If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
Committee members asked me sign 36 checks on closing ceremony to players directly yesterday and I refused.
At the CYCC Organizing Committee's Meeting prior to the CYCC the decision was made (by the vote of the majority) to distribute all the surplus to CYCC prize-winners at the Closing Ceremony. I will bring the Original of the Minutes of this Meeting to AGM on Monday. These Minutes have been signed by Daxin Jin as well (even though she did not vote for all the decisions made on the Meeting, she had accepted the decision of the majority).
On July 9 at the last second Daxin Jin have changed her mind to sign the cheques for the children and proposed to pay part of the money to the volunteers (mostly her friends) to TD (Extra bonus) and to the members of the Organizing Committee to compensate the entry fees paid by their own children.
Unbelievable Victor Itkin took all money 20,000, 18,200, 1764 from 2011cycc account yesterday by himself without my permission. I will investigate with bank about this. All money should directly pay from 2011CYCC to CFC, not someone can take bank draft doing what he want.
1. I did not need Daxin's permition to issue the Bank Drafts, because I was acting on the majority decision of the CYCC Organizing Committee, and because I have the authority on the 2011 CYCC bank account.
2. All three Bank Drafts signed by me ($20,000; $1,764 and $18,200) are payable to "Chess Federation of Canada (CFC)".
3. All the details and documents will be provided at AGM on Monday.
At the CYCC Organizing Committee's Meeting prior to the CYCC the decision was made (by the vote of majority) to distribute all the surplus to CYCC prize-winners at the Closing Ceremony. I will bring the Original of the Minutes of this Meeting to AGM on Monday. These Minutes have been signrd by Daxin Jin as well (even though she did not vote for all the decisions made on the Meeting, she had accepted the decision of the majority).
On July 9 at the last second Daxin Jin have changed her mind to sign the cheques for the children and proposed to pay part of the money to the volunteers (mostly her friends) to TD (Extra bonus) and to the members of the Organizing Committee to compencate the entry fees paid by their own children.
This is getting better. I'm not used to chess drama. Here I thought chess players were all stodgy nerds (myself included).
At the CYCC Organizing Committee's Meeting prior to the CYCC the decision was made (by the vote of the majority) to distribute all the surplus to CYCC prize-winners at the Closing Ceremony. I will bring the Original of the Minutes of this Meeting to AGM on Monday. These Minutes have been signed by Daxin Jin as well (even though she did not vote for all the decisions made on the Meeting, she had accepted the decision of the majority).
On July 9 at the last second Daxin Jin have changed her mind to sign the cheques for the children and proposed to pay part of the money to the volunteers (mostly her friends) to TD (Extra bonus) and to the members of the Organizing Committee to compensate the entry fees paid by their own children.
1. I did not need Daxin's permition to issue the Bank Drafts, because I was acting on the majority decision of the CYCC Organizing Committee, and because I have the authority on the 2011 CYCC bank account.
2. All three Bank Drafts signed by me ($20,000; $1,764 and $18,200) are payable to "Chess Federation of Canada (CFC)".
3. All the details and documents will be provided at AGM on Monday.
Victor: If you had a bank draft for $18,200 already made out to the CFC, how were you going to write 36 cheques on the account for this same amount ? - I'm confused about this.
A lot of people are missing the point here. People like Denton Cockburn - debate all you want about the future of the program. That has nothing to do with this case.
The fact is that it is the CFC's money and Victor Itkine is not allowed to spend it however he wishes no matter how many "organizing committee votes" he has to back him up.
Once again, CFC has already received their money ($20,000 according to the bid) plus $1,764 (membership fees collected at site prior to the CYCC).
Here is a guote from 2011 CYCC Richmond Hill bid one more time:
"We guarantee the CFC a minimum of $15,000 from the entry fees, and a maximum of $20,000. This protects the CFC in case of a low turnout, and if there is an above-average attendance, the surplus will distribute to WYCC, PanAM, NYCC entrants."
Thank you Rene,
I agree that the tournament was well organized and from my part as the "hired help" (read Chief Arbiter) everything went very smoothly.
Denton,
The CYCC has always been the National Youth Championships.
It has also acted, secondarily, as the qualifier for the WYCC and along with that a fund-raiser to send kids to the WYCC.
Even more recently, it has had a third purpose of qualfying players to the Pan American and North American YCC tournaments.
In the past, the CFC has often operated in the negative with this event funding the airfare 100% for the top finisher from each section.
