2013 CYCC Champions

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: 2013 CYCC Champions

It is definitely a rather courageous decision for a girl to play up (either higher age section, or the Open Section of her age group).

First, as you note, the child may be giving up a Championship in her own group, and the benefits of travel bursary, and free room and board at the world's as the "official" Canadian Rep.

Secondly, should she win playing up, the CFC rule is that at the WYCC, she must again play in the section which she won; at that level, her chances probably drop significantly re becoming World Youth Champion.

Former Can. Women's Olympiad Team member, Hazel Smith, did play in the Open Section once, to my knowledge. I believe there are only a couple of other similar playing up examples re the CYCC.

The practicalities of the situation strongly mitigate against child/parents taking up the challenge of playing up.

Bob A

[Joshua Hu]

Re: 2013 CYCC Champions

Indeed, Bindi. And her perfect 6/6 here earned her all of one solitary CFC rating point.

but if she didn't win the open section, then she'd have no financial support for the world youth. it makes sense to take the near sure thing money.

[Jack Maguire]

Re: 2013 CYCC Champions

That field looks way too easy for Harmony. She could probably have won it in her sleep. Why didn't she try for U8 boys? I think she could have won that handily too

Indeed, Bindi. And her perfect 6/6 here earned her all of one solitary CFC rating point.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

It's like being a Borg. 1 of around 65 or thereabouts.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

He's a CFC Governor.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

Maybe he should address his question to the CFC whose national championships are held at the CYCC.

It sounds like we're talking about how he approaches the issue. Harder to ignore him on Chesstalk.

I can't get that tune out of my head the last day.

It goes:
"Take this job and shove it I ain't working here no more"
and so forth.

I once held a job for around 45 minutes before I quit. Conflict of personalities, I guess.

[Ken Craft]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

Maybe he should address his question to the CFC whose national championships are held at the CYCC.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

I'm not going to fire you (yet) because your work on the Newsfeed is still good.


I would never have guessed that I was such a nice guy. :o

The last time someone told me something like that I told him to take the job and shove it.

Felix is a governor, as far as I know, and part of that job is representing the players in his province. You can look it up in the handbook because that part is there.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 S

...

sorry, but is really sound like a personal attack on J.Upper.
Don't expect all answers from J.Upper. He is enough generous to discuss with you various issues on chesstalks. The organizers shall submit a financial report to the CFC Execs (as I remember the Handbook). Though, it does not mean it will be made public. Where organizers spent their part (75$*280) is their business. (Though, I assume a big portion goes to support the CO).

[Ken Craft]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 S

I think you would do well, Felix, to heed Bob. G.'s advice.

[Felix Dumont]

Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Stand

Felix, you have repeatedly claimed that "three people" were announced as the winners.

You are the only one who has made this claim.

The people who were there -- including David Itkin, the "third person" you claim was "announced" -- has already posted on this thread that he was never announced as the 3rd place winner.

I'm not the only one. The FQE did receive emails from people from the Quebec Team, including the coach, asking why three people were announced as the winners (one being only announced to them). Now, apparently Konstantin was announced as the winner during the closing ceremony, but one of the organizers told Lefong that it was David finally (probably this person mixed the names). We simply want to know who finished third? Is it really hard to say one name?

What I find really confusing -- and quite frankly, fascinating -- is that your work on the Newsfeed is so much better than your posts here on ChessTalk and on the CFC board to the Governors, who you have also continued to mislead by claiming that three players were "announced" as 3rd place finishers even after David had corrected you on CT.

Felix,
Your work on the Newsfeed shows that you are both competent and industrious. If your work on the Newsfeed was anywhere near as woefully wide of the facts as your posts on ChessTalk continue to be, I would have fired you weeks ago.
[Note to eavesdroppers: technically, as editor of the CCN, I am Felix's boss for the Newsfeed.]

And what if my posts were as accurate on Chesstalk? I'm not the kind of guy to post anything without verifying it twice. I've unfortunately still made a mistake about the number of wins, and I quickly apologized for that. All the rest remains.

Your insinuations that the organizers are making "profits" on the event are insulting to people who have been contributing to Canadian chess for longer than you have been alive. (That's not me, BTW, I've hardly contributed anything)

Worse, those insinuations are supported by nothing more than your own (wild) suspicions. For instance, you claimed a few days ago on CT that the 2013 CYCC might contribute as much as $10,000 to the CFC, when even a cursory review of the entry fees and number of contestants would make anything less than $35,000 scandalous. It might occur to some people who read your posts that you so keen on insulting the 2013 CYCC that you are willing to seem arithmetically incompetent.

