Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:52 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions WCCI 2019-21: About a “change of functions” in judging twomovers |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Anatoly Vasilenko [Saturday, Dec 4, 2021 19:48] | WCCI 2019-21: About a “change of functions” in judging twomovers
Dear Colleagues,
Year ago, I gave to Valery Kopyl my consent to be one of the judges in WCCI 2019-2021, in Section A (twomovers), and also promised to Kopyl to help him in the selection of 4 more judges - by his request.
When doing this work, I was taking into account several factors:
1. Judges should represent different countries, preferably with a fairly high tradition #2.
2. The judges must be sufficiently qualified composers in the field of #2 and ranked as high as possible in previous WCCIs.
3. First of all, I focused on composers who were not previously involved in judging WCCI and FA, at least in 3-4 previous cycles.
This work took me several months and on March 16, 2021, I handed over the full list of judges to Valery Kopyl.
The tourney director: Kopyl, Valery (Ukraine)
Judges
A) Twomovers:
1. Brabec, Juraj (Slovakia)
2. Guida, Marco (Italy)
3. Pilchenko, Vyacheslav (Russia)
4. Shankar Ram, Narajan (India)
5. Vasylenko, Anatoly (Ukraine)
Since that time, Kopyl and I have not communicated on this topic, and only on December 4, 2021, after the publication of the WCCI 2019-2021: Announcement, I learned that I was transferred to the reserve judges, and Vasily Dyachuk took my place.
The only reason for such an unexpected and behind-the-scenes "change of functions" I see in my recent criticism of V. Kopyl's twomover, awarded 1st prize in the 9th FIDE World Cup, by the judge V. Dyachuk. In my opinion, due to the mass of violations of the artistic principles of composition, this #2 doesn’t deserve even the lowest distinction.
Presumably, now, with another judge, such problems will be marked in the WCCI with the highest scores, and the main principle of judging will be: "to the friends – everything, to others – law!"
I’m withdrawing my candidature as a reserve judge and would like to apologize to Juraj, Marco, Vyacheslav, and Narajan for inviting them to participate in this “game”, which begins with dirt that’s incomprehensible for me. I consider them free from my earlier consent.
I would like to take this opportunity to announce the end of my composing career. Thanks to all of you for your cooperation! Despite many negative factors that have appeared in chess composition, especially recently, this field gave me many pleasant minutes, from both composing and communicating with colleagues who share the same passion. To all of you I wish good health and real creative successes, instead of invented ones.
Best regards
Vasylenko, Anatoly (Ukraine)
IM
WCCI 2019-21: O “Переменe функций” в в судействе двухходовок
Уважаемые коллеги.
Год назад я дал Валерию Копылу свое согласие быть одним из судей
WCCI 2019-2021 в двухходовом разделе, а также пообещал Копылу выполнить его просьбу в подборе еще 4 судей.
При выполнении этой работы я учитывал несколько факторов.
1.Судьи должны представлять разные страны, желательно с достаточно высокими традициями двухходовой композиции.
2.Судьи должны быть достаточно квалифицированными композиторами в области двухходовки и занимать, по возможности, более высокие места в предыдущих WCCI.
3.В первую очередь ориентироваться на композиторов, не привлекавшихся ранее к судейству WCCI и AF, по крайней мере, в 3-4 предыдущих циклах.
Эта работа заняла у меня несколько месяцев и 16 марта 2021 года я передал Валерию Копылу полный список судей.
The tourney director: Kopyl, Valerij (Ukraine)
Judges
A) Twomovers:
1. Brabec, Juraj (Slovakia)
2. Guida, Marco (Italy)
3. Pilchenko, Vjacheslav (Russia)
4. Shankar Ram, Narajan (India)
5. Vasylenko, Anatolii (Ukraine).
С того времени мы с Копылом на эту тему не общались, но только 4.12.2021 года после опубликования WCCI 2019-2021: Announcement я узнал о том, что я переведен в резервные судьи, а мое место занял Василий Дячук.
