Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

[Bob Armstrong]

After some public input on our initial draft motion, and some reconsiderations by PEI CFC Governor and Treasurer Fred McKim and I, here is the final motion we propose to file with CFC Secretary Lyle Craver:

Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

Revision 6 - 11/10/24

Moved: Bob Armstrong; Seconded: Fred McKim

That CFC combine the current “ Active “ and “ Blitz “ Rating Systems, and expand them into one system called a “ Quick Chess “ Rating System, on the following terms:

1. it will accept " quick chess " tournaments with time control from Game/5 ( with increments Game/3 with 2 sec. increment ) to Game/59. Games 15-59 min. will be the regular K factor ( 2200+ - 16; U 2200 - 32 ), while those 5-14 min. will be one-half K factor ( 2200+ - 8; U 2200 – 16 ).

2. Prior to establishing the new “ Quick “ rating, all “ Active “ ratings that are more than 100 points below the “ regular “ rating will be revised to CFC regular - 100. The CFC “ quick “ rating will be the maximum of the CFC Rating (if any games played since 2006/01/01) and the CFC “ active “ (if any games played since 2006/01/01).

3. Players must be CFC members or pay 50% of the normal tournament playing fee ( Adult - $ 10; Junior - $ 5 )". The price for the “ quick chess “ tournament playing fee will be reviewed by the executive after 6 months.

4. The " quick chess tournament " rating fee will be 50% of the normal rating fee.

5. The current practice of all-junior tournaments of less than 1 hour not requiring any CFC membership or tournament playing fee, and being rated for $ . 50 per player, will continue as an exception in the system.

Commentary:

The current “ active “ rating system and the “ blitz “ rating system are little used ( though a few particularly like the “ active “ and find it a convenient time control ), and the active ratings are considered by many to be stale and inaccurate because of the little use. There have only been 2 “ blitz “ tournaments rated in about 7-8 years. We considered using the term “ speed “ rating system, but the objection is that in Canada, “ speed “ is currently clearly identified as Game/5. “ Quick Chess “ is a term borrowed from the USCF.

There is some demand for a fast rating system, to try to compete OTB with the faster internet time controls.

The Active Rating System seems easily adaptable to a new “ Quick Chess “ Rating System, which would integrate the “ blitz “ system and accept time controls from Game/5 ( with increments, Game/3 with 2 sec. increments – Wikipedia notes under “ Fast chess – Blitz “ – “ More recently due to the influx of digital clocks, 3 minutes with a 2 second add is also preferred. “ ) to Game/59 ( a number seem opposed to going to “ bullet “ chess – Game/1 ). Also, given the number of possible games in a faster time control tournament, we have adjusted the K factor for games from 5 – 14 min. ( ฝ regular K factor ). We feel this system will broaden the appeal of official CFC-rated tournaments, and expand the base of players, and hopefully generate new full CFC members, who will graduate to the “ regular “ time control rated tournaments over time.

We have tried to establish “ initial “ quick ratings, by taking into account the possible inaccuracy of active ratings, because many players have rated games so seldom, and stale ratings. The regular rating is more up-to-date, even though it may be generally true that it is somewhat higher for most, than their actual speed strength. To deal with stale ratings in either system, players who have been inactive in either system since 2005 will start as unrated. Players who have managed to obtain an active rating higher than their CFC rating will be able to retain it. Players in a severely underrated pool will be restored to their CFC rating, or at worse 100 points below it. If the rating used is provisional, the “ quick “ rating will be provisional based on the same number of games.

Since these “ quick chess “ tournaments are now being officially sanctioned, it is felt that CFC membership must be required, or a special new “ quick chess tournament playing fee “, which will be relatively modest ( ฝ regular ), to keep this new type of tournament financially reasonable.

