Junior Chess and the " Residency " Restriction

[Bob Armstrong]

Michael Barron, as mover, and I, as seconder, have now filed the following motion on this issue, to be placed on the 2011 Fall Meeting agenda ( scheduled for Oct. 1 ). We would be pleased to hear any comments members might have before the meeting:

Motion 2011 – X – Participation in the Canadian Youth Chess Championships

Moved – Michael Barron; Seconded – Bob Armstrong

Moved –

a) the title of Section 10 of the CFC Handbook, “ Invitational Youth Championships: Junior, Cadet “, is deleted and replaced by “ Canadian Youth and Junior Chess Championships “.

b) the title of p. 1000 of the CFC Handbook, “ Events: “, is deleted and replaced by “ Canadian Youth Chess Championship: “.

c) add to p. 1001. Frequency, after the words “ World 10 Championship “ the words “ and World 8 Championship “.

d) in p. 1002. Format, the words “ three days “ are deleted, and replaced by “ up to four days “.

e) p. 1007 of Section 10, is deleted, and replaced by:

1007. Age, Citizenship, and Residency for Canadian Championship:

Each contestant in a Canadian Youth Championship must fulfill the age requirements specified by FIDE for the World Youth Championship to which the winner of the Canadian event will qualify. Each player shall be either (i) a Canadian citizen or (ii) a Permanent Resident. Persons who are not citizens or permanent residents, but who have been a resident of Canada for a twelve-month period immediately preceding the tournament, may be admitted to the Tournament provided they can clearly demonstrate to the CFC Board of Directors that they have a settled intention to continue to reside in Canada. The admittance to the Tournament of such exceptions shall be entirely at the discretion of the CFC Board of Directors.

f) p. 1051 of Section 10, is deleted, and replaced by:

1051. Canadian Junior Chess Championship:

A Tournament known as the Canadian Junior Chess Championship hereinafter referred to as the Junior Tournament shall normally be held each year to determine the Canadian representative to the World Junior Chess Championship and consist of 2 sections - Open and Girls. When there are less than eight girls, then the sections shall be combined.

g) in p. 1052. Format, the words “eight round tournament held over four days “ are deleted, and replaced by “nine round tournament held over five days “.

h) p. 1057 of Section 10, is deleted, and replaced by:

1057. Age, Citizenship, and Residency for Canadian Championship:

Each contestant in a Canadian Junior Championship must fulfill the age requirements specified by FIDE for the World Junior Championship to which the winner of the Canadian event will qualify. Each player shall be either (i) a Canadian citizen or (ii) a Permanent Resident. Persons who are not citizens or permanent residents, but who have been a resident of Canada for a twelve-month period immediately preceding the tournament, may be admitted to the Tournament provided they can clearly demonstrate to the CFC Board of Directors that they have a settled intention to continue to reside in Canada. The admittance to the Tournament of such exceptions shall be entirely at the discretion of the CFC Board of Directors.

Commentary:

a) The old title of the section is misleading since “ junior “ is now thought of as the U-20 junior championship, and “ cadet “ refers to U-16. But the section really deals with all 12 categories of “ youth “ championships. P. 1000. Events: reads:
The holding of the Canadian Youth Chess Championship (CYCC) which consists of the following twelve events:
Canadian Under 18 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 16 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 14 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 12 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 10 Championship {Open and Girls}
Canadian Under 8 Championship {Open and Girls}
So the title should simply and clearly refer to these events using the common titles.

b) The title is made consistent with the later title for the Junior Championship.

c) The U-8 category was added a while ago, and p. 1000 was amended to include it. But p. 1001. “ Frequency “ failed to be amended at the same time to add it there. This amendment does that. Here is the old section:

1001. Frequency:

A Tournament shall normally be held each year to determine Canadian representatives to the World 18 Championship, World 16 Championship, World 14 Championship, World 12 Championship, World 10 Championship. Each of these tournament is hereinafter referred to as the "Youth Tournament".

d) The CYCC is more recently a 7-round tournament spread over 4 days, and p. 1002 has never been amended to catch up to this change on the ground. Our amendment brings the section into line with recent practice, though one could still be only three days under this wording. The old p. 1002. Format read:

The tournament shall be swiss tournament held over three days with the number of rounds to be decided by the tournament organizers taking into account the number and age of the players.

{Motion Palsson/Doubleday 2007-08 GL1 From AGM} When there are less than eight players for any category, then one or more categories shall be combined so that there are no less than 8 players in the combined category. The combined category shall be decided by the tournament organizers unless directed otherwise by the CFC President who shall hve the final authority to rule on this matter. Where the shortfall occurs in the girls U18, it is recommended that this section be combined with the girls U16. If their insufficient numbers in this combined U18 & U16 girls section, then the U14 Girls should be included with both these sections.

e) The current p. 1007 restricts Permanent Resident rights, with a “ residency “ requirement for eligibility. It reads:

1007. Age, Citizenship, and Residency for Canadian Championship:

Each contestant in a Youth Tournament must fulfil the age and residency requirements specified by FIDE for the World event to which the winner of the Canadian event will qualify. Each player shall be either (i) a Canadian citizen or (ii) a landed immigrant and be a resident of Canada for the twelve-month period immediately preceding the tournament. Persons who are not citizens or landed immigrants but who have been a resident of Canada for a twelve-month period immediately preceding the tournament may be admitted to the Tournament provided they can clearly demonstrate to the CFC Board of Directors that they have a settled intention to continue to reside in Canada. The admittance to the Tournament of such exceptions shall be entirely at the discretion of the CFC Board of Directors.

Canadian law now refers to “ landed immigrants “ as “ Permanent Residents “, and this change has been made.
There are very few Canadian rights that a citizen has, that a " Permanent Resident " does not have. And CFC must be very careful not to unwarrantedly restrict those rights.
As well, most Permanent Residents eventually take out Canadian citizenship. Many of those who keep their own country citizenship when they come to Canada, do so for a variety of reasons, but never have any intention of returning to their own country on any permanent basis. They all pay taxes, and contribute to their local Canadian communities. Then there are some for whom it is only a convenience for possible future use - but nonetheless, they have adopted Canada as their country of permanent residence, and have gained most Canadian rights and are entitled to use the term “ Canadian “.

So, from a Canadian perspective, we want to eliminate the " prior residency " rule for participation in Canadian youth chess tournaments. We feel this respects the legal status of a Permanent Resident as a " Canadian ". They are entitled to play in the national youth championships, even if they have just taken up Canadian permanent residency.

This does leave CFC though, with a restrictive FIDE rule which distinguishes between citizenship, and permanent residence ( and all other status ), for the purpose of which federation flag a person can put on their chess table in FIDE tournaments. CFC will have to live with this for the time being ( might we apply to FIDE to get this changed at some future date, for an accommodation to Canadian law ? ), and blame FIDE for a rule that " interferes with Canadian rights ". Yes, CFC will have to comply for international tournaments. But we do not have to compound the error by imposing a Canadian “ residency “ restriction.

Besides believing it is right to delete the residency requirement, we are also concerned there could be a successful lawsuit to strike down a " residency " prohibition, that represses a Canadian permanent resident right, like playing in a national Canadian chess championship.

f) We have introduced into the section 10 the Girls Junior Championship, which has been in place for a few years now.

g) We have brought the schedule for the Junior Championship in line with the length in recent years.

h) We have dealt with p. 1057 which has a “ residency “ requirement, consistently with the way we have amended the comparable section for the Canadian Youth Chess Championships above.

Bob A

[roger patterson]

I didn't read it all carefully but probably some statement should be made as to the nationality of the player as indicated on their FIDE card. Not withstanding the rights of Permanent residents (or even Canadian citizens), the nationality on their FIDE card may trump all that from FIDE's perspective.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Roger:

If the Canadian residency requirement is removed, as per the Barron/Armstrong motion, then a new permanent resident junior will be eligible to play in the CYCC and become champion.

However, if FIDE refuses him/her entry to the WYCC for Canada ( which it does under current FIDE regulations ), then the opportunity to represent Canada as the " Official Representative " will devolve down to the 2nd place CYCC finisher who will be eligible.

Bob A

[Valer Eugen Demian]

... good idea.

[Ken Jensen]

Bad Idea

Given that the purpose (and only prize) of the CYCC is the opportunnity to represent Canada at the WYCC it is a bad idea to deliberately go against the fide eligibility requirements. Creating the possibility of "champions" who are clearly not eligible to represent Canada is frought with peril and folly.

Try organizing a CYCC with an ineligible player and see what happens. The eligible players will scream bloody murder and rightfully claim the ineligible player is disturbing the pairings.

We encounter a similar situation in BC with our Regional qualifiers to the provincial Championship. The rule here is champions from one region are not eligible to play in another regional qualifier. Every year I get numerous plea's to allow an ineligible player into and event. They offer to not take the trophy if they win. The competition is quick to explain how there is no way to eliminate the effect of the ineligible player. Everyone who played them would have played a different, eligible player. Anyone who lost will argue they would have won against the eligible player, and vice versa.

Are there any CYCC organizers who think this is a problem that needs fixing? Is there anybody who thinks the problem is worse than the proposed fix, and it's resulting problems?

Ken

[roger patterson]

Bad Idea

Given that the purpose (and only prize) of the CYCC is the opportunnity to represent Canada at the WYCC it is a bad idea to deliberately go against the fide eligibility requirements. Creating the possibility of "champions" who are clearly not eligible to represent Canada is frought with peril and folly.

Try organizing a CYCC with an ineligible player and see what happens. The eligible players will scream bloody murder and rightfully claim the ineligible player is disturbing the pairings.

We encounter a similar situation in BC with our Regional qualifiers to the provincial Championship. The rule here is champions from one region are not eligible to play in another regional qualifier. Every year I get numerous plea's to allow an ineligible player into and event. They offer to not take the trophy if they win. The competition is quick to explain how there is no way to eliminate the effect of the ineligible player. Everyone who played them would have played a different, eligible player. Anyone who lost will argue they would have won against the eligible player, and vice versa.

Are there any CYCC organizers who think this is a problem that needs fixing? Is there anybody who thinks the problem is worse than the proposed fix, and it's resulting problems?

Ken

well, it's a matter of what the primary purpose of the event is isn't it? Is it primarily a qualification stage (in which case the FIDE rules should apply) or is it primarily a national championship with the side effect of a qualification to go somewhere else (in which case local rules should apply)?

e.g. The BC closed "allows" non-Canadian FIDE cards to play (someone carded as Estonia comes to mind). I would take a dim view of the CFC or FIDE trying to set the eligibility rules for the BC Closed. Of course, these days, the BC Closed is not a qualification step to the next level so the point is moot.

So, is the CYCC only a qualification tournament or is it a National Championship?