Единственной причиной для такой неожиданной и закулисной “перемены функций” я вижу свою недавнюю критику двухходовки В.Копыла, поставленную судьей В.Дячуком на 1 приз в 9th FIDE World Cup, которая, на мой взгляд, из-за массы нарушений художественных принципов композиции не заслуживает даже самого низкого отличия.
Надо полагать, что теперь такие задачи при судействе другого судьи будут отмечены в WCCI самыми высокими баллами, а основным принципом судейства станет принцип “друзьям – все, остальным – закон!”
Естественно, что я снимаю с себя функции резервного судьи и хочу извиниться перед Juraj, Marco, Vjacheslav, Narajan за то, что я предложил им участвовать в этой “игре”, начинающейся с непонятной для меня грязи.
Считаю их свободными от своего согласия, данного мне ранее.
Пользуясь случаем, сообщаю о завершении своей композиторской карьеры. Спасибо всем за сотрудничество. Несмотря на множество негативных факторов, проявившихся в композиции особенно в последнее время, она доставила мне немало приятных минут, как и от составления, так и от общения с коллегами по увлечению. Желаю всем здоровья и настоящих, а не вымыщленных, творческих успехов.
С уважением, Vasylenko, Anatolii (Ukraine), ММ.
| | | (2) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Dec 5, 2021 14:45] |
I don't quite agree with this kind of posts
| | | (3) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Dec 5, 2021 16:28] |
This is obviously unfortunate situation from multiple viewpoints, regardless of where the truth is.
The post gives the statement of Anatolij that is rather strong and usually it would be preferable to try to solve such issues more in private communication. But if he feels that any less public ways of resolution are exhausted or ineffective, or he would like to give some message to public, then why not?
Two readings of the post give me an impression that the facts and opinions are easily distinguishable in the text, facts can be disputed and corrected (if untrue) and opinions should be respected (even if they are not pleasant and might be changed in some circumstances).
Of course, it is sad and hopefully WCCI would not be stained, as for many people it is important competition.
| | | (4) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Sunday, Dec 5, 2021 17:37] |
Am I interpreting this claim correctly?
1) The director of the WCCI has replaced the candidate judge with another candidate who, according to the director's own expertise in #2, is more competent.
2) The director's opinion was presumably tipped by the evaluation of director's own entry in the World Cup.
3) If so, there is an obvious conflict of interests.
As a director of the two previous WCCI cycles, I have put some thought into this matter way back then.
Unless the WCCI judges are picked randomly (which is something beyond our current capabilities), there will always be conflicts of interests.
In fact, there was an almost identical unofficial claim in the WCCI 2016-2018, although it was issued after the results were published and it was lodged against the directors' expert (who helped with the judges selection), not the director personally.
@Jacques
QUOTE
I don't quite agree with this kind of posts
As an attempt to make the other judges step back and and effectively disrupt the WCCI - sure, not nice at all.
| | | (5) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Dec 5, 2021 19:20] |
There is an organization, there are people in charge of different tasks.
This is a public forum, this is not the place for this kind of complaint.
| | | (6) Posted by Anatoly Vasilenko [Sunday, Dec 5, 2021 22:55] |
Yes, there is an organization, and there are people in charge, but what to do when they don’t reply my simple question: Why was I deleted from the list of judges, and why I wasn’t informed about it? Especially after being invited to judge and being asked to suggest other four judges? After spending my time and energy on all of it?
What it means to downgrade me to a reserve judge? I could replace only Dyachuk, being from the same country, but why then I was replaced by him?
Before writing this post on Mat Plus I asked the WCCI director the same question, but I haven’t got reply yet.