The rating of these tournaments is no different than the rating of “ regular “ tournaments, but it is felt that a lower rating fee ( subsidized by the regular rating system ) is required, again to keep the playing cost of the tournament modest, and make it attractive – we have set it at only 50% of the normal rating fee ( it has generally been estimated that the actual cost of rating an individual is likely around $ 2 ). It is hoped that both clubs and organizers will be attracted to the idea of a national “ quick chess “ rating, and that they will commence holding such “ quick chess “ tournaments. Again, this is seen somewhat as a “ loss leader “ to get non-CFC members involved in official OTB chess, and that they will eventually become full, active members.

We do not want the current all-junior tournament system affected by this change, and so have made it an exception to the normal rules for “ quick chess “ tournaments.

Before filing however, Fred and I would be pleased to hear any comments or proposed amendments to our final draft.

Bob Armstrong ( GTCL CFC Governor ) and Fred

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

1.) you suggest that the CFC unilaterally change the tournament membership fee. However, that fee includes a provincial component which is not in the CFC jurisdiction. You need to do work to get agreement from the provincial associations.

2.) the rating fee is not mentioned. You intend to keep it at $3/player?

3.) I would say that the "right" fee that might work in the marketplace would be a rating fee of $1 or $2 per player (disregarding the question of whether the CFC can do the work for that price) with CFC / provincial membership NOT required. I can't see anybody organizing blitz tournaments where CFC membership is required. To a lessor extent the same is true for active tournaments - an organizer leaves lots of people out of the tournament by requiring CFC membership. But I'm biased - I think the whole CFC membership model is flawed.

4.) By all accounts, the CFC office is overwhelmed with work. Presumably you expect this program to increase that amount of work. How is it expected that the office will deal with it? Additional hiring?

5.) Possibly that work will include lots of junior blitz tournaments at $0.50/head - losing even more money for the CFC than they do now. Comment?

6.) what is your evidence for "some demand" for this?

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

1.) you suggest that the CFC unilaterally change the tournament membership fee. However, that fee includes a provincial component which is not in the CFC jurisdiction. You need to do work to get agreement from the provincial associations.

2.) the rating fee is not mentioned. You intend to keep it at $3/player?

3.) I would say that the "right" fee that might work in the marketplace would be a rating fee of $1 or $2 per player (disregarding the question of whether the CFC can do the work for that price) with CFC / provincial membership NOT required. I can't see anybody organizing blitz tournaments where CFC membership is required. To a lessor extent the same is true for active tournaments - an organizer leaves lots of people out of the tournament by requiring CFC membership. But I'm biased - I think the whole CFC membership model is flawed.

4.) By all accounts, the CFC office is overwhelmed with work. Presumably you expect this program to increase that amount of work. How is it expected that the office will deal with it? Additional hiring?

5.) Possibly that work will include lots of junior blitz tournaments at $0.50/head - losing even more money for the CFC than they do now. Comment?

6.) what is your evidence for "some demand" for this?

Hi Roger:

Thanks for your thoughtful review of our proposed motion.

1. Provincial Component of Quick Chess Tournament Tournament Playing Fee - you are right - we will need to get all Provincial Affiliates to agree to half their interest in it.

2. Quick Chess Rating Fee - this is dealt with in condition 4 of the motion - it will be 50% of the regular rating fee. This would currently be $ 1.50, within the limits you have set.

3. CFC Membership/Quick ChessTournament Playing Fee - we are trying to increase, in the long run, CFC Membership with this new program. And there are costs associated with it. So it is felt that some membership component is required. The Quick Chess Tournament Playing Fee is quite modest, and players will try it first, and then hopefully in future take out a membership, which will be cheaper in the long run if the person starts playing more, and playing regular tournaments as well.

4. CFC Office Workload - The rating program minimizes the ED work on ratings. So does automatic filing. We will just be adjusting the old " Active " rating system ( the " blitz " was never used ), and we don't foresee increased use of it adding an unusual amount of work. If it does prove popular, and increases regular CFC membership, then it might seem wise to add a part-time rating manager. Hopefully increased memberships will cover this.