[Michael Barron]

well, it's a matter of what the primary purpose of the event is isn't it? Is it primarily a qualification stage (in which case the FIDE rules should apply) or is it primarily a national championship with the side effect of a qualification to go somewhere else (in which case local rules should apply)?

e.g. The BC closed "allows" non-Canadian FIDE cards to play (someone carded as Estonia comes to mind). I would take a dim view of the CFC or FIDE trying to set the eligibility rules for the BC Closed. Of course, these days, the BC Closed is not a qualification step to the next level so the point is moot.

So, is the CYCC only a qualification tournament or is it a National Championship?

Good question, Roger!

Of course, the CYCC is a National Championship!
It's the main competition of the year for all Canadian players, and we should promote it and remove artificial barriers for participation.
As the second goal, it serves as a qualifier for international competitions:
WYCC, Pan American YCC, North American YCC, and so on...

[Ken Jensen]

well, it's a matter of what the primary purpose of the event is isn't it? Is it primarily a qualification stage (in which case the FIDE rules should apply) or is it primarily a national championship

So, is the CYCC only a qualification tournament or is it a National Championship?

Hi Roger,

I appreciate that you are not involved in Junior Chess or you would be aware that the purpose of the CYCC is to select representatives to the WYCC.

Refer to the CFC Handbook, Section 10 Invitational Youth Championships
Article 1001 Frequency

"A Tournament shall normally be held each year to determine Canadian representatives to the World 18 Championship, World 16 Championship, World 14 Championship, World 12 Championship, World 10 Championship. Each of these tournament is hereinafter referred to as the "Youth Tournament".

...and that should be the end of that.
Until the CFC rules change, and the Fide rules change this is a dead horse. Can we please quit trying to make it run.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Good question, Roger!

Of course, the CYCC is a National Championship!
It's the main competition of the year for all Canadian players, and we should promote it and remove artificial barriers for participation.
As the second goal, it serves as a qualifier for international competitions:
WYCC, Pan American YCC, North American YCC, and so on...
Mr. Barron,

That should have being done last year, when new motion was passed, not now.

I fail to see how it serves a qualifier to WYCC and Pan-American competition, as it was proven in very recent discussion on this forum.

Also, we believe you own someone an appology here!

Mikhail

[roger patterson]

Hi Roger,

I appreciate that you are not involved in Junior Chess or you would be aware that the purpose of the CYCC is to select representatives to the WYCC.

Refer to the CFC Handbook, Section 10 Invitational Youth Championships
Article 1001 Frequency

"A Tournament shall normally be held each year to determine Canadian representatives to the World 18 Championship, World 16 Championship, World 14 Championship, World 12 Championship, World 10 Championship. Each of these tournament is hereinafter referred to as the "Youth Tournament".


...and that should be the end of that.
Until the CFC rules change, and the Fide rules change this is a dead horse. Can we please quit trying to make it run.

Well, not withstanding the handbook, some people apparently disagree with you (see Michael Barron's post, plus presumably the people who drafted the motion).

And I think if you told someone who won the CYCC U16 group that they were not the Canadian U16 champion, only the U16 person who qualifies to go to the WYCC, they would probably disagree with you as well.

But really, I don't care which it is and I agree that I, and people like me (which would include most of the governors and specifically the people who drafted this motion), should stay out of what is properly the concern of junior chess organizers / players. I ask only because I'm interested in what the consensus view of people is of the CYCC.

[Valer Eugen Demian]

Hi Roger,

I appreciate that you are not involved in Junior Chess or you would be aware that the purpose of the CYCC is to select representatives to the WYCC.

Refer to the CFC Handbook, Section 10 Invitational Youth Championships
Article 1001 Frequency

"A Tournament shall normally be held each year to determine Canadian representatives to the World 18 Championship, World 16 Championship, World 14 Championship, World 12 Championship, World 10 Championship. Each of these tournament is hereinafter referred to as the "Youth Tournament".

...and that should be the end of that.
Until the CFC rules change, and the Fide rules change this is a dead horse. Can we please quit trying to make it run.

According with the citizenship/ residency laws in this country any "permanent resident" (former "landed immigrant" designation) has almost the same number of rights as any citizen. Existing restrictions (minimum 12 months in the country) to be able to participate @ YCC and further CYCC are wrong and have been like that all along. The argument was against cases when strong "foreign" juniors would enter and play @ CYCC with the only purpose to reach WYCC and then move on to different pastures. A permanent resident goes thru a lengthy process to obtain such status and it is highly unlikely it won't settle in Canada forever. It is helpful to make a distinction between "foreign" and "permanent resident"!

[Christopher Mallon]

I would support a change in the wording so that a player may participate if they will be eligible to play in the WYCC for which that particular CYCC is qualifying for. I will not support in any way allowing players into the event who are ineligible for the WYCC.

[Michael Barron]

I would support a change in the wording so that a player may participate if they will be eligible to play in the WYCC for which that particular CYCC is qualifying for. I will not support in any way allowing players into the event who are ineligible for the WYCC.

Christopher,

Could you please understand that CYCC eligibility and WYCC eligibility are 2 different issues, and should be considered separately?

Let me explain it by example:
Canadian Under 18 Champion Loren Laceste in July was ineligible to represent Canada at WYCC.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't allow him to compete at CYCC? :confused:

[Christopher Mallon]

Christopher,

Could you please understand that CYCC eligibility and WYCC eligibility are 2 different issues, and should be considered separately?

Let me explain it by example:
Canadian Under 18 Champion Loren Laceste in July was ineligible to represent Canada at WYCC.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't allow him to compete at CYCC? :confused:

Michael, why don't you go back and actually read what I posted before you reply?

[Ken Jensen]

Well, not withstanding the handbook, some people apparently disagree with you (see Michael Barron's post, plus presumably the people who drafted the motion).


Thanks for the feedback Roger. Michael and Bob are the ones who produced the motion so obviously they do not agree with me, or the CFC handbook. I'm sure there is a parent out there wanting to get their kid into the CYCC without the residency requirement. Who else wants the go against the fide eligibility requirements?

Of course the CYCC winners are declared the Canadian Champion, and the designation Champion is used to identify the official representative to the WYCC.


But really, I don't care which it is and I agree that I, and people like me (which would include most of the governors and specifically the people who drafted this motion), should stay out of what is properly the concern of junior chess organizers / players. I ask only because I'm interested in what the consensus view of people is of the CYCC.

I appreciate your sentiments. If this discussion were limited to Chief Organizers of the CYCC, or even organizers of just 6 Junior tournaments a year it would lilkely be over before it started.

What does Patrick MacDonald think of this idea? Should we not have the recommendation of the Youth Coordinator before trying to implement fundamental changes to the CFC Youth Program?

Maybe this is a symptom of a problem within the CFC? Why not let the people who are doing the job decide the best way to get it done?

Ken Jensen

[Michael Barron]

Thanks for the feedback Roger. Michael and Bob are the ones who produced the motion so obviously they do not agree with me, or the CFC handbook. I'm sure there is a parent out there wanting to get their kid into the CYCC without the residency requirement. Who else wants the go against the fide eligibility requirements?



Ken,

For the record:
The entire 2011 CYCC Organizing Committee feels that this outdated requirement is an artificial barrier for chess development in Canada.

Could you please understand that CYCC eligibility and WYCC eligibility are 2 different issues, and should be considered separately?

Let me explain it by example:
Canadian Under 18 Champion Loren Laceste in July was ineligible to represent Canada at WYCC.

Are you arguing that we shouldn't allow him to compete at CYCC? :confused:

[Christopher Mallon]

What does Patrick MacDonald think of this idea? Should we not have the recommendation of the Youth Coordinator before trying to implement fundamental changes to the CFC Youth Program?

I haven't spoken with him recently, but in his pre-election "speech" at the AGM he was asked (by Michael Barron) whether or not he supported the 12-month residency requirement, and he said that he did. Following that, Patrick was (soundly) elected in favour of Michael.

[Vladimir Birarov]

I haven't spoken with him recently, but in his pre-election "speech" at the AGM he was asked (by Michael Barron) whether or not he supported the 12-month residency requirement, and he said that he did. Following that, Patrick was (soundly) elected in favour of Michael.

Nice move, Christopher! Yes, the question was asked, and yes, Patrick said at that moment that he does not see reason for the change. But have it lead to discussion? - No. Have sides presented arguments to convince each other? - No. So, it would be unreasonable to make conclusion about Patrick's opinion based on what happened at AGM, as well as to suggest that his election was direct result of it.

With all my respect to Patrick, I don't see how his opinion has more weight than opinion of any other governor here. Also, I can not agree with Roger that this issue should be left on organizers' discretion. This issue is all about CFC policy on how to treat "Permanent Resident" versus "Citizen". In my opinion, current treatment is wrong. "Permanent Resident" and "Citizen" are equal in this respect, and all the questions about FIDE eligibility are not relevant. If CYCC winner can not represent Canada internationally, he/she won't go - is that simple.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

Michael B. and I are now going to amend s. 1001 to read:

“ 1001. Frequency:
A Tournament shall normally be held each year to determine Canadian Champions and Canadian representatives to all international youth chess competitions".

That should be clear.

Bob A

[Christopher Mallon]

Nice move, Christopher! Yes, the question was asked, and yes, Patrick said at that moment that he does not see reason for the change. But have it lead to discussion? - No. Have sides presented arguments to convince each other? - No. So, it would be unreasonable to make conclusion about Patrick's opinion based on what happened at AGM, as well as to suggest that his election was direct result of it.

The question was asked as to what his opinion was since he hasn't participated here. I provided the most recent opinion he's given of which I am aware. Everything I said was entirely factual, and I did not in any way try to say that that was still his opinion.


With all my respect to Patrick, I don't see how his opinion has more weight than opinion of any other governor here. Also, I can not agree with Roger that this issue should be left on organizers' discretion. This issue is all about CFC policy on how to treat "Permanent Resident" versus "Citizen". In my opinion, current treatment is wrong. "Permanent Resident" and "Citizen" are equal in this respect, and all the questions about FIDE eligibility are not relevant. If CYCC winner can not represent Canada internationally, he/she won't go - is that simple.

The Governors elect someone they trust to oversee the Youth program. This person will have far more interaction, and in the current case experience, in Youth chess than the vast majority of Governors. Therefore I would definitely say that his opinion should be considered strongly.

You can play up the "Canadian Champions" thing all you want, but the simple fact remains that the #1 purpose of the CYCC is to qualify kids to the WYCC, and/or to raise money to help those kids go. Someone who is ineligible to win the main prize can upset the pairings for the rest, as has been pointed out elsewhere.

I've actually had this happen in my favour ... 2003 Brantford "B" Division championships. A player who was a near-master at the time had missed the qualifier and so could not play in the "A" division. So he was allowed into the "B" division but not allowed to actually "win" the title. So he didn't really care about the games he did play (vs 1600 and lower players), and against me he played an out-of-move-order Muzio gambit that really backfired. That win against a player who didn't really care because he had nothing to win or lose gave me the title by a half point. Had he cared enough to play a sound opening he would likely have crushed me (600 point rating difference and I was just coming off a 5-year chess retirement) and someone else would have won.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

If a permanent resident, who was ineligible by FIDE, played for a Canadian Junior or Canadian Youth title, I would venture that s/he will care, and play their best. And it they win, be a worthy Canadian Champion.