From whom, then, should I expect the answer? I hope the people in charge will read this and reply. Then, perhaps, the misunderstanding will be settled and my post will not hurt anybody.
| | | (7) Posted by Anatoly Slesarenko [Monday, Dec 6, 2021 07:08] |
As far as I know Vasyl Dyachuk and Jurai Brabec are both citizens of Slovakia. If so it is against WCCI rules.
| | | (8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Dec 6, 2021 10:57] |
Anyone who claims this is not the proper forum to make public any concerns a member may have about problem chess, please provide evidence that you are a proper authority to declare what subject matters are improper in this forum.
Allegations of corruption in chess problem judging should never be discouraged in any public forum (rigid silence would only foster corruption and tyranny).
A member of the problem chess community feels compelled to abandon our beloved artform, because conscience prohibits participation in what is considered a corruption. If we are unwilling to hear that complaint, shame on us -- that attitude is more damning than the allegations made.
Personally, I never expected fairness from the WCCI (so, I never participated).
In my estimation, composers who do participate in this charade either are the beneficiaries of said unfairness, are ill informed, or are willing parties to their own theft (perhaps expecting a pyramid scheme's return on investment).
The whole thing is born of a laughable desire to declare a composing "world champion." The pretense this is remotely analogous to the process of selecting a chess world champion (or a chess problem solving world champion) makes us all the punchline of a bad joke.
In all the many, many titles conferred by FIDE (and their satellite organizations), the WCCI is definitely the least credible -- and this is the "world championship" title for our composing community??? That's not just a bad move, it's a howling blunder which makes a mockery of the artistic beauty we claim to value.
What this community really values is not beauty, but TITLES (with a false equivalence to honest chess titles).
I would urge you all to reject your composition titles, so you might be liberated to focus on composing beautiful problems.
Let your art speak for itself (across time). Have the courage to trust that a distant future is better suited to measure (and debate) your contributions (the FIDE Album judges have often proved premature in rendering a reliable verdict on whether problems are even sound -- yet, they claim they are entitled to award points, which accrue to titles, based upon this absurdly demonstrable inadequacy).
Those who encourage you to compose for your own title gratification have rendered a grotesque betrayal of your contributions. Do not allow them to reduce you to any of their nonsense titles. To participate in such a charade is to admit this governing establishment is your target audience and your boss (they have effectively commissioned you to work as they instruct, in exchange for titles).
Respectable artists should not act so pitiful as the pawn walking the established line toward self-promotion.
Chose your own path, ignore the opinions of contemporary judges, and let enthusiasts appreciate (for themselves) the uniqueness of your works.
I fully understand the impulse to quit composing entirely (in the hope that it might help establish a more fair system, by encouraging others to take your boycott seriously), but this is folly -- not because so many are content with corruption (which, sadly, seems the case), but because there is no fair system!
I don't care how much you improve the process, only a fool would trust a timely verdict on who is the "World Champion" of chess problem composition (in a given genre, for a given time period). Just admit, we can never achieve an honest verdict on such a subjective question!
This is why a number of awards have been established for artists (musicians and film-makers, for example) -- none of which pretend to confer the dubious title of "World Champion."
You needn't abandon composing entirely -- just abandon the absurd pretense that there is a valid title for chess composers.
There are only unfair (often corrupt) awards for subjective works of art.
Shutter it. Stop participating in that fraud, and compose for your own audience.
That way, you can keep your sanity (when the corruption becomes unbearable) while working toward a more honest composing goal -- where you are your own judge (hoping some enthusiasts of the future might concur), where you are liberated to commission your own art (for its own sake).
The moment you buy into the fiction of a subjective World Champion title (or subjective Grandmaster, for that matter), it will grossly inhibit your creativity and lead you down a grotesque path of self-betrayal.
We all know, the value of a composition is not determined by some panel of judges -- none of whom were ever randomly selected!
Do you honestly believe you "RANDOMLY" selected the judges you recommended? I don't buy that for a second. You're a victim of your own bias.
You selected members of the accepted clique, in accordance with the unwritten rules of the title pyramid scheme.
I respectfully submit, any such panel of judges can not help but to award themselves (and only themselves)!