5. All-Junior Tournaments Rating Fee - this is a loss leader for CFC, to try to get more juniors to eventually take out full junior membership. These juniors do to some extent eventually become adult members. It is hoped that foregoing revenue here is a good investment. Also, raising the rating fee will leave the CMA rating system more attractive, and we would be forfeiting possible future CFC junior members. Also, CFC is already rating the all-junior tournaments ( though sometimes wrongly rating 30 minute games as " regular " rating - this is now being corrected ) - so CFC obviously feels it is a worthwhile foregoing of revenue.

6. Demand for " Quick " Rating System - this was raised by one of the CFC Governors recently on the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board. It was in relation to a " blitz " rating system, and he maintained that marketing would make such a system viable ( he seemed unaware of the existing CFC " blitz " rating system ). Also, we do have both London, Ontario and Windsor, Ontario, showing interest in the Active rating system. Also, it appears more clubs are holding unrated blitz tournaments than previously, and we have an active weekend blitz tournament in Toronto, and there is one in Montreal, and it is hoped they can be attracted into the " quick chess rating system".

Fred may have further opinions on this, and I hope he will comment as well.

Bob A

[Fred McKim]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

Hi Roger:

Thanks for your thoughtful review of our proposed motion.

1. Provincial Component of Quick Chess Tournament Tournament Playing Fee - you are right - we will need to get all Provincial Affiliates to agree to half their interest in it.

2. Quick Chess Rating Fee - this is dealt with in condition 4 of the motion - it will be 50% of the regular rating fee. This would currently be $ 1.50, within the limits you have set.

3. CFC Membership/Quick ChessTournament Playing Fee - we are trying to increase, in the long run, CFC Membership with this new program. And there are costs associated with it. So it is felt that some membership component is required. The Quick Chess Tournament Playing Fee is quite modest, and players will try it first, and then hopefully in future take out a membership, which will be cheaper in the long run if the person starts playing more, and playing regular tournaments as well.

4. CFC Office Workload - The rating program minimizes the ED work on ratings. So does automatic filing. We will just be adjusting the old " Active " rating system ( the " blitz " was never used ), and we don't foresee increased use of it adding an unusual amount of work. If it does prove popular, and increases regular CFC membership, then it might seem wise to add a part-time rating manager. Hopefully increased memberships will cover this.

5. All-Junior Tournaments Rating Fee - this is a loss leader for CFC, to try to get more juniors to eventually take out full junior membership. These juniors do to some extent eventually become adult members. It is hoped that foregoing revenue here is a good investment. Also, raising the rating fee will leave the CMA rating system more attractive, and we would be forfeiting possible future CFC junior members.

6. Demand for " Quick " Rating System - this was raised by one of the CFC Governors recently on the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board. It was in relation to a " blitz " rating system, and he maintained that marketing would make such a system viable ( he seemed unaware of the existing CFC " blitz " rating system ). Also, we do have both London, Ontario and Windsor, Ontario, showing interest in the Active rating system. Also, it appears more clubs are holding unrated blitz tournaments than previously, and we have an active weekend blitz tournament in Toronto, and there is one in Montreal, and it is hoped they can be attracted into the " quick chess rating system".

Fred may have further opinions on this, and I hope he will comment as well.

Bob A

1. Provinces have never been involved in the setting of the Tournament member fee or their share. I don't see an issue here.

6. Our contractor will be paid more as part of the contract if we start generating extra membership or ratings, so I don't see this as an issue.

As for the half K issue, we could just manually edit the database to cut the rating gain or loss in half for the <15 minute events.

I don't think we really knew if we had a demand for Class Certificates, but we see how that is going, or the Instructor postings. It's time to try new things on without studying them to death.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

1. Provinces have never been involved in the setting of the Tournament member fee or their share. I don't see an issue here.

.