Bob A

[Ken Jensen]

With all my respect to Patrick, I don't see how his opinion has more weight than opinion of any other governor here.

That in a nutshell defines what is wrong with the CFC, in my opinion. :(

Patrick has been given the job of managing the CFC Youth program because he lives and breathes youth chess and knows more about it than any other CFC governor period. The fact that others who have no participation in youth chess would presume to tell him how to run the program is why the CFC continues to score failing grades. There are always more people watching than doing, so the "uninvolved" vote can always out number the doers.

Getting a coveted CFC Governor's brass plaque on one's desk does not automatically bestow infinite wisdom in all matters. :cool: Of the 36 CFC Governors how many have been the principal organizer of a youth event in the last 12 months? I have heard talk that the Junior program should spin off and create it's own affiliated Canadian Junior Chess Federation, governed by people who are actually putting on the junior programs across the country. It's times like this that give that idea strength.

The arguments have been made, the rules read and the consequences considered. Your arguments do not disuade me and I know I cannot convince you. We are looking at two totally different pictures. To me this is all about qualifying for WYCC. You argue it is about social equality and political change. We will have to agree to disagree. Not only on the changes to eligibility but also on the value of the opinions of the people actually doing the events, versus those watching from the sidelines.

Ken Jensen

[Mikhail Egorov]

That in a nutshell defines what is wrong with the CFC, in my opinion. :(

Patrick has been given the job of managing the CFC Youth program because he lives and breathes youth chess and knows more about it than any other CFC governor period. The fact that others who have no participation in youth chess would presume to tell him how to run the program is why the CFC continues to score failing grades. There are always more people watching than doing, so the "uninvolved" vote can always out number the doers.

Getting a coveted CFC Governor's brass plaque on one's desk does not automatically bestow infinite wisdom in all matters. :cool: Of the 36 CFC Governors how many have been the principal organizer of a youth event in the last 12 months? I have heard talk that the Junior program should spin off and create it's own affiliated Canadian Junior Chess Federation, governed by people who are actually putting on the junior programs across the country. It's times like this that give that idea strength.

The arguments have been made, the rules read and the consequences considered. Your arguments do not disuade me and I know I cannot convince you. We are looking at two totally different pictures. To me this is all about qualifying for WYCC. You argue it is about social equality and political change. We will have to agree to disagree. Not only on the changes to eligibility but also on the value of the opinions of the people actually doing the events, versus those watching from the sidelines.

Ken Jensen
Excellent point Ken! You nailed it. It does complete define what is wrong with CFC, especially relating to its Youth program. :D

Quote:"There are always more people watching than doing, so the "uninvolved" vote can always out number the doers."

Agreed! Also, there are more people talking than doing. We seen how this method perfectly works in recent cases. Puzzling, but for some reason CFC continues to score the failing grade. :confused:

“It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.” -> Sir Josiah Stamp

Mikhail

[Christopher Mallon]

If a permanent resident, who was ineligible by FIDE, played for a Canadian Junior or Canadian Youth title, I would venture that s/he will care, and play their best. And it they win, be a worthy Canadian Champion.

Perhaps YOU might, in that situation. You can't possibly say that everyone would, however.


That in a nutshell defines what is wrong with the CFC, in my opinion. :(

Patrick has been given the job of managing the CFC Youth program because he lives and breathes youth chess and knows more about it than any other CFC governor period. The fact that others who have no participation in youth chess would presume to tell him how to run the program is why the CFC continues to score failing grades. There are always more people watching than doing, so the "uninvolved" vote can always out number the doers.

You said this much better than I did!

[Bob Armstrong]

That in a nutshell defines what is wrong with the CFC, in my opinion. :(

Patrick has been given the job of managing the CFC Youth program because he lives and breathes youth chess and knows more about it than any other CFC governor period. The fact that others who have no participation in youth chess would presume to tell him how to run the program is why the CFC continues to score failing grades. ..........You argue it is about social equality and political change. We will have to agree to disagree. Not only on the changes to eligibility but also on the value of the opinions of the people actually doing the events, versus those watching from the sidelines.

Ken Jensen

Two advocates of the motion:

Michael Barron: GTCL President; former CFC Youth Coordinator
Vladimir Birarov: Owner/Manager of Toronto Junior Chess Club; organizer of 2011 Canadian Junior Championship.

Bob A

[Bob Gillanders]

Vladimir Birarov: Owner/Manager of Toronto Junior Chess Club; organizer of 2011 Canadian Junior Championship.

Bob A

Excuse me? :confused:
The 2011 Canadian Junior Championship was organized by Mississauga Chess Club! :D

[Vladimir Birarov]

That in a nutshell defines what is wrong with the CFC, in my opinion. :(

Patrick has been given the job of managing the CFC Youth program because he lives and breathes youth chess and knows more about it than any other CFC governor period. The fact that others who have no participation in youth chess would presume to tell him how to run the program is why the CFC continues to score failing grades. There are always more people watching than doing, so the "uninvolved" vote can always out number the doers.

Getting a coveted CFC Governor's brass plaque on one's desk does not automatically bestow infinite wisdom in all matters. :cool: Of the 36 CFC Governors how many have been the principal organizer of a youth event in the last 12 months? I have heard talk that the Junior program should spin off and create it's own affiliated Canadian Junior Chess Federation, governed by people who are actually putting on the junior programs across the country. It's times like this that give that idea strength.

The arguments have been made, the rules read and the consequences considered. Your arguments do not disuade me and I know I cannot convince you. We are looking at two totally different pictures. To me this is all about qualifying for WYCC. You argue it is about social equality and political change. We will have to agree to disagree. Not only on the changes to eligibility but also on the value of the opinions of the people actually doing the events, versus those watching from the sidelines.

Ken Jensen

Ken,
I know Patrick, and I know well what he is doing for chess, especially here, in Ontario. And for this I have huge deal of respect and appreciation.

The problem is that you took phrase from my post out of context, and by doing it you missed the point completely. As I said, in my opinion (with which you, obviously, disagree): "This issue is all about CFC policy on how to treat "Permanent Resident" versus "Citizen"." Keeping this in mind, how Patrick's (or anyone's else) experience in organizing chess events is relevant?

I agree with Mikhail - there is too much emotional talking around this issue. Motion is here, it will be discussed and voted by governors (both organizers and non-organizers :)). At the end we'll see whose opinion has more support.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Excuse me? :confused:
The 2011 Canadian Junior Championship was organized by Mississauga Chess Club! :D

Bob G., please forgive Bob A.! How could he, really? :mad:
He, probably, meant Toronto Junior. And before Annex Club jumps to claim their ownership on Toronto Junior 2011 :), i have to say that I did it in 2010.

[Bob Armstrong]

WOW - what a screw up!!

But my point remains that Vlad has credentials!

Bob A

[Michael Barron]

That in a nutshell defines what is wrong with the CFC, in my opinion. :(

Patrick has been given the job of managing the CFC Youth program because he lives and breathes youth chess and knows more about it than any other CFC governor period. The fact that others who have no participation in youth chess would presume to tell him how to run the program is why the CFC continues to score failing grades...

Ken,

Apparently, you're mixing different branches of power...
Like the society in general, the CFC has different branches of power:
legislative power that belongs to the CFC Governors - only Assembly of Governors could establish rules and decide what we need to do and why, and
executive power that belongs to the CFC Executive - they decide how exactly we should do what the Assembly of Governors decided to do.

The CFC Executive can't do whatever they want - they must follow CFC rules.
If they see the necessity for rules change, they should submit a Motion and seek Governors' approval.

This is exactly what I'm doing now - based on my experience as the CFC Youth Coordinator.

Let me remind you some facts for the last 2 years when I was the CFC Youth Coordinator:

1) CYCC:
2009 - ~120 participants
2010 - 167 participants
2011 - 237 participants

2) North American YCC:
2009 - 4 Canadian players
2010 - first time organized in Canada, ~200 Canadian players
2011 - 20 Canadian players

3) WYCC:
2009 - 21 Canadian players
2010 - 23 Canadian players
2011 - 40 Canadian players

4) Youth Chess Olympiad
2010 - first time Canadian team participation


...
The arguments have been made, the rules read and the consequences considered. Your arguments do not disuade me and I know I cannot convince you. We are looking at two totally different pictures...

If the facts mentioned above mean for you "the CFC continues to score failing grades", indeed we are looking at two totally different pictures... :(

[Christopher Mallon]

Excellent post Michael! You have definitely shown how well Youth chess is doing! So why do we need to change the rules if they're working so well???

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Chris:

Always room for improvement .........and respecting equality??

Bob A

[Ken Jensen]

The CFC Executive can't do whatever they want - they must follow CFC rules.

Let me remind you some facts for the last 2 years when I was the CFC Youth Coordinator:
~~~~~~~~
I am surprised that a previous Youth Coordinator, and fide rep too i believe would be so unfamiliar with the CFC and fide rules. You say you have to follow the rules but you have not been doing so in this matter, have you? In fact you give the appearance of trying to do what you want in spite of the rule book. You even argued that the rules weren't so. Now that they are obvious and inescapable you propose to change them to suite your current actions. I'm just saying that's how it looks.
~~~~~~~~
If the facts mentioned above mean for you "the CFC continues to score failing grades", indeed we are looking at two totally different pictures... :(

Yes Michael, we are indeed looking at two very different pictures. :(

You fail to mention that Canada had more participants at the 2007 NAYCC, before you became Youth Coordinator. Attendance at the CYCC also dropped in 2009, the year you took over.

In fact I fought hard with YOU in 2009 to send a full contingent of 36 players to WYCC and YOU refused to allow them to go, arguing that they weren't worthy. So you sent 21 and 23 players when you could have sent a lot more. To claim now that Patrick sending 40 players this year is proof of progress is hazardous. Some might say that the progress came by replacing you with Patrick.

I am surprised that you did not take credit for the Canadian World Champion, Jason Cao. He developed in the BC program despite CFC, not because of it.

The NAYCC held in Canada was done by Larry and CMA, not CFC. So yes CMA is doing very well. CFC is still failing. :(

The one success of the CFC is the attendance at the 2011 CYCC. Next year will determine if this is actual CFC progress, or a tribute to the 2011 organizers and local participation. Like any scientific test the results must be duplicated before claims are made. If the numbers repeat at the next CYCC I will happily proclaim CFC improvement. let's wait and see.

What is the CFC doing to promote junior chess? They have eliminated the junior membership, they complain about junior ratings and tried to raise the rating fee to $5. They offer no support to local organizers. They do nothing to appeal to juniors and everything to chase them away. There is no schools program, nor efforts to introduce kids to chess. We do things differently here in BC.

CMA owes much of it's success to the CFC's mishandling of junior chess. Ask yourself why CMA chess is thriving everywhere that CFC is not? If, after all this the CFC decides to pat itself on the back for a job well done what can I say? They deserve the results they get, and CFC junior chess is doomed to never be better than CMA.