Let me explain why...
I was once offered a national master composing title -- want to know why?
Because the same people offered me the position of a problem editor for their national magazine, and they wanted to provide themselves more credibility in their decision (to offer me the position).
It was never about me -- I was never the true recipient! -- they were awarding themselves for their decision to make me editor.
It was never a fair process -- some better composers were overlooked entirely.
In so doing, they not only distorted my ability to correctly judge my own works, they also fomented hostility between me and more deserving composers (about the worst thing they could do to a relatively new composer).
At first, I was duped into thinking my colleagues highly valued my contributions.
It took me a few months to realize the process was such a sham, I had to reject a title I actually wanted.
I provided some demands, to make the process fair, at which point I was prepared to allow myself to earn that title.
I was kidding myself -- the process was never going to be fair. My demands were actually another layer of pretense (I was struggling to maintain the illusion that subjective titles could be made real, for my own greedy need to "earn" myself some level of acceptance).
I was kidding myself that they might care to provide me a fair process (whereby I might earn a title of real value) -- when, in truth, they had nothing of the sort to offer. Problem judges are incapable of offering an award to anyone other than themselves. That's the established culture, and it is inherently resilient to even the slightest deviation. Even when you select judges, you are actively benefiting yourself.
You can never allow contemporary problem composers to award themselves, if you want to maintain the illusion that the process can be fair.
Trying to make fair this inherently unfair process is like falling prey to your own blunder (you want to believe what you have earned, or might earn in the future, is real; but, you're ignoring that there never existed any real process which could be fair).
The best your colleagues can do is to provide you their insight. They have no legitimate authority to declare a World Champion (nor even a national master). It falls to you to try and honestly value your own contributions (let your best guess be your guide).
Today, I don't ever want that title, nor any other. I was a damn fool to want it in the first place.
What I should have wanted -- the only things I should have wanted! -- was to make the best problems I could, to learn and improve along the way, and to remain true to my own vision of beauty.
If you can do that, you can declare victory without departing the field.
With any luck, it's your good problems which remain long after the titles have been forgotten.
| | | (9) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Dec 6, 2021 18:52] |
Award for the longest post goes to ..
...
Kevin Begley !!!
No judges needed! No disputes !!
Of course no proof of composing or publishing needed !!
| | | (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Dec 6, 2021 23:08] |
I hereby submit my entry for World Champion Chess Problem Rant of 2021.
There's a title we can trust can be objectively measured (if you can find random judges willing to tally the adjectives).
| | | (11) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Tuesday, Dec 7, 2021 15:03] |
I feel very uncomfortable reading Anatoly Vasylenko's post. Any appointed judge will think: "What if this happened to me?"
From my perspective, Anatoly had quite a mild reaction against a seemingly abusive measure and I support his initiative to escalate the issue.
I can only hope that the dispute will be eventually settled amicably.
Is there any suitable way to minimize the potential conflict of interest?
We can consider preventing a judge to mark the entries submitted by the composers from his(her) own country.
A similar restriction was imposed in WCCT. Is it worth imposing the same restriction in WCCI?
There are some particular cases which need special consideration (i.e what if the judge has a double citizenship), but an agreement can be found.
However, such a proposal should be considered only for the next cycle(s) of the WCCI.
| | | (12) Posted by Anatoly Vasilenko [Tuesday, Dec 7, 2021 23:55] |
I also need to inform you that for the last six months I haven’t judged any competitions, which could give V. Kopyl a reason to suddenly doubt in my qualifications as a judge. My total experience in judging international competitions of all genres (except for studies), as well as championships of many countries, is about 40 years long.
Unlike many invited judges, including V. Dyachuk, I haven’t judged either AF or WCCI, because in previous years, due to intensive professional obligations, I repeatedly refused such offers. And only now, when I was offered such an opportunity, I got deprived from it without explanation.
Therefore, I ask Valery to name the true reason for replacing me with another judge without informing me about it.