BC has and I defended that position when the CFC tournament membership was last changed. It is NOT the CFC jurisdiction. Tournament memberships are currently priced differently in BC than elsewhere. Although our policy is to charge 1/2 (i.e. $2 per person) for one day events which presumably would cover most blitz / active events. The main difference is juniors - there is no separate junior rate - it's $2 for everyone so the quickplay junior tournament membership in BC would be $6 ($4 CFC portion, $2 BC portion).

http://www.chess.bc.ca/membership.shtml for the BCCF membership page.

http://www.chess.bc.ca/FeeReorganizationNov08.pdf for the BCCF motion establishing BCCF membership rates.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

BC has and I defended that position when the CFC tournament membership was last changed. It is NOT the CFC jurisdiction. Tournament memberships are currently priced differently in BC than elsewhere. Although our policy is to charge 1/2 (i.e. $2 per person) for one day events which presumably would cover most blitz / active events. The main difference is juniors - there is no separate junior rate - it's $2 for everyone so the quickplay junior tournament membership in BC would be $6 ($4 CFC portion, $2 BC portion).

http://www.chess.bc.ca/membership.shtml for the BCCF membership page.

http://www.chess.bc.ca/FeeReorganizationNov08.pdf for the BCCF motion establishing BCCF membership rates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the CFC collects no provincial membership fees for BC, it wouldn't matter to your provincial coffers, if we were to change the present tournament membership fee for these quick events. The CFC would get $8 for adults and $4 for juniors, instead of the present $16 and $8. You could charge whatever you want for the provincial portion.

Now I could see other provinces might have more of a beef, since we have set the provincial rates to $4 and $2, and would now be cutting these in half.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since the CFC collects no provincial membership fees for BC, it wouldn't matter to your provincial coffers, if we were to change the present tournament membership fee for these quick events. The CFC would get $8 for adults and $4 for juniors, instead of the present $16 and $8. You could charge whatever you want for the provincial portion.

Now I could see other provinces might have more of a beef, since we have set the provincial rates to $4 and $2, and would now be cutting these in half.

The CFC collects provincial dues owing for CFC rated events. That is, for BC, $4 for multi day events , $2 for single day events (although in practice, there are none of those). But yes, we wouldn't have a beef or not much of one as our rates are more or less consistent with what is being proposed. But in principle, the motion should not be so sloppy as to not recognize that the tournament membership fee includes provincial dues and in fact as worded, does not apply to BC. (does not state what the CFC portion is)

In fact, although you state that by halving the tournament membership fee you are halving the provincial dues - that is not clear from the motion or even implied. You could be doing something like changing the adult TM from $20 ($16 CFC, $4 provincial) to $10 ($6 CFC, $4 provincial). But that is in fact all wrong in BC because for a one day event an adult TM is currently $18 ($16 CFC, $2 BC).

In short, the motion is deficient in this respect. It needs to explicitly state provincial portions and where those portions differ from current provincial policy - the agreement of the affected provincial association(s) must be obtained.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

Hi Roger:

In terms of demand for the faster rating system, I would note the recent report from Hal Bond from the FIDE Congress in Poland:

" The [ FIDE ] President [, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov ] also spoke of the goals of the Commission on Modernization, most of which pertains to a more aggressive move to rapid and blitz ratings and competitions. He believes that this move will enhance our chances of television coverage and sponsorship and lower event costs due to their shorter duration. While not wishing to abandon our “classical” traditions, the President believes that quicker play is the way of the future.....In January 2012 FIDE will begin rating blitz and rapid games at no charge for at least one year. The first rating list will appear in July 2012. Classical ratings will serve as the starting point and the k factor will be 20, meaning that dramatic rating swings will be possible. "

So it would seem our move is in parallel to what FIDE sees as coming.