Ken Jensen

[Vladimir Birarov]

We do things differently here in BC.
"... ask not what CFC can do for you - ask what you can do for CFC" :cool:
Are we looking for "whom to blame" or for "what to do"? Ken, if indeed things are done differently and with success in BC, it is you opportunity to share with us your secret and, maybe, to lead CFC to the brighter future.

BTW, may I take some credit for Jason Cao? :)

[Mikhail Egorov]

"... ask not what CFC can do for you - ask what you can do for CFC" :cool:
Are we looking for "whom to blame" or for "what to do"? Ken, if indeed things are done differently and with success in BC, it is you opportunity to share with us your secret and, maybe, to lead CFC to the brighter future.

BTW, may I take some credit for Jason Cao? :)
Hi Ken,

Excellent post. Now all the facts are on the table and let general CFC community be a judge.

Hi Vlad,

Are you referring to 2011 CYCC success???

Quote:"... ask not what CFC can do for you - ask what you can do for CFC"
As I recall, some parents who organized, asked the same question when they succeeded by braking CYCC attendance record!

And what did they get in return from the CFC and its executives from their amazing efforts, during and after AGM meeting???

- personal attacks and no apologies
- no public thank you
- CFC chasing top and talented juniors away, instead of encouraging them by participating in World events

the list can go and on.........

BTW, I thought Jason Cao issue was a sealed deal by CFC! :D

Curiosity is lying in wait for every secret, but some secrets meant not to be revealed :)

[Vladimir Drkulec]

CMA owes much of it's success to the CFC's mishandling of junior chess. Ask yourself why CMA chess is thriving everywhere that CFC is not?

The CFC does not lose when the CMA succeeds. From my point of view the local CMA organizers are the same as the local CFC organizers. My own efforts are not CFC nor CMA oriented, I am trying to help the kids realize their potential as chess players. Whether they take those efforts and then express their talent in CMA or CFC events, either way I am happy when they succeed.



If, after all this the CFC decides to pat itself on the back for a job well done what can I say? They deserve the results they get, and CFC junior chess is doomed to never be better than CMA.

Ken Jensen

CFC junior chess should stick with trying to be good rather than "better than CMA". The CFC and CMA are vehicles that should be pulling in the same direction and for the most part they are. All chess activity is good from my point of view.

[Vladimir Birarov]

Hi Vlad,Are you referring to 2011 CYCC success???

I'm not referring to anything - it just felt good to rephrase JFK. :cool:



BTW, I thought Jason Cao issue was a sealed deal by CFC!

What "Jason Cao issue"? :confused:


Curiosity is lying in wait for every secret, but some secrets meant not to be revealed Hopefully it's not the case here. :)

[Bob Gillanders]

And what did they get in return from the CFC and its executives from their amazing efforts, during and after AGM meeting???

- personal attacks and no apologies
- no public thank you


Actually Mikhail, I have on several occasions thanked the CYCC organizers and volunteers for their efforts. They put on a great show. The kids loved it, and a record number are going to the WYCC as a result. Running a CYCC is no small task, and we appreciate their efforts and sacrifices to see the job through.

No doubt, the task was made even harder due to friction amongst the organizing committee. Also, more pressure was heaped upon them due to the new qualification system and disagreements about prize distribution. But they fought through the difficulties and produced a wonderful tournament, a great success that many of the kids will remember for years. So again, a big thank you to all the organizers and volunteers of the 2011 CYCC on behalf of the CFC executive. :D

Mikhail, as for personal attacks, I am not aware of any personal attacks from the CFC executive. Disagreements and differences of opinion, do not IMHO, constitute personal attacks. If you disagree, please forward evidence to me in a personal email.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Actually Mikhail, I have on several occasions thanked the CYCC organizers and volunteers for their efforts. They put on a great show. The kids loved it, and a record number are going to the WYCC as a result. Running a CYCC is no small task, and we appreciate their efforts and sacrifices to see the job through.

No doubt, the task was made even harder due to friction amongst the organizing committee. Also, more pressure was heaped upon them due to the new qualification system and disagreements about prize distribution. But they fought through the difficulties and produced a wonderful tournament, a great success that many of the kids will remember for years. So again, a big thank you to all the organizers and volunteers of the 2011 CYCC on behalf of the CFC executive. :D

Mikhail, as for personal attacks, I am not aware of any personal attacks from the CFC executive. Disagreements and differences of opinion, do not IMHO, constitute personal attacks. If you disagree, please forward evidence to me in a personal email.
Hi Bob,

It is very nice of you to take your personal time of your busy schedule and join this very important discussion.

I apologize for not stating the correct titles. Forgive me for not being correct, since I do not work in CFC office and do not know all the formalities. I do apologize for that!

As for personal attacks there was a personal attack on one of the CYCC organizers, from ‘CFC governor’ and not ‘CFC executive’ . It is publicly stated by 'CFC governor' Michael Barron.

I do recall that Michael Barron was Youth coordinator at that time and you were CFC President. :D

If you feel this changes a lot , and does not concern you NOW, I do understand! :D

[Bob Gillanders]

Forgive me for not being correct,


Hmm...okay! :confused:
Although your selection of emoticons is...:confused::D

I just wish we could all get past this bickering!
Group hug anyone! :D

[Mikhail Egorov]

I find it ironic, how one CFC representative insults CYCC organizer and the other one is trying to thank him/her. :confused:

You personally do not know, who to believe in CFC office anymore ... lol

What a mess! Looks like CFC office some cleaning up to do. :)

I am very glad I am not involved in this process. :D

[Michael Barron]

In fact I fought hard with YOU in 2009 to send a full contingent of 36 players to WYCC and YOU refused to allow them to go, arguing that they weren't worthy. So you sent 21 and 23 players when you could have sent a lot more. To claim now that Patrick sending 40 players this year is proof of progress is hazardous. Some might say that the progress came by replacing you with Patrick.


Sorry, Ken, but you're misrepresenting the facts. :(

Let me repeat:
The CFC Youth Coordinator can't do whatever he wants - he must follow the rules.

In 2009 you suggested to invite to WYCC weak players from BC, who didn't make top 3 finish at CYCC.
At that time CFC rules didn't allow that, and I had explained this to you.

But the idea to remove artificial barriers for WYCC participation make sense, and I worked on this idea during last 2 years together with other CFC Youth Committee members.
The result of this work is the new rule 1012 which was prepared by the CFC Youth Committee and approved by the Assembly of Governors in January 2011.
This new rule allows Patrick to send 40 Canadian players to the WYCC this year.


What is the CFC doing to promote junior chess? ... They offer no support to local organizers. They do nothing to appeal to juniors and everything to chase them away...

Again, Ken, you're misrepresenting the facts.

Who are "they"? :confused:

YOU are the CFC!

You, Ken, are CFC Governor, and you could change the CFC rules to promote junior chess.
But what are you doing instead?

Instead you're opposing the suggestion to remove artificial barrier for prospective CYCC participants!

To be honest, I don't understand your position as a CYCC organizer.
Do you want to attract more players to your CYCC?
Or do you want to chase them away?
Why? :confused:
Just to prove me wrong?

Thank you for your consideration! :rolleyes:

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Ken:

I have to agree with Michael that your position is confusing.

If we get rid of the artificial residence restriction for the CYCC, then your best and brightest juniors from BC, including permanent residents, will all come and play in the BCYCC qualifier, because the Permanent Resident juniors will know if they win, they can go to the CYCC - all Canadian juniors being treated equally ( which just happens to be in Vancouver in 2012, so it will be accessible to many ). More kids playing in your BCYCC.

And if some permanent resident juniors " qualify ", then they'll be entitled to play in the CYCC - more BC juniors at the CYCC. And they could win a Canadian Championship!

Seems like a good deal to me. CFC promoting junior chess in Canada!

Bob

[Ken Jensen]

Sorry, Ken, but you're misrepresenting the facts. :(

Let me repeat:
The CFC Youth Coordinator can't do whatever he wants - he must follow the rules.

In 2009 you suggested to invite to WYCC weak players from BC, who didn't make top 3 finish at CYCC.

The result of this work is the new rule 1012 which was prepared by the CFC Youth Committee and approved by the Assembly of Governors in January 2011.
Again, Ken, you're misrepresenting the facts.

Michael,

I sincerely encourage you not to engage in this game with me.
The facts are the facts, and they speak for themselves.
Please do not denigrate the young players whom I advocated sending to WYCC 2009 and whom you deemed unworthy. When you go making claims like this I am compelled to set the record straight.

You have said repeated that you as Youth Coordinator must follow the CFC rules. Please then identify the (non existent) CFC rule under which you approved additional players to attend WYCC 2010 the following year. Players such as Janet Peng, who finished 5th at CYCC in Under 10 girls. Or David Itkin who finished 4th in U14? How did Mark Plotkin qualify after finishing 9th in U12?, or John Doknjas who finished 17th? Better yet please show me the rule that qualified Joseph Bellissimo to WYCC in U8 when he didn't even attend CYCC. Each of these players are worthy of attending in my opinion, and after our battles the year before I was happy to see them go.

You approved all of these players the year before the new rules were created. To some it might look like the rules were created to justify the early ad hoc moves by you, the Youth Coordinator. So who's facts are facts and who is just talking?

Bye the way why wasn't the BC Youth Coordinator or BC Junior Chess invited to participate in the Youth committee. The rule changes were created without input from BC organizers. Strange given that it was BC arguing the case to start with.

And as for those "unworthy" players I tried to send in 2009, I wouldn't go calling Jason Cao a weak player, it's not good for your credibility. Yes U10 World Champion and FM Jason Cao was one of the players you refused access to the WYCC.

I realize you and Bob really want this rule change, and you will continue to lobb grenades my way trying to make your case. Be careful. Sometimes I'll pull the pin and throw them back. Let it rest.

Ken Jensen

[Mikhail Egorov]

Mr. Barron,

Quote: “In 2009 you suggested to invite to WYCC weak players from BC, who didn't make top 3 finish at CYCC”

Weak players, according to you Mr. Barron??? Since when can you decide who is WORTHY and NOT WORTHY???

Quote: “I worked on this idea during last 2 years together with other CFC Youth Committee members. The result of this work is the new rule 1012 which was prepared by the CFC Youth Committee and approved by the Assembly of Governors in January 2011”

……. and what a MESS it created Mr. Barron! :eek:

As a result of this new rule 3 top talented juniors are not allowed to go to WYCC this year, because of your new so called rule!

I am extremely puzzled, why Mr. Gillanders (CFC president at that time) and CFC executives approved this rule.
Still, even now they are still backing you up on this! :confused:

And now you want to make more changes …. ohhhh brother! :eek:

You said it yourself: “The CFC Youth Coordinator can't do whatever he wants - he must follow the rules.” You are doing quite the opposite here! Who gave you that right exactly???

Quote: “This new rule allows Patrick to send 40 Canadian players to the WYCC this year.”