I regard Valery's silence as agreement with my version of the reason for his action.
| | | (13) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Dec 8, 2021 20:31] |
My full support for Anatoly. This is a shame for our organization.
At the same time I can confirm that Dacuk is Slovakian citizen (for example he competed for their solving team at 40th WCSC in 2016). Even if you have a dual citizenship it does not mean you can switch the country every year. In all other sports you can do this only once.
Finally in all eight sections there is a judge from Ukraine. And I heard that in Ukraine they do win huge money prizes (not only composers but their coaches too). In my opinion this is a huge conflict of interest and something should be done about this. The whole WCCI competition is corrupted.
Honestly, in my opinion if this is true that Anatoly is replaced without knowledge then the director of the WCCI should be replaced and some other composer should be appointed.
| | | (14) Posted by Anatoly Vasilenko [Saturday, Dec 11, 2021 19:43] |
Thanks, Miodrag.
However, I don’t see anybody being ashamed. The management is still silent, while Kopyl already publishes received WCCI entries on his personal website. It seems the center of chess composition has been moved to Poltava and we will have to adjust to different rules of morality :)
| | | (15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Dec 13, 2021 13:01] |
A judge published some of the entries on a personal website?
WOW! That is a level of corruption I had not dreamed possible.
Even if it is argued this pre-publication came after all judging was finalized, unless it came after all results were published, it should still nullify the entire process (nobody can trust that the verdict was not contaminated by this lapse, unless it came after the entire verdict was announced).
Such an act of pre-publication, alone, is sufficient to declare the contest grossly unjust -- akin to a juror disclosing evidence outside the courtroom, thereby inviting prejudicial commentary from potentially biased individuals (this establishes clear grounds to declare a mistrial).
While I maintain due process will always be elusive (in rare instances would I expect a just verdict for a "world champion composer" within three decades), a complete miscarriage of justice can easily be proven in a few minutes.
When confronted by such an ethical lapse, I encourage all involved to consider the larger question: why is this contest worthy of salvation?
If you believe it is, the answer should, if nothing else, clarify what it is you intend to salvage (note: preserving tradition is never a valid answer).
How does this contest benefit new composers? Might it undermine our capacity to instill a proper valuation for the beauty this artform can achieve? Does this title (world champion) reflect an honest representation of our values?
There are profound questions to be asked, each of which reflect substantially upon the problem community.
We should work toward some unified vision for how we want to be perceived -- especially by outsiders (instead of constantly skewing in favor of the same insider establishment, which always profits by curtailing such discussions).
How do you intend to challenge your legitimately established authority, should it prove corrupt?
Hell, we can't even all agree that legitimate complaints must be issued publicly!
Where are the checks and balances? Where is the transparency?
Why are we needlessly creating points of political contention, when we can't even establish that this specific title has value?
Even people who love the art of chess problem composition tire of the politics -- imagine how new enthusiasts feel!
Are we subconsciously driving away our title competition? If so, we should recognize how this undermines our artform.
And even with these deep philosophical questions left unanswered, we can't even run a fair contest?
How is a judge dismissed without reason? How is there no authority to whom the public may petition?
How can we allow a juror to leak evidence before the verdict is published?
How can we expect due process, or honest representation, if so many prefer to keep the entire community uninformed about allegations of corruption? Can we trust a dictatorship by the elites to declare our World Champion?
Problems used to speak for themselves.
A composer's work used to speak for itself.
Why did we abandon that tradition?
Why did we introduce all these individual titles? Is there any benefit for our artform to support all this labor, all this potential for corruption (both nationally and interpersonally), and all these political conflicts (discounting the individualistic ego boost that is presently distributed by a pyramid scheme)?
Why do established composers want to use these title contests to steer the direction of all other problem composers (especially new enthusiasts)? Does that not constitute a conflict of interest? Does that not inherently deprive others of creativity?
