CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

"- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult membership and 4$ for junior and cadet membership. The payment will occur in the following fashion:
On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."

Maybe these need to be modified:
- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult and 4$ for junior and cadet
of those Quebec players who have played in a FIDE/CFC rated tournament. The payment will occur in the following fashion: On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses of Quebec players, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees.

I would vote in favour of your proposed modifications :). But unfortunately this agreement is up for approval or rejection, and nothing in between. And once adopted it will stand as his for three years unless one side decides to use his veto right.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

No it is not only for Quebec players. The deal is to put the FQE money into a trust earmarked for "FIDE related expense". But don't forget that as written the deal gives a veto right to both parties on how the money will be spent... Don't count your eggs...

"- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult membership and 4$ for junior and cadet membership. The payment will occur in the following fashion:
On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees."

Maybe these need to be modified:
- The FQE will pay a 9$ fee per adult and 4$ for junior and cadet
of those Quebec players who have played in a FIDE/CFC rated tournament. The payment will occur in the following fashion: On the anniversary date of the agreement, FQE will report its membership per category and pay an annual fee according to those numbers.
- Annual fees collected are placed in a trust, earmarked for FIDE-related* expenses of Quebec players, overseen by 50% FQE Trustees and 50% CFC Trustees.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

First of all Vladimir, let me point out that I value your contribution to this thread. You have the courage of your convictions and to express them. This is the only way to build a positive dialogue.

Thank you, Jean. I certainly value your contributions to this thread as well. The deal really needs to be a win-win for it to be sustainable in the long run and it is good to see what the problems are from your perspective.

From the CFCs point of view, what is so wrong with the current situation, besides not getting "enough" money from Quebec players ? Too many Quebec players on the national teams getting a "free ride" ?

The problem from my point of view is that there is not enough players on the national teams from Quebec or the rest of Canada getting a "free ride". The current situation where players aren't sure of the funding for Olympiad participation until well after they have made a commitment without knowing the exact possible downside seems ludicrous to me. The way around that is to grow in numbers so that there is more discretionary money to spend on both Olympiad teams (national and women's).

Hardly. 1/9 two years ago and the same this time around (11%). Not enough cooperation ? In the last decade the FQE has come to the CFCs rescue quite a few times (Canadian Open in 2002, CYCC once, etc.). It even made a 2000$ donation to the olympic fund two years ago. If one think that this status quo is so bad for the CFC, wait until this agreement gets in the way of that good will.

Quebec has certainly been doing its part to foster good will between the federations.

I am anxiously waiting to see you playing in Quebec tournaments Mr Drkulec. The fact is it is not the dual membership fees that is the most significant obstacle for players to play more tournaments further from home. It is time, general expenses (travel, lodging, food, etc), and distances.

Very long car trips can cause me health problems though I did manage to make a trip to Quebec City recently by car which did not cause me any significant problems but that was probably because our fearless president was doing the driving.

And it is true even for someone like me. Last year I played the Canadian Open in Toronto. I had not played chess in Toronto for more than 20 years! Despite the fact that I dont have to pay for either membership! But other expenses are simply too much for me to attend weekenders in Ontario. This deal is not going to change the fundamentals.
People have limited time and funds to play chess. Waiving membership fees will help, but only a little if any. People will probably play the same amount of chess, and spent the same kind of money, but spreaded over different locations. They might play fewer local events in favor of going out more often. Is it what we are after ? I doubt it.

This is all very true. When I played 168 games, I did not do very much else and it was rather expensive.

It is never going to happen but if it happens, it would not be "cooperation". It would be competing with the FQE to put it out of business. What would you say if the FQE started to offer its services in english for the rest of Canada ? Would you call it "cooperation" ?

I am not so hung up on who delivers the services as long as they are delivered.

This would obviously be artificial growth. Real growth is something else.

We do need quite a bit of real growth to add to the artificial growth.

Not so long ago the CFC's membership was around 4,000 members, without the FQE. What did the CFC do then about approaching potential sponsors ? And now 3 000 would make a difference in that regard ? I am all for "good will" and "good faith" but it should not be confused with "wishful thinking" and illusions.

