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.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
Why CFC denying talented juniors to represent CANADA at World Stage???
‘The CFC set out certian rules’ – is this where are talking about the specific rule? Please explain you logic to us Chris.
CFC also have not answered few question regarding this issue, and decided to remain silent. Instead asking counter questions.
Mikhail: It's not the policy of the CFC to deal with serious issues like this on a forum. Having said that, I think I have outlined our position quite clearly on the matter.
I suggested to you that a motion by a governor to add her to the team on some kind of compassionate grounds, to be considered at the Quarterly meeting, would have been your best bet.
First lets not talk about CFC general rules in general and not switch topic here. Here we are talking about ONE specific rule. NOT all CFC rules!
Sorry - let me restate since I was overly general.
The CFC made a clear rule that attendance to WYCC was dependent on first attending CYCC, and that failure to attend CYCC would mean no WYCC. They then communicated this to the players in question, who understood it and made their decision to go to PanAm instead.
Re: Why CFC denying talented juniors to represent CANADA at World Stage???
Ok. Let's clarify things again.
1) There is a rule in place that requires players to attend the CYCC to go to the WYCC.
2) What Mikhail and like minded people are arguing is that the rule should have been interpreted so their attending the Pan-Am's were an exceptional circumstance as outlined in the rule. Having a sufficiently high rating, in this case would qualify the player in question directly to the WYCC.
3) The CFC made it very clear that attending the Pan-Am's wasn't going to be considered an exceptional circumstance. Some players decided not to go at that stage. It would seem to me that any players who went should have made a protest agianst the ruling at that time, should they have felt it unfair or mis-applied.
At least two Governors have come forward to state that Gillanders & Barron clearly made a bad decision in applying or not applying the exceptional circumstances decision and it should now be reversed. There are probably others that might have sympathy for the situation, but feel that the ruling has been made and we move on. Obviously the third camp consists of those who agreed with the original ruling.
As this was clearly a decision at the Executive level (application of the rules in force), a lot of Governors only found out about this whole situation when Mikhail started his campaign. This whole situation might have played out differently should a protest had come forward at the time of the ruling.
Last edited by Fred McKim; Monday, 17th October, 2011, 10:00 AM.
Reason: modified last sentence for meaning.
Sorry - let me restate since I was overly general.
The CFC made a clear rule that attendance to WYCC was dependent on first attending CYCC, and that failure to attend CYCC would mean no WYCC. They then communicated this to the players in question, who understood it and made their decision to go to PanAm instead.
Is that correct?
Like I said CFC is expecting their questions answered, but does not wish to answer when questions are asked towards CFC.
Is it fair that Canadian talented juniors gets panelized by CFC? Is it their fault?
Like I said CFC is expecting their questions answered, but does not wish to answer when questions are asked towards CFC.
Is it fair that Canadian talented juniors gets panelized by CFC? Is it their fault?
I don't think David is asking questions on behalf of the CFC - I believe he is simply trying to understand this and several other threads about this situation.
So, David, the answer to your question is 'yes'. The player in question (and her parent(s)) chose the PanAm tournament with full knowledge that they were giving up chance to go to WYCC; upon returning, wanted to go to WYCC anyway...
The player in question (and her parent(s)) chose the PanAm tournament with full knowledge that they were giving up chance to go to WYCC; upon returning, wanted to go to WYCC anyway...
This answer coming from only CFC perspective.
CFC gave them a choice, either one or the other. Before the new rule was applied, players had a chance to go to both. Now they were forced top pick. Not like CFC gave players a
Chance: both, one or the other. Question is: WHY did CFC did that? The answer is, as we all know: because Pan-American organizers scheduled their tournament on CYCC date.
Is CFC decision fair to Canadian Junior? Answer is probably: No.
Having a sufficiently high rating, in this case would qualify the player in question directly to the WYCC.
So CFC is now discriminating talented juniors with low rating. Thank you for letting general public know that.
Mr. Gillanders and Mr. Barron both shut down our appeal, before it was even reviewed. Mr. Barron rejected an appear immediately in May of 2011, at the Canadian Closed. Mr. Gillanders rejected an appeal immediately in September, 2011.
The CFC made it very clear that attending the Pan-Am's wasn't going to be considered an exceptional circumstance.