I find it all completely destructive to the artform. The politics (read: the automatic intolerance which forms against every worthy challenge) is revolting. What great value am I overlooking?
Many of the most talented composers quit immediately following attainment of a desired title, which begs the question: what are we composing for (to create beautiful works of art for the world, or to achieve impressive titles for ourselves)?
And here's the kicker: we all know, nothing will ever change in problem chess.
I sincerely distrust there is value in asking these important questions (it's always dismissed as a meaningless rant).
So, I return to what I said previously: we'd be damn fools to participate in this nightmare of injustice.
My only hope is that future generations of composers might consider how they would benefit by rejecting all your titles, entirely.
And if they do wise up, you all should consider carefully how that impacts you.
Who is going to argue your case (that, in the context of the title contests of the day, your work merits special consideration)?
I humbly submit that NOBODY will argue that case for you.
So, you might as well plan accordingly.
Let your problems speak for themselves, and trust that future generations will appreciate good work. New enthusiasts look to you for guidance. They benefit greatly from your appreciation of good works, but they gain nothing from learning who you declared world champion (in fact, that information only warps their perspective and devalues their contributions). I hate to break it to you, but the problems composed by your declared world champions are almost never the best problems from that period (very rarely can they even be called contenders with a straight face).
Teaching newcomers to value individual titles is not mentoring -- you are only goose-stepping the future into a gauntlet of injustices, and a mine field of political frustrations (needlessly losing good soldiers by refusing to lay down your polished medals). One day, this battle for individual distinction might cost us all the war (that would be a real tragedy, extending well beyond us all).
Maybe we should value leadership which preserves our artform (by celebrating the artwork, rather than glorifying the artist).
Let's be honest: individuals who enjoy prestigious titles will not be remembered for their memorable title achievements, but for their memorable works; that doesn't change. In fact, by distilling a lifetime of work to a single title, we have only managed to deprive outsiders from appreciating a composer's most valuable contributions (making us a party to our own theft).
Which would you rather mourners see engraved upon in your headstone: the titles you earned, or one of your best problems?
You have to appreciate that titles mean virtually nothing to outsiders; to them, national expert sounds as good as the runner up to the world champion (ironically, they might well be in the ballpark, due to our sustained inability to render trustworthy title judgements).
When you leave behind a problem, you have a better chance of passing on your love for the artform, and that benefits us all (that's the only way anyone can truly begin to appreciate your valuable legacy, and we should encourage that process above all else).
That's my two cents.
My sincere apologies that I could not express these sentiments more eloquently.
I hope others will improve upon my efforts to offer an escape from the many corruptions which plague our artform.
| | | (16) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Monday, Dec 13, 2021 15:12] |
Bravo Kevin! I cannot agree more. Especially about "titles".
This case is just one small incident in long history of "friendly" decisions behind a curtain.
Sometimes its just money, but points and rewords to get title points are more present goods on this black market.
It happens regularly on club or national level, but I new there was always similar business between comrades worldwide.
| | | (17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Dec 13, 2021 16:22] |
Thank you, Darko.
You make a good point about money (indeed, that is a corrupting influence).
I don't wish to deprive anyone of earnings or livelihood.
I think it's wonderful that some countries value such artistic contributions, to the point they would bestow financial incentives (though I trust nobody has earned anywhere near what they deserve), but I'm also thankful that my country offers no financial incentive (because that might have lured me into the miserable situation of defending a failed status quo).
In my estimation, countries that reward composers financially should establish their own compensation process (and measure based not upon international titles, because that introduces significant corruption into an already unreliable title process).
I don't know how we can go about petitioning for some change there, considering none of us want to see this negatively impact any fellow composer. Somebody much smarter (and more familiar with these financial processes) needs to resolve the matter (perhaps on a country-by-country basis).
These titles do not benefit the artform. The workload generated does benefits nobody. The corruption produced (and the political strife) is extremely corrosive.