To get real growth we will need to do some things that are different from what we have been doing up to now. We need to do the type of things that they seem to take for granted in golf, tennis, hockey and soccer. Of course they have all kinds of sponsorships both from private industry and governments.

There is absolutely no garantee that going back to the current situation (which I call a "live and let live" situation) will be possible if that deal leads to major misunderstandings and disagreements as I suspect it will. The status quo as you call it has allowed some timely cooperation when both sides saw it as mutually profitable, which is the only way to cooperate. Can the current situation be improved ? Absolutely. But this agreement is not going down this path. It is incomplete, ill-founded and dangerous. Such an agreement with a double veto cannot work very long. It carelessly opens a pandora box. More care and considerations are needed to solve a 40 year old problem without making it worse.

I am not sure how much worse it can get. I have a feeling that the current FQE and CFC executive will make this arrangement work and three years from now we will wonder what all the fuss was about when we quickly renew the arrangement.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

Vlad I think that your thread clearly expresses the benefits for both parties to move forward with this agreement. Some in Québec and in the rest of Canada will argue against it is time to move beyond the attitudes that prevented us, in the past, to seek a win-win agreement. Some could argue the chess players, always on the hunt for a checkmate, have a tough time playing collaborative games...

Hopefully sanity will prevail among the governors and the agreement will move forward. We really have to start working together. Less ego and more working together. CFC, FQE, CMA we are all here because we have a love of chess. If we remind ourselves of that more often perhaps we can overcome the silly arguments which sometimes divide us.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

I have asked the question several times but so far no one has ever come up with an answer, let alone a good one. What is the point of getting a FIDE rating ? Does that make a player better ?
If someone gets a FIDE rating near 2300, then he is a position to dream of the FIDE master title or even eventually a higher title. Then I see some sense in wanting to get FIDE rated. But otherwise getting a FIDE rating makes no sense at all. If one is not strong enough to get one at least around 2200, he might as well wait until he is stronger. He or she then won't have to climb up inch by inch from a low starting point. That is why to FIDE rate Open swisses seems to me to be a waste of money.
The first FIDE rating I got in 1975 (canadian closed) was 2255. Three years later I won the same Closed and my rating jumped to 2360. Would it have been better if in between my weekenders had been FIDE rated ? Would I have been a better player ? Of course not. That is why there is no point in increasing the number of FIDE rated events and pay for it. And besides as I have already explained, FIDE ratings threatens our national ratings, both FQE and CFC. Organizers and 98% of all our members do not need several ratings. If we keep trying to spead FIDE ratings to all classes we will end up subsidizing FIDE instead of supporting our national federations.

Back in the good old days getting a FIDE rating was an accomplishment, as you were only published if you were over 2200, only masters were FIDE-rated. I agree with you that having everyone FIDE-rated is a cash grab, and that's there's going to be problems as low-rated World Youth players become stronger.

So why should anyone under 2200 get any rating FIDE/CFC/FQE? We're not professionals and have major flaws in our thinking. I'm never going to be a master at chess (or golf, etc.) so should I just quit pretending to be a chess player?

When I started playing slow chess again 10 years ago in Amsterdam I had a 2040 performance, but, as I age I'm likely to never reach that again. If I want to play in another tourist tournament they could be aghast at me being unrated, as unrateds count as the rating floor in norm calculations.

I like having my name published; I like having the record of my 'strength' on the fide page, my tournament history; I get a ranking and get to feel part of the world chess community, part of chess history. Even knowing that I'm such a patzer. I can compare my self with other individuals I come into contact with, regardless of nationality. I would never get my name on the NHL player list or even the World Poker Tour. So it is a cheap thrill. I like alot of things about chess that isn't just about becoming a stronger player, such as wasting potential study time on chesstalk.

[Roger Patterson]

Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

I have asked the question several times but so far no one has ever come up with an answer, let alone a good one. What is the point of getting a FIDE rating ? Does that make a player better ?
If someone gets a FIDE rating near 2300, then he is a position to dream of the FIDE master title or even eventually a higher title. Then I see some sense in wanting to get FIDE rated. But otherwise getting a FIDE rating makes no sense at all. If one is not strong enough to get one at least around 2200, he might as well wait until he is stronger. He or she then won't have to climb up inch by inch from a low starting point. That is why to FIDE rate Open swisses seems to me to be a waste of money.