First: I would not go this far Mr. Barron! Your new created rule, is NOT main reason. The reason why Canada is sending its biggest team, is big thanks to main organizer Ms. Jin, Patrick and a lot of parents who volunteered to make 2011 CYCC successful! :D

Second : What about other parents and organizers who worked very hard to make CYCC greatest success this year??? Don’t they deserve the mention as well from Canadian Youth Coordinator (at that time)? Not even mentioning, that you also insulted main CYCC organizer publicly! I guess, that organizer really deserves it, after all the energy and hard work was sacrificed into 2011 CYCC!

[Bob Gillanders]

I am extremely puzzled, why Mr. Gillanders (CFC president at that time) and CFC executives approved this rule.


Mikhail, the new rules were debated by the Youth committee for 6 months then approved by a vote of the CFC governors in January 2011. This has been explained numerous times, I fail to see why you remain puzzled. :D

For those who are not happy with the rules, they are welcome to try and convince the governors to change them.

Ken quite correctly points out that the rules have not always been followed consistently in the past. That was the impetus for writing the new rules. We are now trying to turn a new page and follow the rules.

Can we count on your support that the executive should follow the rules as approved by the governors?

[Mikhail Egorov]

Mikhail, the new rules were debated by the Youth committee for 6 months then approved by a vote of the CFC governors in January 2011. This has been explained numerous times, I fail to see why you remain puzzled. :D

For those who are not happy with the rules, they are welcome to try and convince the governors to change them.

Ken quite correctly points out that the rules have not always been followed consistently in the past. That was the impetus for writing the new rules. We are now trying to turn a new page and follow the rules.

Can we count on your support that the executive should follow the rules as approved by the governors?
Mr. Gillanders,

For whole 6 months??? Talking about time well spend! :eek:

Since you joined this discussion, lets take a look at the whole picture, shall we?

Quote from Ken Jensen: “You have said repeated that you as Youth Coordinator must follow the CFC rules. Please then identify the (non existent) CFC rule under which you approved additional players to attend WYCC 2010 the following year. Players such as Janet Peng, who finished 5th at CYCC in Under 10 girls. Or David Itkin who finished 4th in U14? How did Mark Plotkin qualify after finishing 9th in U12?, or John Doknjas who finished 17th? Better yet please show me the rule that qualified Joseph Bellissimo to WYCC in U8 when he didn't even attend CYCC.”

Also last year Joseph Bellissimo was allowed to represent Canada at 2010 WYCC in Greece, even though he did not even attend 2010 CYCC. He was a top junior at that time.

CFC made lots exceptions for weaker and strong players to go to WYCC, and now NOT allowing top tiered players to go.

Since CFC is so keen on rules, what rules were followed Mr. Gillanders??? We did not here a reply from Mr. Barron yet regarding this. I wonder, if we ever will!

CFC has some explaining to do.

CFC can either fix this ASAP to make things right or take familiar path, ignore it completely and shove it under the rug, hoping problem will go away.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Michael,

I sincerely encourage you not to engage in this game with me.
The facts are the facts, and they speak for themselves.
Please do not denigrate the young players whom I advocated sending to WYCC 2009 and whom you deemed unworthy. When you go making claims like this I am compelled to set the record straight.

You have said repeated that you as Youth Coordinator must follow the CFC rules. Please then identify the (non existent) CFC rule under which you approved additional players to attend WYCC 2010 the following year. Players such as Janet Peng, who finished 5th at CYCC in Under 10 girls. Or David Itkin who finished 4th in U14? How did Mark Plotkin qualify after finishing 9th in U12?, or John Doknjas who finished 17th? Better yet please show me the rule that qualified Joseph Bellissimo to WYCC in U8 when he didn't even attend CYCC. Each of these players are worthy of attending in my opinion, and after our battles the year before I was happy to see them go.

You approved all of these players the year before the new rules were created. To some it might look like the rules were created to justify the early ad hoc moves by you, the Youth Coordinator. So who's facts are facts and who is just talking?

Bye the way why wasn't the BC Youth Coordinator or BC Junior Chess invited to participate in the Youth committee. The rule changes were created without input from BC organizers. Strange given that it was BC arguing the case to start with.

And as for those "unworthy" players I tried to send in 2009, I wouldn't go calling Jason Cao a weak player, it's not good for your credibility. Yes U10 World Champion and FM Jason Cao was one of the players you refused access to the WYCC.

I realize you and Bob really want this rule change, and you will continue to lobb grenades my way trying to make your case. Be careful. Sometimes I'll pull the pin and throw them back. Let it rest.

Ken Jensen
Hi Ken,

Very good points! :D I completely agree with you. CFC position in this case is very confusing and new rule only adds more fuel to fire.

CFC made lots exceptions for weaker and strong players to go to WYCC, and now NOT allowing top tiered players to go. Why not allow top rated player going? CFC will have some explaining to do and fix this ASAP!

Mikhail

[Bob Gillanders]

Hi Ken,

Very good points! :D I completely agree with you. CFC position in this case is very confusing and new rule only adds more fuel to fire.

CFC made lots exceptions for weaker and strong players to go to WYCC, and now NOT allowing top tiered players to go. Why not allow top rated player going? CFC will have some explaining to do and fix this ASAP!

Mikhail

Mikhail, as I have said previously, Ken makes some very good points. The rules were not observed last year, and this led to much heated debate. So the Youth committee spent 6 months writing new rules. These were approved by the governors in January 2011. We are now following the rules.

When I took over as President last year, I was met by a **** storm of protest over who was allowed to the WYCC. The problem was acknowledged publicly on this forum. We did our explaining! We promised to write new rules, and we did. We fixed the problem.

To repeat, we acknowledged the problem, we wrote new rules, the governors approved the new rules, now we are enforcing the rules. :D

If you don't like the new rules, then work to get them changed for next year.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Mikhail, as I have said previously, Ken makes some very good points. The rules were not observed last year, and this led to much heated debate. So the Youth committee spent 6 months writing new rules. These were approved by the governors in January 2011. We are now following the rules.

When I took over as President last year, I was met by a **** storm of protest over who was allowed to the WYCC. The problem was acknowledged publicly on this forum. We did our explaining! We promised to write new rules, and we did. We fixed the problem.

To repeat, we acknowledged the problem, we wrote new rules, the governors approved the new rules, now we are enforcing the rules. :D

If you don't like the new rules, then work to get them changed for next year.
Hi Bob,


The problem was acknowledged publicly on this forum. We did our explaining! We promised to write new rules, and we did. We fixed the problem. .

I agree, that the problem was acknowledged publicly, and CFC promised to write the new rules.

But, I would not go as far, saying that CFC fixed the problem, otherwise there we would not have this discussion today.

As latest evidence, there was a new discussion started by CMA President Larry Bevand.
Please visit following link: http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5676

It took 6 long months of debate and writing new rules. Yet, as a result problem is still here and NOT fixed!


If you don't like the new rules, then work to get them changed for next year..
I see that is CFC is looking the other way from the problem, it promised to fix one year ago. Shove it under the rug, hoping it will go away!

A successful organization must be BIG enough to admit their mistakes, smart enough to PROFIT from them and STRONG enough to correct them, before it is too late. :D

I do not see CFC is trying to do any of following things here.

Wouldn’t it be in CFC best interest to say: “Hey, this new motion did not fix the problem and it is not acting in best interest of our youth? We have talented juniors, who want represent Canada at biggest youth event of the year. They represented Canada at Pan-American championship and could not play in CYCC. They would of, it if was not for conflict dates. It is not their fault. They represented our country, and we encourage them to play in WYCC. They got our full support. Let’s fix it now, because we have power to set things right and not wait until it is too late!”

[Fred McKim]

Mikhail: If you were offered a coaching position on the Canadian Youth Team would you accept it, considering your feelings toward those that deemed you worthy ?

[Christopher Mallon]

Mikhail I can't even tell anymore what you're mad about anymore, your posts have devolved into nothing but snipping at people.

You can't (or at least shouldn't) get mad at people for following the rules. You can't (or shouldn't) complain about the process to make those rules as it was about the most open process the CFC has ever used.

If you want to make a concrete suggestion about how to fix any problems you see going forward, then do so. Otherwise all you are doing is slinging mud.

[Bob Gillanders]

I agree, that the problem was acknowledged publicly, and CFC promised to write the new rules.
But, I would not go as far, saying that CFC fixed the problem, otherwise there we would not have this discussion today.


Mikhail, the problem has been fixed. We wrote new rules and we are now enforcing those rules that were approved by the governors. It is you who want us to go backwards and break the rules again. You are very persistent and this only illustrates why the rules have been broken so many times in the past. A vocal minority complain and complain and complain until they get their way. No more, the rules are the rules. Enough already.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Hi Chris,

If, you see someone is getting mad at someone, you are probably reading different thread!

Are you speaking on behalf of CFC? If so, maybe you can explain to us why Mr. Barron is very mad with Ms. Jin (2011 CYCC organizers for CFC)? Is it personal?

If you were following this thread, and many others on chesstalk you will know what the proposed fix it!

[Bob Gillanders]

They represented Canada at Pan-American championship and could not play in CYCC. They would of, it if was not for conflict dates. It is not their fault.

Nobody is saying it is their fault. The date conflict was very unfortunate.

But they were given a choice, either the PanAm games or the CYCC. Choosing the PanAm games meant they were not eligible to play in the WYCC. This was explained and they all agreed to the terms. Now a single player has changed her mind. We can all understand her coach pleading her case, but breaking the rules for one child is not in the best interests of the chess community.

Do you not agree that everyone should play by the same rules?

[Mikhail Egorov]

Mikhail, the problem has been fixed. We wrote new rules and we are now enforcing those rules that were approved by the governors. It is you who want us to go backwards and break the rules again. You are very persistent and this only illustrates why the rules have been broken so many times in the past. A vocal minority complain and complain and complain until they get their way. No more, the rules are the rules. Enough already.
Bob,

Is it according to CFC, the problem is fixed? I wonder what will happen, if we will take a public vote on chesstalk, instead of all the bickering here!

I really wonder who will public support in this case. I doubt that, it will ever happen , because CFC considers this a ‘minority complain’.

If CFC would treat it youth members as customers, and not employees, we would maybe be moving into right direction!

[Mikhail Egorov]

Now a single player has changed her mind.

The request by a single player was shut down, before it was submitted. :(


Do you not agree that everyone should play by the same rules?

Yes, if those rules are designed with fairness. We all understand here that, CFC was not happy with conflict of dates and decided to boycott Pan-American Championship and get even with organizers, but not allowing top juniors to play.

Is this really fair to our juniors, Bob?

[Kerry Liles]

The request by a single player was shut down, before it was submitted. :(



Yes, if those rules are designed with fairness. We all understand here that, CFC was not happy with conflict of dates and decided to boycott Pan-American Championship and get even with organizers, but not allowing top juniors to play.

Is this really fair to our juniors, Bob?