Bob A

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

Hi Roger:

In terms of demand for the faster rating system, I would note the recent report from Hal Bond from the FIDE Congress in Poland:

" The [ FIDE ] President [, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov ] also spoke of the goals of the Commission on Modernization, most of which pertains to a more aggressive move to rapid and blitz ratings and competitions. He believes that this move will enhance our chances of television coverage and sponsorship and lower event costs due to their shorter duration. While not wishing to abandon our “classical” traditions, the President believes that quicker play is the way of the future. "

So it would seem our move is in parallel to what FIDE sees as coming.

Bob A

That viewpoint is not new. That has been the official story since active time controls were introduced. It hasn't progressed very far despite lots of time to do so.

But you misunderstand me, I don't disagree that active and blitz are an important part of the chess scene and a route to bring new people into the fold nor do I feel that a combined rating system is a bad thing. It's the pricing.

[Fred McKim]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

The CFC collects provincial dues owing for CFC rated events. That is, for BC, $4 for multi day events , $2 for single day events (although in practice, there are none of those). But yes, we wouldn't have a beef or not much of one as our rates are more or less consistent with what is being proposed. But in principle, the motion should not be so sloppy as to not recognize that the tournament membership fee includes provincial dues and in fact as worded, does not apply to BC. (does not state what the CFC portion is)

In fact, although you state that by halving the tournament membership fee you are halving the provincial dues - that is not clear from the motion or even implied. You could be doing something like changing the adult TM from $20 ($16 CFC, $4 provincial) to $10 ($6 CFC, $4 provincial). But that is in fact all wrong in BC because for a one day event an adult TM is currently $18 ($16 CFC, $2 BC).

In short, the motion is deficient in this respect. It needs to explicitly state provincial portions and where those portions differ from current provincial policy - the agreement of the affected provincial association(s) must be obtained.

I didn't realize that you weren't collecting your (essentially tournament) membership fees yourselves.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Proposed CFC Motion 2012-Z – CFC Quick Chess Rating System

I'll remind you Fred, that back when CFC tournament membership fees were $10 adult the CFC portion was $6 and provincial portion $4 (although the CFC did not in fact usually transfer the provincial portion to the provinces). So, your assumption that Bob's proposal of halving the TM fee from $20 ($16 CFC, $4 provincial) to $10 means that the TM is $10 ($8 CFC $2 provincial) is by no means obvious. He has to clarify - and the CFC does not have jurisdiction over the provincial portion.

[Bob Armstrong]

Membership/Tournament Playing Fee Collection - CFC/Provincial?

Hi Roger:

I'm not exactly clear on this now.

As I understood Fred, when it comes to tournament playing fee ( as alternate to CFC Membership for tournament play ), he seems to say that the provincial portion was allocated by the CFC to the provinces, and that they had no right absolutely to share in it? Fred? Is the basis for this, that the CFC collects the Provincially mandated membership fee when it collects the CFC Membership fee. But when it comes to tournament playing fee, this is solely within CFC discretion whether to allow a substitute for CFC membership, and the provinces have no say in this, and technically have no right to share in it. But CFC has allocated part to the Provinces out of some principle of " sharing "?

And I'm not clear on the new BC membership set up. If someone in BC plays in a 3-day weekend CFC-rated tournament, they may have a CFC membership. The organizer will collect this membership fee if the player is not a member. Does the CFC have to collect something for the BCCF membership, under its new system, as a BCCF Membership fee?

And if the player instead uses the CFC Tournament Playing Fee, does the organizer have to collect something at the same time for the BCCF, as a BCCF tournament playing fee?

Sorry that I'm still quite confused on this. Hope you can help me on this.

Bob

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Membership/Tournament Playing Fee Collection - CFC/Provincial?

Hi Roger:

I'm not exactly clear on this now.