A few years ago, it was agreed to change this to a $1000 towards airfare for the top place finisher from each section. The intention was to give realistic expectations to the players and families, while leaving the door open to enable paying more of the cost in years when it was affordable.
Families going to the CYCC have never expected cash awards.
If we are in a surplus year, we should operate with the process of helping the families that are going to these international events.
These have always been the purposes of the CYCC.
(1st National Championship, 2nd qualify and offer financial support to attend WYCC, 3rd qualify and offer financial support to attend PanAm and North American YCCs)
Thank you Rene,
I agree that the tournament was well organized and from my part as the "hired help" (read Chief Arbiter) everything went very smoothly.
Denton,
The CYCC has always been the National Youth Championships.
It has also acted, secondarily, as the qualifier for the WYCC and along with that a fund-raiser to send kids to the WYCC.
Even more recently, it has had a third purpose of qualfying players to the Pan American and North American YCC tournaments.
In the past, the CFC has often operated in the negative with this event funding the airfare 100% for the top finisher from each section.
A few years ago, it was agreed to change this to a $1000 towards airfare for the top place finisher from each section. The intention was to give realistic expectations to the players and families, while leaving the door open to enable paying more of the cost in years when it was affordable.
Families going to the CYCC have never expected cash awards.
If we are in a surplus year, we should operate with the process of helping the families that are going to these international events.
These have always been the purposes of the CYCC.
(1st National Championship, 2nd qualify and offer financial support to attend WYCC, 3rd qualify and offer financial support to attend PanAm and North American YCCs)
Yeah, this is all pretty clear to me now.
I'm just saying it kind of sucks for parents/players.
It's an expensive tournament, and unless you're planning to go on to one of the bigger tournaments, you stand to gain nothing. If you do want to go on...you get help towards going, but not necessarily enough to get you there.
I would love to see a national youth championships that actually gives prizes (and not promises of future financial assistance) to the position holders.
If it works for you guys though, as it seems to, then there isn't really a reason to change anything. I just like throwing out ideas :)
Victor: If you had a bank draft for $18,200 already made out to the CFC, how were you going to write 36 cheques on the account for this same amount ? - I'm confused about this.
Fred,
This Bank Draft is in possession of 2011 CYCC treasurer and will be demonstrated at the AGM on Monday.
I signed this Bank Draft according to the Organizing Committee's majority decision for the purpose not to allow Daxin Jin to spend this money to the volunteers, to her friends, etc.
We (all other four members of the Organizing Committee) will try to convince CFC Governors at the AGM to distribute this money to the CYCC winners.
If we will be successfull, we will put this Bank Draft back to 2011 CYCC account and distribute the money.
If we will be not successfull, I'll consider the option to pay all 36 winners from my personal money according to the table which I have posted at the ChessTalk yesterday.
This Bank Draft is in possession of 2011 CYCC treasurer and will be demonstrated at the AGM on Monday.
I signed this Bank Draft according to the Organizing Committee's majority decision for the purpose not to allow Daxin Jin to spend this money to the volunteers, to her friends, etc.
We (all other four members of the Organizing Committee) will try to convince CFC Governors at the AGM to distribute this money to the CYCC winners.
If we will be successfull, we will put this Bank Draft back to 2011 CYCC account and distribute the money.
If we will be not successfull, I'll consider the option to pay all 36 winners from my personal money according to the table which I have posted at the ChessTalk yesterday.
Sincerely,
Victor.
Victor: Thanks for the explanation on that point. And to think I was expecting Monday to be a quick day at the AGM (I'm attending remotely - technology willing).
The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) understands that there is no constitution for the CYCC organizing committee, and that it has functioned on an " as evolving " basis. As such, the CCC takes the position, that the organizing committee is operating on a " collegial " basis - by majority vote of the committee. The Chair in such a situation is not a dictator, deciding everything. The Chair has one equal vote, and no right of veto over majority decisions. So we have no problem with the process being followed here by the " rebellious " organizing committee majority, over-riding the Chair, as long as they are not doing anything illegal ( though CFC argues they are in breach of contract ). And from one of Victor's earlier posts, it seems that there is precedent in earlier meetings, for the majority vote rule.
Having said that, the issue of what happens to any CYCC surplus, above that contractually promised in the contract term being posted by Victor ( spokesperson for the majority ), seems a bit murky. But there are words in the contract that would seem to support the CFC interpretation. As well, it may be some type of precedent that the 2007 Ottawa organizing committee, gave the surplus ( I don't remember the exact amount, but it was substantial ( maybe Gord Ritchie can enlighten us ) ) to the CFC for the Youth program ( and I believe specifically to defray expenses of Canadian reps to the Pan-American and North-American YCC's ).