..... And besides as I have already explained, FIDE ratings threatens our national ratings, both FQE and CFC. Organizers and 98% of all our members do not need several ratings. If we keep trying to spead FIDE ratings to all classes we will end up subsidizing FIDE instead of supporting our national federations.

.

You are not wrong on all of this, but the fact is, many people see getting a FIDE rating as some kind of accomplishment (which it was when the rating floor was 2200) and are willing to pay for it. From an organizer's perspective, the calculation is: will the number of extra entries because it is FIDE rated pay the total FIDE rating dues with some left over? The answer to that question is often yes - it only takes 1 or 2 extra entries to make the financial case.

The same sort of pressures are visible with juniors / parents who see a regular CFC rating as more desirable / meaningful than a CMA or CFC active rating.

It's certainly very dangerous to go to a FIDE rating that extends all the way down to 1000 or whatever. Although FIDE currently only rates with the approval of the national federation, that could change at any time. Not to mention the loss of any possibility of control over ratings or sending money to FIDE that could be better spent locally.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

The past couple of years have seen more Canadian events FIDE rated and there are now many FIDE-rated players below 2000. There are several Quebec swisses that could have their top section FIDE-rated. Quebec players who score 1/3 in the Quebec Open should have other local opportunites to complete their 9 games to get a published FIDE rating.

I have asked the question several times but so far no one has ever come up with an answer, let alone a good one. What is the point of getting a FIDE rating ? Does that make a player better ?
If someone gets a FIDE rating near 2300, then he is a position to dream of the FIDE master title or even eventually a higher title. Then I see some sense in wanting to get FIDE rated. But otherwise getting a FIDE rating makes no sense at all. If one is not strong enough to get one at least around 2200, he might as well wait until he is stronger. He or she then won't have to climb up inch by inch from a low starting point. That is why to FIDE rate Open swisses seems to me to be a waste of money.
The first FIDE rating I got in 1975 (canadian closed) was 2255. Three years later I won the same Closed and my rating jumped to 2360. Would it have been better if in between my weekenders had been FIDE rated ? Would I have been a better player ? Of course not. That is why there is no point in increasing the number of FIDE rated events and pay for it. And besides as I have already explained, FIDE ratings threatens our national ratings, both FQE and CFC. Organizers and 98% of all our members do not need several ratings. If we keep trying to spead FIDE ratings to all classes we will end up subsidizing FIDE instead of supporting our national federations.

Quebec has shown an interest in paying the costs of their players on the Canadian teams and being on FIDE rating lists. Hebert points out that the amount collected is way over present expenditures, but isn't it earmarked for only Quebec players?

No it is not only for Quebec players. The deal is to put the FQE money into a trust earmarked for "FIDE related expense". But don't forget that as written the deal gives a veto right to both parties on how the money will be spent... Don't count your eggs...

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

The basic idea that Quebec players can play in CFC events, and CFC in FQE, is a sensible idea, even though it applies to few outside of Hull/Ottawa.

The past couple of years have seen more Canadian events FIDE rated and there are now many FIDE-rated players below 2000. There are several Quebec swisses that could have their top section FIDE-rated. Quebec players who score 1/3 in the Quebec Open should have other local opportunites to complete their 9 games to get a published FIDE rating.

Quebec has shown an interest in paying the costs of their players on the Canadian teams and being on FIDE rating lists. Hebert points out that the amount collected is way over present expenditures, but isn't it earmarked for only Quebec players? Maybe it should also pay Quebec's CFC/FIDE rating fees. Can the 50/50 committee decide that?

[Marc Poulin]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

Vlad I think that your thread clearly expresses the benefits for both parties to move forward with this agreement. Some in Québec and in the rest of Canada will argue against it is time to move beyond the attitudes that prevented us, in the past, to seek a win-win agreement. Some could argue the chess players, always on the hunt for a checkmate, have a tough time playing collaborative games...

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

First of all Vladimir, let me point out that I value your contribution to this thread. You have the courage of your convictions and to express them. This is the only way to build a positive dialogue.

Is it a perfect deal? No, but it is a pretty good deal for both sides and certainly better than the status quo.