If one player (who changed her mind - or perhaps her parents changed their mind - after the fact) is allowed to play in WYCC, how does that sit with the parents/players who ACTUALLY followed the rules and decisions?

[Bob Gillanders]

The request by a single player was shut down, before it was submitted. :(

Is this really fair to our juniors, Bob?

The request was submitted and rejected.

Is it more fair to have different rules for some players?

[Mikhail Egorov]

The request was submitted and rejected.

Is it more fair to have different rules for some players?
You did not comment on "CFC was not happy with conflict of dates and decided to boycott Pan-American Championship and get even with organizers by not allowing top juniors to play."?

Is it more fair for CFC acting in personal interest and not allowing yung talented juniors to play in WYCC?

[Mikhail Egorov]

If one player (who changed her mind - or perhaps her parents changed their mind - after the fact) is allowed to play in WYCC, how does that sit with the parents/players who ACTUALLY followed the rules and decisions?

,If organization setting the rules so everyone should follow, and next acts in personal interest against some other internation organizers, how does that sit with CFC organization who ACTUALL told to follow the rules and decision?

[Christopher Mallon]

Are you speaking on behalf of CFC? If so, maybe you can explain to us why Mr. Barron is very mad with Ms. Jin (2011 CYCC organizers for CFC)? Is it personal?

If you were following this thread, and many others on chesstalk you will know what the proposed fix it!

I honestly don't care at all why Michael Barron thinks anything. He doesn't speak for me, nor does he speak for the CFC. I'm not really sure why you're even asking me this.

The only proposed fix I've seen from you is for the CFC to actually break the rules, which is what everyone typically gets mad about. Naturally we can't celebrate the one time the rules are applied correctly, however....

[Mikhail Egorov]

I honestly don't care at all why Michael Barron thinks anything. He doesn't speak for me, nor does he speak for the CFC. I'm not really sure why you're even asking me this. .


The only proposed fix I've seen from you is for the CFC to actually break the rules, which is what everyone typically gets mad about. Naturally we can't celebrate the one time the rules are applied correctly, however....[/QUOTE]


He doesn't speak for me, nor does he speak for the CFC. .

I do believe Michael Barron is CFC Governor, is he not? Is it what he is doing with his recent posts? It is not very hard to find them.

You say that he does not speak on behalf of CFC, he is doing the opposite. It is very confusing, who to believe anymore.

The proposed fix was to allow players to participate due to extrordinary cirmustances (Pan-American Championship), and CFC direct involvment to boycott Pan-Am games for personal reason.

We are not talking about 100 or 1000 kids here, but 3 top junior players! :D

[Christopher Mallon]

The only proposed fix I've seen from you is for the CFC to actually break the rules, which is what everyone typically gets mad about. Naturally we can't celebrate the one time the rules are applied correctly, however....
You say that he does not speak on behalf of CFC, he is doing the opposite. It is very confusing, who to believe anymore.

The proposed fix was to allow players to participate due to extrordinary cirmustances (Pan-American Championship), and CFC direct involvment to boycott Pan-Am games for personal reason.

We are not talking about 100 or 1000 kids here, but 3 top junior players! :D

Random Joe from Antarctica can say he speaks for the CFC it doesn't make it true.

The players in question were informed prior to the event that the Pan-Am was not considered extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of this rule.

As far as I'm concerned, that's end of story and I won't be participating in this discussion anymore as it seems that you are just unable or unwilling to accept that. In my opinion, the CFC Executive might as well do the same, nothing will be gained by continuing to go over the same arguments with you over and over and over and over....

[Michael Barron]

Michael,

I sincerely encourage you not to engage in this game with me.
The facts are the facts, and they speak for themselves.
Please do not denigrate the young players whom I advocated sending to WYCC 2009 and whom you deemed unworthy. When you go making claims like this I am compelled to set the record straight.

You have said repeated that you as Youth Coordinator must follow the CFC rules. Please then identify the (non existent) CFC rule under which you approved additional players to attend WYCC 2010 the following year. Players such as Janet Peng, who finished 5th at CYCC in Under 10 girls. Or David Itkin who finished 4th in U14? How did Mark Plotkin qualify after finishing 9th in U12?, or John Doknjas who finished 17th? Better yet please show me the rule that qualified Joseph Bellissimo to WYCC in U8 when he didn't even attend CYCC. Each of these players are worthy of attending in my opinion, and after our battles the year before I was happy to see them go.

You approved all of these players the year before the new rules were created. To some it might look like the rules were created to justify the early ad hoc moves by you, the Youth Coordinator. So who's facts are facts and who is just talking?


Ken,

It's good to know that all these players are worthy of attending WYCC in your opinion.
Hopefully, you could understand that rules are changing over time.
In 2010 the necessity of rules change was already in the air, and the Executive decided to allow a few worthy players to join the team.
Then the new rules were discussed, finalized, approved by the Governors and enforced.

The first results in 2011:
CYCC attendance increased from 167 to 237 players,
WYCC attendance increased from 23 to 40 players.


...
Bye the way why wasn't the BC Youth Coordinator or BC Junior Chess invited to participate in the Youth committee. The rule changes were created without input from BC organizers. Strange given that it was BC arguing the case to start with.


Ken, I personally invited you to join the Youth committee, but you refused, referring to your very busy schedule. If you insist, I could find your response to my invitation and post it here.
But more important fact is: 2 BC organizers are members of the Youth committee, and actively participated in all discussions, including new rules preparation.
Strange how BC Youth Coordinator is unaware of this fact... :rolleyes:


...
And as for those "unworthy" players I tried to send in 2009, I wouldn't go calling Jason Cao a weak player, it's not good for your credibility. Yes U10 World Champion and FM Jason Cao was one of the players you refused access to the WYCC.


Ken, let me remind you the one and only email that you sent me on this topic in 2009:


Private e-mail removed by moderator

As everybody can see, you mentioned several BC players, but Jason Cao was not one of them...

So who's facts are facts and who is just talking? ;)



... you will continue to lobb grenades my way trying to make your case. Be careful. Sometimes I'll pull the pin and throw them back. Let it rest.


Amen! :D

[Mikhail Egorov]

Random Joe from Antarctica can say he speaks for the CFC it doesn't make it true....

Well we are not talking about random Joe from Antarctica here, are we? He is CFC governor and very active in this discussion (and many other threads), last time I checked. Please do correct me, if I am wrong here. :D



The players in question were informed prior to the event that the Pan-Am was not considered extraordinary circumstances for the purposes of this rule. ....

Yes, CFC informed everyone of their decision. They weren’t given too much option either! CFC considered this a personal matter, and that way jeopardized talented youth attending an event.

Last time I checked we leave in democratic society. It looks like a dictatorship here!

Just out of curiosity, did CFC conduct a public vote somewhere on chesstalk, regarding this issue (before informing of their decision)???


As far as I'm concerned, that's end of story ....

In company that I work at, if problem occurs we expect to fix it as soon as possible. I am pretty positive, that is how every successful organization does it. We do not shove the problem under the rug and say: “ As far as I’m concerned, that’s end of the story’ .

Is this the philosophy of CFC???


nothing will be gained by continuing to go over the same arguments with you over and over and over and over....

Yes, nothing will be gained until CFC must be BIG enough to admit their mistakes, smart enough to PROFIT from them and STRONG enough to correct them.:D

Since you will not be coming back to this discussion, have a great day! :)

[Mikhail Egorov]

Ken,
Ken, let me remind you the one and only email that you sent me on this topic in 2009:

Amen! :D

Mr. Barron,

Did you have personal permission from Ken to publish this email publicly??? I really doubt, that you do. :(

Also, you are the one who REPETADLLY keep saying, that one should play by the rules. Here you are breaking the rule, by publishing person emails publicly without permission. Let me remind you, that it happened not once, but twice NOW!

CFC representatives now expect everyone to play by their rules, while they are breaking others. When is this going to STOP!!!

......and what is it with 'Amen!' stuff :D

[Ken Craft]

Players should not have been given the choice between the Pan-Ams and attending the WYCC. The CFC Executive should have seen the Pan Ams as great experience for people wanting to attend a WYCC. IAnyone wanting to attend the PanAms should have been welcomed to attend the WYCC. Sometimes i shake my head at decisions by the Executive. It's pretty hard to argue their decision was in the best interests of Canadian chess

[Christopher Mallon]

Well we are not talking about random Joe from Antarctica here, are we? He is CFC governor and very active in this discussion (and many other threads), last time I checked. Please do correct me, if I am wrong here. :D


Just about anyone can be a CFC Governor if they want to be, all they need is a membership and show up at the right meeting. Nor is there any realistic way for disgruntled CFC members to remove a Governor they are unhappy with (look at what it took to get rid of Barry T).



Yes, CFC informed everyone of their decision. They weren’t given too much option either! CFC considered this a personal matter, and that way jeopardized talented youth attending an event.

Last time I checked we leave in democratic society. It looks like a dictatorship here!

The CFC Governors democratically gave the Executive this power, and the Executive used it. I know Ken C voted against the motion, but it DID pass democratically. I probably would have voted against the motion too if I wasn't boycotting the votes. That doesn't change the fact that these are the rules now.

I also personally might have chosen to make a different decision, but the fact remains that the Executive had the power to make the decision, and they did, and so the only real issue here is that you don't agree with them.


Just out of curiosity, did CFC conduct a public vote somewhere on chesstalk, regarding this issue (before informing of their decision)???


#1. Why on Earth would the CFC conduct a poll about this topic on Chesstalk?
#2. Who on Earth would consider such a poll to have any meaning at all even if it WAS conducted?



In company that I work at, if problem occurs we expect to fix it as soon as possible. I am pretty positive, that is how every successful organization does it. We do not shove the problem under the rug and say: “ As far as I’m concerned, that’s end of the story’ .

Is this the philosophy of CFC???

Yes, nothing will be gained until CFC must be BIG enough to admit their mistakes, smart enough to PROFIT from them and STRONG enough to correct them.:D


The philosophy of the CFC depends on whomever is President at any given time. And there is no sweeping under a rug going on here. From my point of view, the only issue here is that someone is unhappy that the CFC won't reverse a legitimate decision that they do not agree with, and they are making a big stink about it.

Also, I have *still* not seen any response to the following question. I will even bold-red it to make sure you see it.

How would it be fair, now, to allow one person who accepted this ruling before to change their mind, when at least one other player went to the CYCC rather than the Pan Ams because they wanted to go to WYCC?



Since you will not be coming back to this discussion, have a great day! :)

You actually came up with a couple new arguments. They weren't very good, but they WERE new...

[Kerry Liles]

Mr. Barron,

Did you have personal permission from Ken to publish this email publicly??? I really doubt, that you do. :(

Also, you are the one who REPETADLLY keep saying, that one should play by the rules. Here you are breaking the rule, by publishing person emails publicly without permission. Let me remind you, that it happened not once, but twice NOW!

CFC representatives now expect everyone to play by their rules, while they are breaking others. When is this going to STOP!!!

