Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

[Bob Armstrong]

Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement.

Thanks to GTCL CFC Governor Egis Zeromskis who directed us to the clear CFC Policy Statement on Playing Up in the CYCC, by CFC Youth Coordinator, Patrick McDonald:

I am willing to state the rule that I will apply until over-ruled by some authority:

If someone wants to play in an age category older than the one they qualify for, they can do so.

BUT: if they win a spot in a certain age category to play at the WYCC, that is the age category that we are willing to send them to the WYCC in.

IE: if one player who is 9 years old, wishes to play in the U14 section at the CYCC, and if they win a spot to go to the WYCC, the only age category that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the U14 section.

The same would go for girls that would like to play in the open section for their age group (or older) ... if a girl plays in the open section and wins a spot to go to the WYCC, then the only section that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the section that they qualified in at the CYCC.

Oh, and BTW: the age categories are by Year of Birth. we will not consider someone being born on December 31 as a different section as someone born on December 30 just as we will not consider someone born on January 1 as a different section as someone born on January 2.
We do not need to consider the month nor day of birth, only the YEAR of birth. That should make it simple for everyone.

[ found at http://chesscanada.info/forum/showpo...9&postcount=68 ]

Bob Armstrong, GTCL CFC Governor/CFC Public Relations Coordinator

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

When I directed a first CYCC in 2003, I wondered about playing up an age group. It was not mentioned in the rules and I expected to encounter some applications, as there was one hotly-contested section but the +2 age group in the same gender was less of a challenge. However, nobody mentioned it, and so I didn't either. TDs like to cause trouble, not stir it up.

The idea expressed in the original post seems OK to me. CFC holds the CYCC to choose a rep to every section of the WYCC. It would be unfortunate to have several players in one section and none at all in the next. OTOH, perhaps the policy could be more flexible. If Canada already has one or more players in the older WYCC section, I don't see what the objection might be.

EDIT: I had another thought. If a 9-year old is competitive to qualify in the under-12 CYCC, that's fine. But I would not enter a 9-year-old whose rating indicates that (s)he is in say the lower half of the 10-11-year-old group. Why would anybody do that? A small minority of parents influenced by some pop psychology du jour--or misconceived parental bragging rights "I got my nine-year-old Johnnie into the 10-11 section of the national chess championship. I care more than you do." No, on reflection I'd have to say that this policy needs to be reconsidered. And since maybe only one or two players every year should even think of such a step, perhaps the play-up regulations should be in obscurity, not in the CYCC rules but in some other part of the CFC Handbook.

Perhaps the TD or organizer should have a say, too. Perhaps a right of refusal to play-ups requested after 45 days (in analogy to CFC Handbook section 1008) prior to the event. {Omitted: factual discussion of new entries and group changes submitted on torn slips of paper, minutes before the scheduled start of the first round.}

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

If someone wants to play in an age category older than the one they qualify for, they can do so.

BUT: if they win a spot in a certain age category to play at the WYCC, that is the age category that we are willing to send them to the WYCC in.

IE: if one player who is 9 years old, wishes to play in the U14 section at the CYCC, and if they win a spot to go to the WYCC, the only age category that Canada will send them to the WYCC in is the U14 section.

I can't see much benefit is someone playing up that high and then having to play up in the world youth championship. Better to win in their own age category. Allow their game to develop.

It's not like Canada is some world powerhouse in junior chess.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

I can't see much benefit is someone playing up that high and then having to play up in the world youth championship. Better to win in their own age category. Allow their game to develop.

Each player develop at his own pace. If a 9 year old is too strong for his age group and good enough to play 14 year old kids, then he must be allowed to do so. Such rules allowing players to play up was long overdue. There might be some fine tuning left to do though.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

Each player develop at his own pace. If a 9 year old is too strong for his age group and good enough to play 14 year old kids, then he must be allowed to do so. Such rules allowing players to play up was long overdue. There might be some fine tuning left to do though.

I have no objection to players developing at their own pace against others in regular events. Where I have problems is on the world stage where someone under 10 has to play someone 13 from one of the strong nations, which is what that policy statement is saying. I know there are some players who might be exceptions but they would be few. There aren't many Bobby Fischers around.

I hope we don't get situations where someone just misses qualifying in the under 14 then wants the under 8 placing ahead of the winner of that section because "clearly" he is the better player. I still have the crying towel I used reading the posts last time about the aspiring grandmasters who played in the Pan Am. :)

[Duncan Smith]

Re: Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

Ample proof on this thread why youth chess has to be protected from old style ideas in the CFC.

[Bob Armstrong]

Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

Posted on the members' CFC Chess Chat Forum ( and prior to that on the confidential CFC Governors' Discussion Board [ slightly edited ] ):

Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

My proposed motion on playing up at the 2013 CYCC ( now to be filed at the July AGM if the motion does go ahead - I had started discussion on this some time ago, and got some responses, but then was too busy to get it together for the 2012 Spring Governors' On-line Meeting ( April 1 ), to be effective for the 2012 CYCC) had been based on concerns stated by both governors and CYCC junior Parents, that the current CFC unrestricted right to play up would water down upper sections if large numbers of players played up, believing they stood better chances of prize-winning there ( this seems to be one of the concerns raised by Jonathan Berry in his post above ).