From the CFCs point of view, what is so wrong with the current situation, besides not getting "enough" money from Quebec players ? Too many Quebec players on the national teams getting a "free ride" ? Hardly. 1/9 two years ago and the same this time around (11%). Not enough cooperation ? In the last decade the FQE has come to the CFCs rescue quite a few times (Canadian Open in 2002, CYCC once, etc.). It even made a 2000$ donation to the olympic fund two years ago. If one think that this status quo is so bad for the CFC, wait until this agreement gets in the way of that good will.

Worst case from my point of view is that the deal does not work out and we are back to where we started. Best case is that the deal does work out and more CFC members play in FQE tournaments and more FQE members play in CFC tournaments. More chess gets organized and played. Win-win.

I am anxiously waiting to see you playing in Quebec tournaments Mr Drkulec. The fact is it is not the dual membership fees that is the most significant obstacle for players to play more tournaments further from home. It is time, general expenses (travel, lodging, food, etc), and distances. And it is true even for someone like me. Last year I played the Canadian Open in Toronto. I had not played chess in Toronto for more than 20 years! Despite the fact that I dont have to pay for either membership! But other expenses are simply too much for me to attend weekenders in Ontario. This deal is not going to change the fundamentals.
People have limited time and funds to play chess. Waiving membership fees will help, but only a little if any. People will probably play the same amount of chess, and spent the same kind of money, but spreaded over different locations. They might play fewer local events in favor of going out more often. Is it what we are after ? I doubt it.

Critics who say we are giving the FQE a better deal than that offered to other provinces are ignoring the fact that we cannot in our present form offer services in French. If we can start down this path of cooperation, with the help of the FQE and its members then perhaps we will be able to offer services in French in the future.

It is never going to happen but if it happens, it would not be "cooperation". It would be competing with the FQE to put it out of business. What would you say if the FQE started to offer its services in english for the rest of Canada ? Would you call it "cooperation" ?

There are many things on everyone's wish list but in its present form very little can be accomplished because our numbers are so few. Our fixed costs are relatively high. We can grow by 50% by one very significant vote.

This would obviously be artificial growth. Real growth is something else.

We can approach potential sponsors with the fact that we represent 3000 tournament players across Canada rather than 1900 mostly in Ontario.

Not so long ago the CFC's membership was around 4,000 members, without the FQE. What did the CFC do then about approaching potential sponsors ? And now 3 000 would make a difference in that regard ? I am all for "good will" and "good faith" but it should not be confused with "wishful thinking" and illusions.

The future will be determined by what we do now. Lets take a step down the path of cooperation and see where it leads us. If we find we don't like it then we can always go back to the current reality of two solitudes and say that we tried but it didn't work out.

There is absolutely no garantee that going back to the current situation (which I call a "live and let live" situation) will be possible if that deal leads to major misunderstandings and disagreements as I suspect it will. The status quo as you call it has allowed some timely cooperation when both sides saw it as mutually profitable, which is the only way to cooperate. Can the current situation be improved ? Absolutely. But this agreement is not going down this path. It is incomplete, ill-founded and dangerous. Such an agreement with a double veto cannot work very long. It carelessly opens a pandora box. More care and considerations are needed to solve a 40 year old problem without making it worse.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

The in house chess lawyers :) have been actively discussing this both here and on the French language side of the board.

Probably that's a question you should ask the executive before you cast your governors vote on the agreement. I'd hope there is a lot of good will on both sides.

I doubt that the CFC spent $2000 to have the agreement reviewed by a lawyer. You usually get lawyers involved in this kind of arrangement if you want to kill it, delay it (because it is inevitable but it is profitable to you to delay it), or pay more in lawyer fees than the sums which will be paid in FIDE expenses (perhaps I exaggerate but only a little).

The real question here is whether we (the CFC and FQE) are ready to work together for the good of chess in all of Canada? Is chess in Canada better off with the deal on the table or better off without the deal? I'd say we are better off with the deal.

Is it a perfect deal? No, but it is a pretty good deal for both sides and certainly better than the status quo. Things can go wrong if one or the other side proceeds in bad faith but why would you enter into such a deal just to mess it up? Worst case from my point of view is that the deal does not work out and we are back to where we started. Best case is that the deal does work out and more CFC members play in FQE tournaments and more FQE members play in CFC tournaments. More chess gets organized and played. Win-win.