Have you read my posts? I know you are busy John, but I've been quite clear. I talked of the profit from the organizer part. I even specified that the amount should be close to $43 000, to be more precise.... So, how can you say that I am arithmetically incompetent, when even the organizers couldn't calculate how much they owe to the CFC? I am sorry, but Google my name (+ math) if you think I am that incompetent.
The organizer part for this tournament was of over $20 000 ($75 per person). We all know that running a 3 days tournament doesn't cost that much. Now I asked a simple question : do you intend to keep it or not? I'm not even criticizing it. I'm asking. Personally, I would invest it back into the youth (as we promised for 2014). But if you decide not do that, so be it. Still, you cannot avoid the question forever.

Frankly, I am surprised that noone in the FQE has asked you to stop. As a member of the FQE myself, I am concerned that your actions will bring a wonderfully successful chess-promoting organization into disrepute. Doesn't anyone there worry that your lies and insinuations will undermine the bid you are putting together for the 2014 CYCC? If nothing else, I'm surprised that after the FQE put your forward as their candidate for CFC Gov. no one has suggested that your own reputation will be so damaged by your claims that no one will trust you. That might not be a big loss for the FQE -- they have other competent (if less energetic) people who can replace you as CFC Governor -- but it might not be the future you want for yourself.

I make a daily report to the FQE about this topic. They share my concerns (as obviously pretty much everyone do), but they told me that the CYCC has always been like that and that I should give up. They are fully satisfied by my job as a CFC governor. They have been pushing a lot to know who finished third, as they want to announce it in the next magazine (and still have not received an answer).

despite these falsehoods, and insults, and the clear contempt for me that your previous post displays for everyone, I'm not going to fire you (yet) because your work on the Newsfeed is still good.

You do realize that we get no personal profit from it (altough with all the work we put into it, it would be expected). We will spend all the money we get in tournaments (in which I won't even play). You can fire us, we won't die. This only means that we won't be able to volunteer to promote chess in Montreal anymore.

I think that you guys are pretty busy this week to realize what's going on. I defended your event more than once recently. I said you made a good choice of not FIDE-rating the event, that nobody should expect you to have 140 clocks and that MonRoi seemed to have some problems (not you). I even congratulated you on the tournament and said if all the money was returned to the kids, we could call it a great event.
I simply don't get any answers to my questions, so I have to ask them again and again. Why do you avoid them? I'm not the only one asking questions, and you literally don't answer to anyone. I'm not even insulting (as you did more than once on this thread) or criticizing. I don't expect you to post a financial report today, but you can surely tell us if you plan to do so or not.

Let's play a game. I ask you three questions. Three simple questions.

1) Will the profit be given back to the kids? Yes: [ ] No: [ ]
2) Will the organizers post a financial statement? Yes: [ ] No: [ ]
3) Who finished third in the U18? Nikita: [ ] Konstantin: [ ] Other: [ ]

I won't get into an endless debate about your answers. I (and many others) just wish to know the answers. That's it.

Felix, how about a cease fire for the remainder of the Canadian Open? I think it shows poor judgement to wage political attacks on organizers during an event. Questions, comments, okay, but lets be honest here. Your posts (in there totality) do constitute a political attack campaign surrounding the question: What is the appropriate level of compensation for chess organizers for the CYCC?

I don't want to start a debate here. I just want to know who finished third and if there is additional bursaries. Many of the parents are writing to me, asking these questions. I promised them I would get an answer, and I won't stop until I do.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

..... we're all extremely busy with the Canadian Open.

Felix, how about a cease fire for the remainder of the Canadian Open? I think it shows poor judgement to wage political attacks on organizers during an event. Questions, comments, okay, but lets be honest here. Your posts (in there totality) do constitute a political attack campaign surrounding the question: What is the appropriate level of compensation for chess organizers for the CYCC?

Can we have that discussion later and please let the Ottawa team focus on the Canadian Open? And let John get some well deserved sleep.

[Victor Plotkin]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

really? In a round robin, the one with the greatest number of wins is also the one with the greatest number of losses.....

Really. I know that more wins means more losses in this case. My point is: in RR more wins and loses don't affect the quality of your opponents. In swiss usually (not always) more loses means more lower-rated opponents. Roger, we can check it, we both like math. (It was exactly the case for U18 CYCC).