Do governors see this as a legitimate concern?

Should playing up be restricted to some degree, or is playing up a " right " that cannot be interfered with, without facing possible legal challenge?

Would proposing that a player had to have a rating equal to or greater than the fifth placed player in the higher section be considered too restrictive? not restrictive enough?

Bob A

I would be pleased to hear on this members' board, any non-governor comments, especially CYCC junior parents ( or juniors themselves ), as well as from any governors.

Bob A

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

Would proposing that a player had to have a rating equal to or greater than the fifth placed player in the higher section be considered too restrictive? not restrictive enough?

Chess should be about playing and not managing a rating. Carefully picking the events to enter where horrible loses will cost very few lost rating points is the result of some policies.

Having a high rating and being a good chess player are two different things.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

Would proposing that a player had to have a rating equal to or greater than the fifth placed player in the higher section be considered too restrictive? not restrictive enough?

Bob A

I would think that the ratings for players in CYCC would be all over the map, so using that as a yardstick might not be a good idea. It might only serve to provide more opportunity for squabbles: "my son's rating would have been higher if xxxxx had not occurred" etc

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

Having a high rating and being a good chess player are two different things.

Maybe. However upon deeper scrutiny I suspect that some correlation could be found.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

based on concerns stated by both governors and CYCC junior Parents, that the current CFC unrestricted right to play up would water down upper sections if large numbers of players played up, believing they stood better chances of prize-winning there ( this seems to be one of the concerns raised by Jonathan Berry in his post above ).

...

Would proposing that a player had to have a rating equal to or greater than the fifth placed player in the higher section be considered too restrictive? not restrictive enough?

In 2003 and 2007 there was no right to play up. The age determined the section. If you like, there was no blank on the entry form for "section". As TD I was ready to listen if anybody asked, but nobody asked.

It was not my concern that "large numbers of players [might play] up, believing they stood better chances of prize-winning there". The example I gave at the CFC forum was a single uncompetitive player ruining a section, in multiple ways. My concern was about playing older for non-competitive reasons.

If a player is a LeSiège or a Yanofsky, the player him- or her- self might want to compete in an older group. That is the prime thing to protect. If the genius player does not want to go in an older group, then some player who is almost as skilled, and competitive in the next older group, should be allowed to play older. Given the expense of going to WYCC, playing older at the CYCC may be that player (who might be the second strongest player of the decade)'s only chance to win a section and represent the country. The third kind of instance is where, for example, there are three 2100-2200 players in the U16, but nobody above 2100 in the U-18.

Please protect the organizers, who have every right to expect a list of players, each correct in his or her group, several (6?) weeks before play begins. If you can do that, also without undue stress on the CFC office staff, then, yes, five strikes me as a reasonable number. "I hereby apply to play in the U-14 unless Yanofsky is allowed to play in that section, in which case please put me in my natural U-12 section." Something like that. It's likely that somebody could contrive some sort of paradox, I guess the motion might state who the final arbiter of olderization is. Deal with the applications in order of rating, highest first. I think it is a good thing to make playing older a task, rather than a whim, for the player or his or her parents. As stated earlier, it's something that hardly anybody should even contemplate, but when it is needed, it has big implications.

Or don't do it. If it's too much of a bureaucratic or conceptual burden, don't allow playing older. If a player is way stronger than other Canadians of his own age, (s)he can get great experience by, say, taking a tough section in the Québec Open. According to the book "Bounce" the ambitious young sportsman with 10,000 hours of full-throttle, challenging, practice will reach world class. A role of the parent or coach or CFC is to facilitate that practice being appropriately challenging. You could allow alternate access to the WYCC by exceptional rating. Or not. The CYCC-WYCC route does not have to be all things to all ambitious young players.

[Jonathan Berry]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

Chess should be about playing and not managing a rating. Carefully picking the events to enter where horrible loses will cost very few lost rating points is the result of some policies.

What a bizarre suggestion. So choosing to play in strong events, which is ultimately a strategy that will produce a winner, becomes in your view the life loser's attempt to manage which section he is allowed to play in. Did you coach the Leafs? They don't list their Correspondence coaches on the website.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Playing Up at the CYCC - CFC Policy Statement

Its not a question of playing older Jonathan. All of the sections are "X and under sections" not 10 and 11, 12 and 13, etc.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

What a bizarre suggestion. So choosing to play in strong events, which is ultimately a strategy that will produce a winner, becomes in your view the life loser's attempt to manage which section he is allowed to play in. Did you coach the Leafs? They don't list their Correspondence coaches on the website.

With all the organizing you've done, and all the players you've seen drop out by the time they get into their 20's, I'm amazed you've learned so little.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Evaluation of Current CYCC Playing Up Policy of CFC

Maybe. However upon deeper scrutiny I suspect that some correlation could be found.

I agree regarding "some correlation" but wonder if the talent at the World championship might not be better suited to a players own age group where it should translate to a higher finish.