As I understood Fred, when it comes to tournament playing fee ( as alternate to CFC Membership for tournament play ), he seems to say that the provincial portion was allocated by the CFC to the provinces, and that they had no right absolutely to share in it? Fred? Is the basis for this, that the CFC collects the Provincially mandated membership fee when it collects the CFC Membership fee. But when it comes to tournament playing fee, this is solely within CFC discretion whether to allow a substitute for CFC membership, and the provinces have no say in this, and technically have no right to share in it. But CFC has allocated part to the Provinces out of some principle of " sharing "?

And I'm not clear on the new BC membership set up. If someone in BC plays in a 3-day weekend CFC-rated tournament, they may have a CFC membership. The organizer will collect this membership fee if the player is not a member. Does the CFC have to collect something for the BCCF membership, under its new system, as a BCCF Membership fee?

And if the player instead uses the CFC Tournament Playing Fee, does the organizer have to collect something at the same time for the BCCF, as a BCCF tournament playing fee?

Sorry that I'm still quite confused on this. Hope you can help me on this.

Bob

I quote from the CFC Handbook

"Membership Fees: The CFC collects provincial dues. All the affiliated provincial associations which charge dues (BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland) have elected to have the CFC collect theirs. "

The CFC has not (perhaps is not) always done a good job on this - for example frequently CFC life members escape paying provincial dues - one of the reasons the BCCF went to the structure it now has. At one time (perhaps even now for provinces with annual memberships although I am not sure) the CFC did not pass on the provincial portion of tournament memberships but this was more along the lines of bad accounting and not being called on it by the provincial associations rather than policy.

The CFC does not have the authority or jurisdiction to set provincial dues. That applies to Tournament Memberships as well.

In BC, provincial dues are $4 per person per (multi day) event. ($2 for a single day event) This is frequently (and always in my tournaments) included in the entry fee. There are other ways to become a BCCF member (organizers and TDs for events which fees are collected become members automatically, there are a few BCCF life members although that category is no longer sold) and there are exceptions (charitable events can be exempt, events with all juniors are exempt.)

In CFC rated events in BC, one must either be a CFC member or buy a CFC tournament membership which is $16 adult or $8 junior - that is, the CFC portion of the CFC tournament membership fee. (apart from the exemption that the CFC has for junior events)

[Roger Patterson]

ps

Hi Roger:

I'm not exactly clear on this now.

As I understood Fred, when it comes to tournament playing fee ( as alternate to CFC Membership for tournament play ), he seems to say that the provincial portion was allocated by the CFC to the provinces, and that they had no right absolutely to share in it? Fred? Is the basis for this, that the CFC collects the Provincially mandated membership fee when it collects the CFC Membership fee. But when it comes to tournament playing fee, this is solely within CFC discretion whether to allow a substitute for CFC membership, and the provinces have no say in this, and technically have no right to share in it. But CFC has allocated part to the Provinces out of some principle of " sharing "?

And I'm not clear on the new BC membership set up. If someone in BC plays in a 3-day weekend CFC-rated tournament, they may have a CFC membership. The organizer will collect this membership fee if the player is not a member. Does the CFC have to collect something for the BCCF membership, under its new system, as a BCCF Membership fee?

And if the player instead uses the CFC Tournament Playing Fee, does the organizer have to collect something at the same time for the BCCF, as a BCCF tournament playing fee?

Sorry that I'm still quite confused on this. Hope you can help me on this.

Bob

I'll add that there are some obscure things about the CFC TM: in particular, for regions / provinces without a provincial affiliate, in principal, only the CFC portion of the TM is required but in practice probably the full $20 is collected and probably banks the provincial portion.

[Fred McKim]

Re: ps

I'll add that there are some obscure things about the CFC TM: in particular, for regions / provinces without a provincial affiliate, in principal, only the CFC portion of the TM is required but in practice probably the full $20 is collected and probably banks the provincial portion.

I collect $16 & $8 for any PEI tournaments. I'm quite sure QC organizers charge the same, so I'm not sure where you're going with that one.

This is clearly laid out on the CFC Membership Rates page.

Clearly the complicated case is BC.