......and what is it with 'Amen!' stuff :D

Posting emails without permission of the original author is rude and inconsiderate (at least) but I don't know of any 'rule' about it. What 'rules' are you talking about?

[Mikhail Egorov]

Just about anyone can be a CFC Governor if they want to be, all they need is a membership and show up at the right meeting. Nor is there any realistic way for disgruntled CFC members to remove a Governor they are unhappy with (look at what it took to get rid of Barry T)....

Well ‘Joe from Antarctica’ is not a CFC governor, is he! I am puzzled why you bringing Barry T issue into this??? This is completely irrelevant in this discussion. :)


#1. Why on Earth would the CFC conduct a poll about this topic on Chesstalk?
#2. Who on Earth would consider such a poll to have any meaning at all even if it WAS conducted? ...

Isn't it in interest of CFC to ask the opinion of parents, youth and adult players to ask for their opinion? A lot of organizations around the globe conduct the polls nowadays! It is 21st century and it is not hard to do with technology that is available for us to use.

This does not sound very democratic, is it Chris???


[Also, I have *still* not seen any response to the following question. I will even bold-red it to make sure you see it.

How would it be fair, now, to allow one person who accepted this ruling before to change their mind, when at least one other player went to the CYCC rather than the Pan Ams because they wanted to go to WYCC?...

I guess you weren't following this topic very closely. :D

I answered this question already and I will say it again:

We are not talking about one person Chris. We are talking about 3 top talented juniors (Jackie Peng, Jiaxin (Dora) Liu and Dezheng Kong). They should be allowed to go and join WYCC, if they decide to do so. They should not have been given the choice between attending Pan-Ams and the WYCC, in the first place. If they refuse not to join NOW, it is their choice.

Unfortunately you did not present new arguments or facts with this post.
Sorry for repeating myself again, but because of your latest post, you left me no other choice. :)

[Christopher Mallon]

Is it in interest of CFC to ask the opinion of parents, youth and adult players to ask for their opinion. A lot of organizations around the world conduct the polls nowadays! It is 21st century and it is not hard to do with technology that is available for us to use.

This does not sound very democratic, is it Chris???


Yes a lot of organizations conduct polls. Via polling companies who use scientific methods to do them, and can produce a result with reasonable accuracy.

You could post a poll on Chesstalk asking what colour the sky is and I guarantee you that you will get some votes for Red and Green.



I guess you weren't following this topic very closely. :D

I answered this question already and I will say it again:

We are not talking about one person Chris. We are talking about 3 top talented juniors (Jackie Peng, Jiaxin (Dora) Liu and Dezheng Kong). They should be allowed to go and join WYCC, if they decide to do so. They should not have been given the choice between attending Pan-Ams and the WYCC, in the first place. If they refuse not to join NOW, it is their choice.

That's not actually an answer, that's a deflection. What you are really saying is you don't care about the people who would become offended (and potentially start screaming bloody murder) should the CFC reverse its decision, you only care about the people you have been asked (paid?) to support.

[Mikhail Egorov]

You could post a poll on Chesstalk asking what colour the sky is and I guarantee you that you will get some votes for Red and Green.

Is in it the point of democratic elections, Chris, to see get opinion of all sides first??? Not shut them down, without
giving them a chance to even speak (this is not very democratic)!


That's not actually an answer, that's a deflection.

This was an original and legitimate appeal. If you do not like the facts, it is your person problem, and I can’t help you here, sorry!

[Victor Plotkin]

Nowadays it's pretty fashionable to criticize M.Barron. Looks like everyone is very happy with his election loss to Patrick. I read here and on chesstalk "soundly lost" about this election many times. I believe, "soundly" in this case means pretty negative (and may be hostile) attitude to this person.

I don't want to start with M.Egorov. He is clearly under influence of Mrs. Anna, his posts are very emotional, he blames everyone in CFC. Regarding his posts about M. Barron, I would recommend him to show some recpect to older person and stronger chess-player. Just to be clear: I don't know who is right and who is wrong in this story (WYCC for Dora). Probably both sides are wrong, both sides made enough mistakes.

I want to answer to Mr. Ken Jensen. I don't know him, but from his posts he should be a very reasonable person and knows the facts pretty well. Just for the beginning I have to say: I fully agree with Ken about many different issues he mentioned in his posts here and in his e-mail to M.Barron (I hope he will not sue M.Barron for publishing his private e-mail).
1. I was in Victoria 2 years ago (my son Mark had his worst tournament ever) and remember pretty well the tournament situation in U12 and U14 Open sections. You are right, Ken: in both sections strong young players shared 4-th place and didn't qualify for WYCC-2009. I don't know if they are weaker or stronger than 5 players who were allowed by M.Barron for WYCC-2010. Probably about the same level and, for sure, deserved their trip to world championship.
2. M.Barron writes "In 2010 the necessity of rules change was already in the air". I for one din't feel it. I got information about different approach just by accident (I visited this site what I did very rearly last year). My son was the last one to catch the train. I completely understand frustration and dissappointment of other young chess players and their parents.

But... I give to M.Barron full (OK, at least 75%) credit for change this old and restricted rule. I don't know if any other youth coordinator could do it. Probably, not, they are too conservative (which is not necessarily a bad feature). So strategically he was great, tactically he made some mistakes. It's much better than do nothing. 7 players from this year and 5 players from 2010 should be pretty thankful to ex-Youth Coordinator.
As a member of Youth Committee I can say: right now we don't need it anymore. New approach of CFC executives (president and youth coordinator) makes the existance of this committee absolutely unnecessary.

Last point... I want to wright something about Mrs. Anna. I never had any conflict with her, so I can be counted as a neutral person. So my diagnosis is:
she has a lot of energy, a lot of money, a lot of free time, changes her mind very often, and can make significant and fast influence on other people (M. Egorov is a great example). All together those features are very, very scary.

[Christopher Mallon]

Is in it the point of democratic elections, Chris, to see get opinion of all sides first??? Not shut them down, without
giving them a chance to even speak (this is not very democratic)!

This was an original and legitimate appeal. If you do not like the facts, it is your person problem, and I can’t help you here, sorry!

How is a poll on Chesstalk in any way related to a democratic election?


Regarding his posts about M. Barron, I would recommend him to show some recpect to older person and stronger chess-player.

I still find it sad that people think the validity of someone's opinions about anything other than game analysis should be related to their playing strength. People should have to earn respect, not be given it by default.

[Fred McKim]

This was an original and legitimate appeal. If you do not like the facts, it is your person problem, and I can’t help you here, sorry!

The time for an appeal was back in May (or whenever the original decision was made exactly). At that time an appeal could have been launched on behalf of both those children who were choosing to go to the Pan-Am's and also those who were choosing not to go (so they could still qualify for the WYCC). If the appeal was granted by the CFC Executive / Governors then we could have had maybe 7 or 8 players at the Pan-Am's and probably all of those children going to the WYCC as well, if they wanted.

Appealing the decision, three or four months later is simply too late. The time has passed. As I've suggested before, you've continued to draw this out way too long.

[Mikhail Egorov]

The time for an appeal was back in May (or whenever the original decision was made exactly). .

This issue was raised in May. I spoke with Mr. Barron (Canadian Youth Coodrinator at that time) in spring in person, when he was playing at the Canadian Closed. He shut it down immediately by saying that:"Canada will not be sending a team to Pan-Am games this year, end of discussion!." :(

So, how is this fair, when the issue was actually raised got shut down. :confused:


As I've suggested before, you've continued to draw this out way too long.

Unfortunately, CFC is dragging this issue out way too long. It could have have being resovled 2 times now! One when it was raised with Mr. Barron and other time, about 3-4 weeks ago.

[Ken Craft]

I don't understand, Fred, why you continue to defend an indefensible decision by the executive? From everything I read, there appears that there was no real chance of appeal. Players and their parents were provided with a diktat, they would not be allowed to attend the WYCC if they went to the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC. It was this decision, and this decision alone, which has caused this mess.

[Mikhail Egorov]

How is a poll on Chesstalk in any way related to a democratic election? .

Ok, instead of using democratic, which make sense I will use a simpler world. How 'FAIR' election? Does this make sense now. :D

If most CFC members voted against this, there would not be discussion here now, and I would not be brining this up.

So, lets get some facts straight here. Who voted for not sending a team to Pan-Am games?-> CFC officials. How is this NOT a conflict of interest, when decision was made?

[Fred McKim]

I don't understand, Fred, why you continue to defend an indefensible decision by the executive? From everything I read, there appears that there was no real chance of appeal. Players and their parents were provided with a diktat, they would not be allowed to attend the WYCC if they went to the Pan Ams instead of the CYCC. It was this decision, and this decision alone, which has caused this mess.

Ken: Nobody was opposed to this decision at that time. Every single person going to the Pan-Am's could have said something then.

Why do you think Mikhail is complaining now ? It's because the family he coaches for have now changed their mind, after explicity agreeing with the President and the Junior Co-ordinator's ruling at that time.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Ken: Nobody was opposed to this decision at that time.

Mr. Barron explicitly opposed it at 2011 Canadian Closed, when I privately spoke to him in Guelph. At the time I was trying to get a permission for a letter for Pan-Am games. It was required by Pan-American organizers.

Not only he did gave ultimatum, to boycott Pan-Am games, he even refused to write a letter. As a result, he did not write up a letter, even though it was hi job. CFC secretary did, and I thank him for that.


Why do you think Mikhail is complaining now ?

Fred, we are raising a 'critical issue' here, and waiting for fair resolution from CFC executives.

[Ken Craft]

Fred, it doesn't matter if the families agreed at the time. They were given no choice other than to agree. Why is the element of coercion in this not obvious to executive members? Could someone have said I want to go to the Pan Ams and to the WYCC? They weren't given that option. Instead they were told if you go to the Pan Ams you forfeit any opportunity to attend the WYCC.

[Christopher Mallon]

Ok, instead of using democratic, which make sense I will use a simpler world. How 'FAIR' election? Does this make sense now. :D

If most CFC members voted against this, there would not be discussion here now, and I would not be brining this up.

So, lets get some facts straight here. Who voted for not sending a team to Pan-Am games?-> CFC officials. How is this NOT a conflict of interest, when decision was made?

I still am not seeing how a poll on Chesstalk constitutes CFC members voting. Many (most?) active people on CT are NOT CFC members for one thing. There are numerous other things wrong with the suggestion as well.

Your claim of conflict of interest by CFC officials... I don't really understand. It's not like they benefited in any way from the decision. Perhaps you will enlighten us. The only person involved in this who could have conflict of interest would actually be you, if you were a CFC Governor.

[Christopher Mallon]

Fred, it doesn't matter if the families agreed at the time. They were given no choice other than to agree. Why is the element of coercion in this not obvious to executive members? Could someone have said I want to go to the Pan Ams and to the WYCC? They weren't given that option. Instead they were told if you go to the Pan Ams you forfeit any opportunity to attend the WYCC.

The families were told that the Pan Ams were not considered extraordinary circumstances... how exactly is that coercion? You can disagree with the decision but let's not make it into something it's not.

