CFC is 'stalled' or stuck where they are, for one reason or another. Membership and finances may change for the better or the worse, but the state of organized chess in Canada never gets significantly closer to the kind of nirvana we all wish for.

If someone tries to make a tough change like raiding the Foundation, they are instantly blocked or shouted down.

So, all we can do is keep hoping that slow and steady wins the race.

[Hal Bond]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

Why is chess in Canada failing?

There's a question! I don't know that chess is failing but our community would be more robust and thus more capable if it was more positive.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC Executive - Candidates for 2011-12 ( July AGM Elections )

Why is chess in Canada failing?

Its the vision thing. I don't get the sense that chess in Canada is failing. It is more a case that chess is not reaching its full potential. At the low master level there are plenty of tournaments with good competition if you live within driving distance of the Kitchener/Hamilton/Toronto area.

At the children's level there is a large pent up demand. The local Windsor scholastic tournament saw almost 1400 kids grade 1 through grade 8 compete over two days. There were 200 in Chatham in the corresponding tournament. There were 200 in the playoffs for Windsor. Imagine if we could keep 10% of those children interested in tournament chess into adulthood. If we could do that across Canada we might get USCF participation percentages in the CFC and no one would be talking about failure (for a day or two).

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Is Canadian Chess Failing?

Hi Gary:

I'm not sure chess in Canada is failing. Seems to me that internet chess in Canada is alive and well. Chess in Toronto seems to have made a decent rebound after the last few years. Alberta chess seems quite active, and the Victoria Grand Pacific Open looks like it will be record-breaking.

It is certainly the case though that CFC is not growing.
Bob

Your counter example of the GPO as being a case to show that local chess in Canada is doing OK is a bit odd considering that close to 25% of the participants come from out of province (and often out of country).

In fact, without the efforts of one bunch of people to organize this one tournament, the trend in BC would not be different than in the rest of the country - that is:

1) [adult] tournament participation is down sharply over the last number of years

2) tournament activity in the hinterlands is down to basically zero. As I have posted elsewhere http://victoriachess.com/cfc/dist_summary.php , Canada has lost Saskatchewan altogether, participation in the smaller provinces (NB, Man, NS) is down by ~40% over 5 years. The situation in BC is not different. What activity there is, is all in Victoria and Vancouver area. There is basically zero activity in the interior.

I would hazard a guess, that if we had geographic data for the regions of Ontario, that the same pattern would apply - that outside of Toronto and maybe Ottawa, activity is sharply declining.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Is Canadian Chess Failing?

What is it systemically that is keeping CFC members from being more interested in CFC affairs, provincial affiliates, and the administration even of their local clubs. A good analysis of this issue has yet to be done.

So I'd rather say chess in Canada is rather stalled than failing. We are all having trouble finding our way forward, though we seem to be minimally keeping the ship afloat. It's going to take, not only the talent of all the governors, but also a drawing on the wide pool of abilities in the membership, to set a clear path for organized chess to move forward.

Bob

I don't see a significant problem in finding administration for the local clubs. For the rest it seems to me that people have limited energy to put into projects and most choose to put their energy where there are the best payoffs. If I want to help promote chess in Canada my best bet is to do what I can to promote it locally by mentoring a child or an adult with questions about chess and supporting the local organizers when they need my help as a volunteer or maybe stepping up and organizing some events myself. I have organized local events in the past but recently there seem to be more than enough local organizers.

When the CFC and the governors start meddling with things they often make things worse. Why would I want to help to make things worse?

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: Is Canadian Chess Failing?

I don't see a significant problem in finding administration for the local clubs. For the rest it seems to me that people have limited energy to put into projects and most choose to put their energy where there are the best payoffs. If I want to help promote chess in Canada my best bet is to do what I can to promote it locally by mentoring a child or an adult with questions about chess and supporting the local organizers when they need my help as a volunteer or maybe stepping up and organizing some events myself. I have organized local events in the past but recently there seem to be more than enough local organizers.

When the CFC and the governors start meddling with things they often make things worse. Why would I want to help [the CFC]to make things worse?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary Ruben
Why is chess in Canada failing?

It's the vision thing. I don't get the sense that chess in Canada is failing. It is more a case that chess is not reaching its full potential. At the low master level there are plenty of tournaments with good competition if you live within driving distance of the Kitchener/Hamilton/Toronto area.

At the children's level there is a large pent up demand. The local Windsor scholastic tournament saw almost 1400 kids grade 1 through grade 8 compete over two days. There were 200 in Chatham in the corresponding tournament. There were 200 in the playoffs for Windsor. Imagine if we could keep 10% of those children interested in tournament chess into adulthood. If we could do that across Canada we might get USCF participation percentages in the CFC and no one would be talking about failure (for a day or two).

Noting what I've highlighted in the above quotations, if chess in Canada is not reaching its full potential for lack of vision as you claim Vlad, who is to provide the [nationwide?] vision if not the CFC, and those who would become involved with it, e.g. as governors?