3) The CFC made it very clear that attending the Pan-Am's wasn't going to be considered an exceptional circumstance.
CFC made a ‘dictatorial decision’, instead of asking CFC members, parents and juniors themselves.
This is what we want to do? Do you guys agree with us, since it is effecting you directly.
It made it to get back at Pan-American organizers.
Mikhail: It's not the policy of the CFC to deal with serious issues like this on a forum. Having said that, I think I have outlined our position quite clearly on the matter.
I agree with the decision.
I spent a decade organizing for the CCCA and another decade tournament directing for the ICCF. An organizer who can not be depended on to follow the rules so all the players know where they stand quickly loses control of his position and loses the respect of the players and members.
... So, David, the answer to your question is 'yes'. The player in question (and her parent(s)) chose the PanAm tournament with full knowledge that they were giving up chance to go to WYCC; upon returning, wanted to go to WYCC anyway...
The problem, as Ken Craft pointed out earlier, was the manner in which the 'rule' was applied; that is (my interpretation), in a heavy-handed way with the CFC placing their interests (their sudden fascination with trying to restore the integrity of a tournament with a sad history) above the interests of a child.
Why don't they scrap the CYCC, since its main purpose seems to be to serve as a cash grab, and make WYCC selections by rating, similar to the Olympiad teams?
"We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office." - Aesop
"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato
"If once a man indulges himself in murder, very soon he comes to think little of robbing; and from robbing he comes next to drinking and Sabbath-breaking, and from that to incivility and procrastination." - Thomas De Quincey
Why don't they scrap the CYCC, since its main purpose seems to be to serve as a cash grab, and make WYCC selections by rating, similar to the Olympiad teams?
It seems to me to be the wrong way to go. For the majority it will simply eliminate an event which gives them a valuable competitive opportunity and a chance to compete and see how they compare to others in their age group. One less rated event which makes me wonder where reliable ratings for the WYCC will come from.
The less said about he last Olympiad team the better.
The problem, as Ken Craft pointed out earlier, was the manner in which the 'rule' was applied; that is (my interpretation), in a heavy-handed way with the CFC placing their interests (their sudden fascination with trying to restore the integrity of a tournament with a sad history) above the interests of a child.
Why don't they scrap the CYCC, since its main purpose seems to be to serve as a cash grab, and make WYCC selections by rating, similar to the Olympiad teams?
As Gary has already posted in this thread, I also worried about the availability of rated events to permit selection based on rating. Obviously, this would give a huge advantage to juniors already in a player rich area like Toronto or Vancouver etc.
Replacing a single nation-wide CYCC with a few regional ones might be reasonable, but it seems hard enough to organize even one event.
I can't fault the CFC executive for (finally!) trying to at least live by their own rules (even if many people seem to think the rules are flawed, they are, in fact, the rules). [The CFC has forever been criticized for not following their own rules] - it is ironic that the one time they do so, they are hammered for that.
Of course, there is a difference in opinion as to what constitutes an 'extraordinary circumstance', but again, the decision was made and the ground rules were stated before anyone went to the PanAm tournament and [even more importantly] the situation was made crystal clear and was even agreed to by those involved!!
The time for an appeal is long past. There is a mechanism to change the rules (soon to be an annual occurrence I am sure as each crop of juniors comes along) - those who don't like the rule or have a better way to word it and enforce it are free to propose the changes.
Why don't they scrap the CYCC, since its main purpose seems to be to serve as a cash grab, and make WYCC selections by rating, similar to the Olympiad teams?
It is necessary to select one and only child (per age group and gender) to be called "an official representative" with some benefits given by WYCC organizers. (an analogy is a Closed winner)
Re: Why CFC denying talented juniors to represent CANADA at World Stage???
The following CFC is criticized in this case NOT for following the rules, but putting personal interests ahead of it’s customers. In this particular case, BEST customers:
youth and juniors.
Youth Co-ordinator Mr. Barron stated, when this issued was raised in May that Canada
will not be sending a team period and END of discussion. So appeal was shut down, almost instantly.
Like I pointed before, we would not have this discussion, if both tournaments were organized on different dates.
So, who’s fault is it in this case? I doubt it is on the appealing side!
Tweet
Please explain you logic to us Chris.
Comment