RR is regularly an invitational tournament and I find it very logical for organizers to stimulate players to play more risky by using this tie-break.

[John Upper]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

The closest answer we got is that :


Now it does seem that Konstantin is the winner of the tiebreaks, but there still hasn't be any official confirmation. After all, three people were announced as the winners of the tie-breaks at different moments. It would take 2 minutes to do an official list of the top 3 players for every section.

I wanted to post the results of the CYCC on the Newsfeed, but for that we need the official list of winners... Even it would not be what we could really call timely news.

Felix, you have repeatedly claimed that "three people" were announced as the winners.

You are the only one who has made this claim.

The people who were there -- including David Itkin, the "third person" you claim was "announced" -- has already posted on this thread that he was never announced as the 3rd place winner.

As Bob Gillanders (above) and anyone paying attention to this thread will know, Konstantin was announced at the award ceremony as the 3rd place finisher.

Your claims about the 2013 CYCC are clearly totally untrustworthy, as anyone who reads this thread will see.

What I find really confusing -- and quite frankly, fascinating -- is that your work on the Newsfeed is so much better than your posts here on ChessTalk and on the CFC board to the Governors, who you have also continued to mislead by claiming that three players were "announced" as 3rd place finishers even after David had corrected you on CT.

Felix,
Your work on the Newsfeed shows that you are both competent and industrious. If your work on the Newsfeed was anywhere near as woefully wide of the facts as your posts on ChessTalk continue to be, I would have fired you weeks ago.
[Note to eavesdroppers: technically, as editor of the CCN, I am Felix's boss for the Newsfeed.]

But, and here is the strange thing which I just can't explain, AFAIK it is only on the subject of the 2013 CYCC that your competence clearly deserts you. In your capacity as coordinator of the McGill Team (who supply the content for the CFC Newsfeed) you are almost always on time, accurate, and prompt to make corrections. For example, a few days ago you fixed the title of your post on the 2013 CYCC from "2014 CYCC" to "2103 CYCC", and you did it within seconds of my pointing it out to you on our Newsfeed facebook page.

Maybe that was an easy fix for you because it was such a small mistake: a typo.

But the falsehoods you post on CT -- and continue to assert when they have been publicly exposed and corrected -- are not small mistakes.

Your insinuations that the organizers are making "profits" on the event are insulting to people who have been contributing to Canadian chess for longer than you have been alive. (That's not me, BTW, I've hardly contributed anything)

Worse, those insinuations are supported by nothing more than your own (wild) suspicions. For instance, you claimed a few days ago on CT that the 2013 CYCC might contribute as much as $10,000 to the CFC, when even a cursory review of the entry fees and number of contestants would make anything less than $35,000 scandalous. It might occur to some people who read your posts that you so keen on insulting the 2013 CYCC that you are willing to seem arithmetically incompetent.

Your repeated requests (to the Govs) that the 2013 CYCC organizers publish our financial statements imply that we are hiding something; when, as everyone else knows, we're all extremely busy with the Canadian Open. This shows either an colossal lack of understanding of the logistics of running major events, or a grossly insulting disregard for the intelligence of the people you think might expect that the financial statements could possibly be ready so soon.

Frankly, I am surprised that noone in the FQE has asked you to stop. As a member of the FQE myself, I am concerned that your actions will bring a wonderfully successful chess-promoting organization into disrepute. Doesn't anyone there worry that your lies and insinuations will undermine the bid you are putting together for the 2014 CYCC? If nothing else, I'm surprised that after the FQE put your forward as their candidate for CFC Gov. no one has suggested that your own reputation will be so damaged by your claims that no one will trust you. That might not be a big loss for the FQE -- they have other competent (if less energetic) people who can replace you as CFC Governor -- but it might not be the future you want for yourself.


And yet....
despite these falsehoods, and insults, and the clear contempt for me that your previous post displays for everyone, I'm not going to fire you (yet) because your work on the Newsfeed is still good.


I would never have guessed that I was such a nice guy. :o

[John Upper]

Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Re : Re: Posting of Rd. 6 Standings?

The recent motion passed at the AGM was merely to bring the tiebreak recommendations into line with the current FIDE choices (see discussion at link below).
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...mm%E9e-Craver)

Thanks Stephen, that's the sort of prompt, factual, and relevant post that makes discussion boards worthwhile.