Extraordinary circumstances are normally things like funerals or surgery or something like that. I can see the argument for extending that to "Pan Ams scheduled at the same time" but it's only an argument, it's not like attending the Pan Am games is a human right.

[Mikhail Egorov]

The families were told that the Pan Ams were not considered extraordinary circumstances..

They were ‘told’, not given a choice to object or vote on this matter. ‘Told’ is very dictatorial! I do not understand why you keep bringing this point back???


Extraordinary circumstances are normally things like funerals or surgery or something like that. .

You claim of extraordinary circumstances and things like funerals or surgery …..I do not quite understand. You are CFC Governor for Ontario – SWOCL, where CFC stands for Canadian Chess Federation. So, BIG events like World and Pan-Am games are DIRECTLY related to 'Canada' and 'Chess'. Following events are ‘Extraordinary circumstances’, and should be of great importance to CFC.

Sorry, but point you are trying to make in this case, is completely irrelevant here. Please stick to the topic and try to resolve this issue.

[Christopher Mallon]

They were ‘told’, not given a choice to object or vote on this matter. ‘Told’ is very dictatorial! I do not understand why you keep bringing this point back???


It is only dictatorial if it was done by one person and without potential consequences. That is not the case here.



You claim of extraordinary circumstances and things like funerals or surgery …..I do not quite understand. You are CFC Governor for Ontario – SWOCL, where CFC stands for Canadian Chess Federation. So, BIG events like World and Pan-Am games are related to 'Canadian' and 'Chess'. Following events are ‘Extraordinary circumstances’, and should be of great importance to CFC.

That's your opinion. That is not supported in any legal way, unless you can prove otherwise?


Sorry, but point you are trying to make in this case, is completely irrelevant here. Please stick to the topic and try to resolve this issue.

You're telling ME to stick to the topic? You're the one who hijacked this thread, which was not actually about this topic. Plus, my points are completely relevant to what we are discussing, you just don't like them.

[Mikhail Egorov]

I still am not seeing how a poll on Chesstalk constitutes CFC members voting..

All CFC has to do is give it try!


There are numerous other things wrong with the suggestion as well.

Please clarify them to us. We are all dying to hear them, but please valid points only this time! :D

The final decision to boycott Pan-Am with direct involvment of CFC Youth Coodrinator, created direct colflict of interest for anadian Canadian youth players .

[Mikhail Egorov]

You're telling ME to stick to the topic? You're the one who hijacked this thread, which was not actually about this topic. Plus, my points are completely relevant to what we are discussing, you just don't like them.

I am simply suggesting Chris. I can't tell anymore what you're mad about anymore. Your posts have devolved into nothing but personal attacks, and there is anger in your voice. If this coninues, I will have to ignore you post from now on. Maybe you need a break, and we can continue to discuss this critical case like civilized people, at a later time. :D


That's your opinion. That is not supported in any legal way, unless you can prove otherwise?.

Yes, everyone entitled to their own opinior. So now, do you see why public pole is NEEDED. Let the voting begin! :D

[Fred McKim]

There are no votes by CFC members as a whole or by Chesstalk readers (with respect to CFC matters).

Continuing to suggest we need to do this, is simply weakening your case. As I've told you, you need to get the support of the CFC Governors. The fact that they start meeting tomorrow is a fortuitous event for you.

If you can't find any Governors to bring your case forward, then I think even you can agree it's time to give up.

[Mikhail Egorov]

There are no votes by CFC members as a whole or by Chesstalk readers (with respect to CFC matters).

Maybe CFC should try, to strengthen its reputation and build very good relationship between CFC Executives and its members!


If you can't find any Governors to bring your case forward, then I think even you can agree it's time to give up.

So you suggesting me, its time to give up? Sorry to hear that, but this is just your opinion, but this it only your opinion. :)

CFC refusal to look at all the facts, and looking as a whole picture is simply weakening its reputation with CFC members. I am very saddened to hear, that CFC is taking this path. :(

[Kerry Liles]

There are no votes by CFC members as a whole or by Chesstalk readers (with respect to CFC matters).

Continuing to suggest we need to do this, is simply weakening your case. As I've told you, you need to get the support of the CFC Governors. The fact that they start meeting tomorrow is a fortuitous event for you.

If you can't find any Governors to bring your case forward, then I think even you can agree it's time to give up.

Although I am no longer a Governor, I can only begin to imagine the gamut of motions that might be proposed:

1. allow anyone to go the WYCC
2. allow one specific person to go the WYCC
3. conduct all CFC business via polls on Chesstalk
etc

I think Fred is correct: get a Governor to bring forward a motion or work to get the Youth regulations changed (and hope the Executive at the time continue to enforce the rules whether or not they are in your favour.)

[Fred McKim]

Maybe CFC should try, to strengthen its reputation and build very good relationship between CFC Executives and its members!



So you suggesting me, its time to give up? Sorry to hear that, but this is just your opinion, but this it only your opinion. :)

CFC refusal to look at all the facts, and looking as a whole picture is simply weakening its reputation with CFC members. I am very saddened to hear, that CFC is taking this path. :(

Mikhail, despite not agreeing with you, I have chosen to give you some advice as to how best to proceed. I can't help it if you choose to ignore it and continue to make silly suggestions that simply can't happen.

[Christopher Mallon]

Yes, everyone entitled to their own opinior. So now, do you see why public pole is NEEDED. Let the voting begin! :D

Go ahead and start one then, if you think it won't make you seem foolish.

[Mikhail Egorov]

Mikhail, despite not agreeing with you, I have chosen to give you some advice as to how best to proceed. I can't help it if you choose to ignore it and continue to make silly suggestions that simply can't happen.

Unfortunately your advice does not offer fair solution, and creates conflict of interest. It only matters what the Executives think. Looks like only majority of that disagree were present. Kerry Liles backed it up with his recent post. I wonder what is the real point of bringing it up to a meeting, that is conducted in dictatorial way? This was proven, where Ken Craft was forced to resign from CFC organization.

I wonder what would the result would be, if open poll was conducted democratic way?

[Bob Gillanders]

This was proven, where Ken Craft was forced to resign from CFC organization.


Mikhail, Ken was not forced to resign. He remains Governor for New Brunswick.

[Ken Craft]

I wonder who could force me to resign. The story is a member of the current executive called for my resignation. Some people don't like what I have to say on issues. Pity!

[Kerry Liles]

Unfortunately your advice does not offer fair solution, and creates conflict of interest. It only matters what the Executives think. Looks like only majority of that disagree were present. Kerry Liles backed it up with his recent post. I wonder what is the real point of bringing it up to a meeting, that is conducted in dictatorial way? This was proven, where Ken Craft was forced to resign from CFC organization.

I wonder what would the result would be, if open poll was conducted democratic way?

Mikhail: please note that I am not a CFC Governor - just a CFC member.

[Mikhail Egorov]

I wonder who could force me to resign. The story is a member of the current executive called for my resignation. Some people don't like what I have to say on issues. Pity!

Hi Ken,

My appologies. :) CFC does not ,that power yet. They probably will soon enough. I completely agree with you, it is really pity.

You are obviously doing something right, if they calling for your resignation.

[Michael Barron]

... Some people don't like what I have to say on issues. Pity!

Sorry, Ken, but you're misrepresenting the facts again... :(

The problem is not what you say on issues,
the problem is how and where you choose to discuss CFC issues...

Are you the same person who complained about email quoting here? :confused:

[Ken Craft]

Michael, just to be clear. I will say what I want, where I want, when I want and how I want on CFC issues. If you think some issues should be discussed in private that is your prerogative.

I think you have acted shamefully in the whole Pan Am/CYCC/WYCC issue. This isn't only restricted to the release of private emails.

[Halldor P. Palsson]

This PanAM/CYCC/WYCC issue is black mark on the CFC. The CFC cannot pay for PanAms and Continentals but we should at least be thanking players who represent Canada internationally at these events.

If somebody wants to go to the WYCC on their own dime let them go.

Canada has always had one of the largest groups going to the WYCC. Without paying customers from countries like Canada the tournament cannot be successfully organized. The CFC has always had a permissive policy on WYCC participation.

What we did here helps nobody and is frankly counter productive.

[Bob Armstrong]

At the 2011 Fall Meeting, Motion 2012-A above was split into 2 parts.

Motion 2012-A1 only dealt with removal of the 1 year residency restriction on permanent resident juniors [ only subparagraphs e) & h) ].

The motion passed:

YES (18) Bob Armstrong, Christopher Field, Egidijus Zeromskis, Fred McKim, Halldor P. Palsson, Hugh Brodie, Ilia Bluvshtein, Ken Craft, Kevin Pacey, Lyle Craver, Lynn Stringer, Mark S. Dutton, I.A., Michael Barron, Nikolay Noritsyn, Peter Stockhausen, Pierre Dénommée, Vladimir Birarov, Vladimir Drkulec

NO (5) Christopher Mallon, Ellen Nadeau, Ken Jensen, Paul Leblanc, Rob Clark

ABSTAIN (3) Bob Gillanders, Michael von Keitz, Vlad Rekhson

Motion 2012-A2, dealing with all the " housekeeping " amendments also passed:

YES (22) Bob Armstrong Bob Gillanders Christopher Field Christopher Mallon Egidijus Zeromskis Ellen Nadeau Fred McKim Halldor P. Palsson Ilia Bluvshtein Ken Craft Ken Einarsson Ken Jensen Kevin Pacey Lyle Craver Lynn Stringer Mark S. Dutton, I.A. Michael Barron Nikolay Noritsyn Patrick McDonald Paul Leblanc Pierre Dénommée Valer Eugen Demian Vladimir Birarov Vladimir Drkulec

NO (1) Vlad Rekhson

ABSTAIN (5) Hugh Brodie Michael von Keitz Peter Stockhausen Simon Ong

Bob A

[Michael Barron]

Michael, just to be clear. I will say what I want, where I want, when I want and how I want on CFC issues. If you think some issues should be discussed in private that is your prerogative.

I think you have acted shamefully in the whole Pan Am/CYCC/WYCC issue. This isn't only restricted to the release of private emails.

Ken,

I could say the same about you:
I think you have acted shamefully in the whole Pan Am/CYCC/WYCC issue, and not only in this issue. :(

Of course, you could say what you want, where you want, when you want and how you want on CFC issues.
But your choice leads to the question:
What do you want?

Do you want to do something good for Canadian chess?
Or do you want only to denigrate CFC Officers and the CFC as organization?

If so, why you're a CFC Governor? :confused:

[Mikhail Egorov]

Do you want to do something good for Canadian chess?

Yes Mr. Ken wants something very good for Canadian Chess. You got that right Mr. Barron. He is trying to accomplish it here, but certain individuals from CFC office are stopping him from that.

We are still waiting for that apology. :D


If so, why you're a CFC Governor? :confused:

Mr. Barron, are you forcing Ken to resign, because he is trying to do a good thing??? This is very shameful of you to say such a thing.