Critics who say we are giving the FQE a better deal than that offered to other provinces are ignoring the fact that we cannot in our present form offer services in French. If we can start down this path of cooperation, with the help of the FQE and its members then perhaps we will be able to offer services in French in the future. There are many things on everyone's wish list but in its present form very little can be accomplished because our numbers are so few. Our fixed costs are relatively high. We can grow by 50% by one very significant vote. We can approach potential sponsors with the fact that we represent 3000 tournament players across Canada rather than 1900 mostly in Ontario.

In evaluating the deal we should not compare it with some pie in the sky deal which we could have accomplished if we (the CFC) were holding all the cards. This is a deal between relative equals and reflects that reality. Piling on conditions like the FQE has to swear eternal fealty to the vision of the CFC ruling chess in Canada and Quebec forever with an iron fist is just being ridiculous. Over the years things happened which perhaps annoyed certain people. Get over it. We have only the present. We can't change the past though people often try to, with spin. The future will be determined by what we do now. Lets take a step down the path of cooperation and see where it leads us. If we find we don't like it then we can always go back to the current reality of two solitudes and say that we tried but it didn't work out.

[Jean Hébert]

Re : CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

I was under the impression the FQE executive was now seeking the approval of the "FQE governors". So I guess that would be the regional delegates!

The CFC website lists all of their executives and governors. Does the FQE do the same on their website? Just asking......:)

How about some Googling on your part ? I heard that you are pretty good at that... ;)

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

The FQE has no governor or anything similar allowing in-depth discussions. Decisions are taken during board meetings by a board made of the executive (five people including the president) and some (7-8?) regional delegates. Since that the executive has already approved the deal, it would take an almost unanimous stand against it from the regional delegates to overturn it.

I was under the impression the FQE executive was now seeking the approval of the "FQE governors". So I guess that would be the regional delegates!

The CFC website lists all of their executives and governors. Does the FQE do the same on their website? Just asking......:)

[Jean Hébert]

Re : Re: Re : Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

Hmm...That makes me wonder.

Who are the governors of the FQE? How many are there?
How does the FQE governance structure work? Similar to CFC?

The FQE has no governor or anything similar allowing in-depth discussions. Decisions are taken during board meetings by a board made of the executive (five people including the president) and some (7-8?) regional delegates. Since that the executive has already approved the deal, it would take an almost unanimous stand against it from the regional delegates to overturn it. That is very unlikely to happen even though this "support" would only indicate a lack of proper consideration for this rushed and superficial deal.

Were any of the current FQE governors around when Quebec split from the CFC, oh so many years ago?

I was not directly involved, but I was there at a crucial meeting of what was then the FJEQ (fédération des joueurs d'échecs du Québec) in Quebec city in 1974 or 75, I believe. No split as such ever was decided by what was to become the FQE. What was decided then was to provide Quebec chess players with the services in french that the CFC was unwilling or incapable of providing them, among other things a publication, a rating system and people capable of answering its clientele in their language. Thus, the FQE started selling its own membership to accomplish what the "national" federation of Canada could not or would not do. Quebec organizers remained free to rate their events and sell whatever membership they liked. But with the capacity of the CFC to provide services only in one of the two official languages in Canada, the choice (if there was one) was easy to make.
About 4-5 years later in 1979 the FQE was disaffiliated by the CFC, leading to the situation that we are now in. If that 30+ year conflict could not be solved before, it is mainly because on the english side, the need to provide services in french to Quebec players has always been misunderstood or downplayed. But this is just as much a part of the picture than the CFC international expenses. It is the FQE french services vs the CFC international expenses. Which one is worth more ? I will keep my opinion to me for now... ;)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: CFC and the FQE have come to an agreement!

I think though too. The magazines had advertizements of correspondence chess quite often, and their Presidents were featured on covers :D

We paid for some of the advertising as I recall. I don't remember which part. :)

Yes. Many players from 40 years ago write on Chesstalk. I've noticed that many who played correspondence chess have maintained an interest in the game over the decades.