But we are going to wait 'til the Monday AGM presentations, and hear the contract interpretation argument from both sides. To get directly involved in the substantive issue itself, may be straying a bit from our general mandate, but we will see if we feel we should take a position, once all the arguments are in.
Bob, CCC Coordinator
Last edited by Bob Armstrong; Sunday, 10th July, 2011, 01:16 PM.
Once again, CFC has already received their money ($20,000 according to the bid) plus $1,764 (membership fees collected at site prior to the CYCC).
Here is a guote from 2011 CYCC Richmond Hill bid one more time:
"We guarantee the CFC a minimum of $15,000 from the entry fees, and a maximum of $20,000. This protects the CFC in case of a low turnout, and if there is an above-average attendance, the surplus will distribute to WYCC, PanAM, NYCC entrants."
The surplus going to WYCC PanAM and NYCC entrants is far different than awarding a prize fund on a grid, I'm sure you can see.
The surplus going to WYCC PanAM and NYCC entrants is far different than awarding a prize fund on a grid, I'm sure you can see.
On a legal reading of this:
It says distributed to those 3 groups, it doesn't mention how the distribution is to be done. As that isn't specified, the organizing committee would be in its rights to determine how to divide the amount.
Victor has stated his intention to let the CFC decide the matter, but that's a funny way of deciding contract disputes; allowing one party to make the final decision.
As was said, an agreement is an agreement. If it was poorly written in a way that disadvantages the CFC, then it is still just as valid.
The Cooperative Chess Coalition ( CCC ) understands that there is no constitution for the CYCC organizing committee, and that it has functioned on an " as evolving " basis. As such, the CCC takes the position, that the organizing committee is operating on a " collegial " basis - by majority vote of the committee.
That may or may not be so. The question is, who was assuming the downside risk? If it is the committee as a whole then it is reasonable to assume that they all had a vote in disposition of funds. If it was the chairperson then we would have a different interpretation.
Also the qualifiers for these tournaments are the same kids who would be getting the payments from the "rogue" organizers, are they not?
The Chair in such a situation is not a dictator, deciding everything. The Chair has one equal vote, and no right of veto over majority decisions. So we have no problem with the process being followed here by the " rebellious " organizing committee majority, over-riding the Chair, as long as they are not doing anything illegal ( though CFC argues they are in breach of contract ). And from one of Victor's earlier posts, it seems that there is precedent in earlier meetings, for the majority vote rule.
I think that we may have a poorly worded contract here. On the one hand it clearly states that the CFC was to receive a minimum of $15k and a maximum of $20k. There is a further indication that if there is an exceptionally good turnout the surplus would go to various tournament participants who are the same kids that would get the cash. At what point though is this surplus determined? I would guess once all the tournament expenses are calculated. The distributions might be reasonably argued as having occurred before the surplus is calculated.
I don't want to make any judgement until I have heard all the arguments and seen the contract language in total. Hopefully we will get to hear from the members of the 2011 CYCC committee as well (who did a wonderful job from what I saw over the two days that I visited the site).
I am going to mention here a point for people to think about before the meeting tomorrow ...
If the contract states that the surplus is to be distributed to the WYCC, Pan Am and NAYCC entrants, how can we be sure that after a player that finishes top 3 receives this money, they will indeed attend any of these events?
The only way I can see with dealing with this is that the CFC should put the money into the Youth account and distribute once the teams are made up that will go to these events.
(And this should not be retroactive, but the events coming up).
I am going to mention here a point for people to think about before the meeting tomorrow ...
If the contract states that the surplus is to be distributed to the WYCC, Pan Am and NAYCC entrants, how can we be sure that after a player that finishes top 3 receives this money, they will indeed attend any of these events?
The only way I can see with dealing with this is that the CFC should put the money into the Youth account and distribute once the teams are made up that will go to these events.
(And this should not be retroactive, but the events coming up).
It might be argued that the surplus referred to is the extra $5000 over and above the minimum promised payment. Painful as it may be to certain members of the CFC executive and governors perhaps the CFC does not have the right to interfere in this decision. Further, interfering could open the CFC to legal liability that would be much more costly than the amounts involved. Of course I will wait until I have heard all the facts before making up my mind.
Tweet
Comment