Worst of all, titles help nobody appreciate your valued contributions, and they (along with the cloud of corruption surrounding them) likely significantly discourage enthusiasts (especially new, but even distinguished composers are driven out).
Everybody knows we need some remedy, yet nobody has any plan to escape this nightmare.
Why should I compete with a composer in a country which provides them a financial incentive?
I don't wish to deprive somebody of a financial opportunity. If it's my ego versus your vacation, I'll gladly abstain.
I have learned that following the ego is a false path, anyway. I do not believe any of the nominal titles have merit, so why should I compete?
Now, I'm just one composer. I'm hardly prolific. I don't value an audience of FIDE Album judges. I'm just trying to make better problems.
What happens to the value of these nominal titles when all like-minded composers choose to abstain (leaving the field open only to composers in countries which do provide a financial incentive)?
Who then would dare argue these titles retain any of their intended (nominal) value?
It has become a perversion of the artform, and somebody needs to find us a way out (without depriving our friends of their financial earnings).
I, for one, will refuse to participate. In exchange, I'm going to keep on reminding people this has become a grotesque charade.
You can compete for the money, or you can compete for the prestige, but we can't all compete for both, which leaves us with neither.
If my countrymen were competing for needed financial benefits, and your countrymen are only competing for ego, obviously I am saddled with a perverse incentive to resort to corruption. Your countrymen can take an ego haircut, my people have greater needs.
Worse, I'm made dependent upon the failed status quo. I can not tolerate any change.
That's why people can't even admit our problem classification system is pure crap.
Because our friends are reliant on that failed system, sorry, we can never fix it.
The artform we all love is harmed by this.
What are we going to do about it?
You can't even be honest with one another about the problem -- it only takes about a decade in composing to puzzle out why some of the smartest people I've ever met would refuse to classify chess problems at the capacity of a fourth grader (because nobody will say it out loud).
And look how many of us don't even care that our corruption is driving away fellow composers!
It's absolutely shameful. I understand how it might seem cause for celebration, but it's sickening to do this.
We need to fix this busted system, and we can't do that when people don't want anyone talking about it in the open.
What are they going to do if we talk about anyway? Are they going to short-change us on our title pursuits? Ha!
Better question: what are they going to do when we all (finally) walk away from these title pursuits?
Maybe we all need to start listening to one another. Start telling the truth here.
I'm tired fighting battles with people who can't even admit their motivations are financial.
People will misrepresent this artform, and pretend their interest is to preserve some valued tradition.
The tradition they are preserving is corruption.
They have no incentive to fix anything -- that only brings competition.
This is a financial fight for them (or for their friends).
It's an exhausting fraud perpetrated over and over and over again.
So, I'm waiting for the people getting paid to explain how we all get out of this miserable situation.
| | | (18) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Dec 13, 2021 16:25] |
It is unbelievable, how long post can be created out of mere misunderstanding the situation. It is normal that WCCI entries are published as soon as they are received by director. This is secondary competition, not primary and not anonymous. See e.g. table of entries published on the fly on the WFCC site for the previous WCCI (https://www.wfcc.ch/competitions/composing/wcci-2016-18-entries/). It would be just good if this was not on the directors website (http://chess-kopyl.com.ua/ua/), but on the official site. But, the official webmaster of the WFCC (Julia Vysotska) has announced that she is very busy, so this might be only a temporary measure agreed between them.
I must admit that I find Kevin's long posts mostly annoying already for a long time.
| | | (19) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Dec 13, 2021 17:02] |
There is a point about the management of this forum that I cannot really understand.
Serious personnal accusations are written above
Is that forum a court ?
Is there a moderator here ?
Is there a pilot in the plane ?
Such words should be banned.
Such posts should be banned.
And if some authors of posts want only to write that kind of things, they should be banned as well.
| | | (20) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Dec 13, 2021 17:02] |
Kevin Begley's long rant merely proves that he had zero knowledge about WCCI.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions WCCI 2019-21: About a “change of functions” in judging twomovers |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
