MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

2:27 UTC
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Oct-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Fairy section of FIDE Album 2001-2003
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Aug 23, 2007 10:49]

Fairy section of FIDE Album 2001-2003


Some of board members have probably noticed that the results of fairy section were removed from PCCC official site. While I was suspecting it was beacuse of the late uncovering of cooks, the page I have discovered recently offers alternative explanation - and not really nice one. The page of Ural Problemist

http://www.selivanov.ru/newss/?act=show_news&id=88

gives strong statements implying that there were background actions forcing removal of results due to the other reasons. While the documents given there (a letter by Uri Avner to fairy judges, letter from Theodor Tauber to Hannu Harkola) might be genuine or fake (on Internet almost everything is possible), the resulting questions are surely not only internal PCCC issue, as was suggested at board page with removed posts

http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1187857322&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=206

Shortly speaking for non-Russian readers, according to Ural Problemist Uri Avner has sent the letter to fairy judges stating that Theodor Tauber does not cooperate and asked a few pressing question - see document in English

http://www.selivanov.ru/download/Articles/Urifairy.doc

However accoding to the other document, director Theodor Tauber has written to Hannu Harkola that everything is ok and he has done his work properly – see document in English

http://www.selivanov.ru/download/Articles/Tauber.doc

As I say, documents might be genuine or fake. This can be only revealed by reactions of involved parties. But in no case the matter is internal PCCC issue any longer. It is important to find the truth and remove any doubts that might lead to bad consequences. The point 5. in the second document states that very clearly:

"5. I want to emphasis that the try to cancel the official results of the section, endanger the awarding of FIDE titles and the publication of the Album in time, as well as the will of other people to take part as judges and directors in the future Albums."

Transparency in resolving this issue is important from now.
 
(Read Only)pid=1270
(2) Posted by Frank Richter [Thursday, Aug 23, 2007 13:24]

It seems that the chess problemists now have their own toilet scandal.
But it surely cannot be used for more publicity ...
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1271
(3) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Aug 23, 2007 14:54]

None of the involved persons has denied any of the emails, so they seem to be genuine. Upon removal of the results from the PCCC site and after his first email to Harkola, Tauber sent one more email to the PCCC delegates, in which he explains (or presents his own and two of the three judges' view, if you prefer) what happened and how we reached to this mess. I do not want to quote this email here, after all the issue will be discussed extensively during the Rhodes WCCC and a decision will be (hopefully) taken.

Since there is a lot of tension at the moment around this issue and I am a delegate, I do not wish to express my opinion here. I would only like to commend that the PCCC presidium should present a statement now and not after the Rhodes congress. Simply removing the results from the site without providing any explanation makes, at least to my own eyes, a quite unpleasant impression.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1272
(4) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Aug 27, 2007 08:50]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [07-08-27]

Follow-up to my previous post : there is now an official declaration issued by the Album sub-committee and addressed to the PCCC delegates via email.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1283
(5) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Aug 27, 2007 14:46]

I think it would be nice if this letter is published at PCCC site. Since there were fairy results published for a day and then removed it looks like some explanation should be given for everyone (not only for PCCC delegates). Are the other results (#2, #3, S#, H#) OK or not? Are we sure that they are not going to dissapear like fairy section? Yes, I know that they are listed as a preliminary results but usually they are the final results (previous albums). Based on the letter by director of fairy section (there is a link somewhere above) it looks like results are OK. It will be good to see some explanation why the results are removed.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1288
(6) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Nov 12, 2007 02:15]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [07-11-12]

I don't know if this fits here (if not, please move it @MV). Yesterday instructions were published on PCCC website about duties of judges and directors.

http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/fainstr.htm

Also, the fairy section results were published again on October, 20th.

http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/fa0103g.htm
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1704
(7) Posted by Hans Gruber [Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 21:21]

Hi Misha,

there is some tension between two goals:

(a) maximal carefulness in editing the FIDE Album and calculating the title points

(b) speed-up of the procedures for award points and titles

Item (a) would require that calculations are only made after the Album is printed, because even late in the production process (during which it is wise not to interrupt Denis and Bernd) changes may happen. All other information is preliminary in nature, and errors are much more probable than later in the procedure.

Item (b) consequences (like putting the directors' lists on the PCCC homepage) were introduced as preliminary procedures, but are managed with maximum carefulness (I hardly know anybody who is more careful than Hannu is). The directors are carefully working people as well, but they are in the some tension between "providing results quickly" and "re-check the work 10 times after finalising it", and both procedures may sometimes lead to (slightly different) results. (You know that EACH text ALWAYS contains some mistakes, even if you proof-read 200 times. It is a matter of endurance how often you check the text ...)

My preference always had been (a), because it mainly addresses FIDE Album "book issues", and I consider "title issues" as secondary. But without any hesitation I agreed (as Director in different sections) to fulfill the (b) requirements, because I acknowledge the authors' wish to know about new titles as early as possible.

---> Just a good reminder: Many congratulations for achieving the IGM title to you and Marjan. (Now I know officially that I was right admiring your and Marjan's compositions for a long period of time.)

hg hg
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1709
(8) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Nov 14, 2007 21:46]

Hi Hans,

Yes, I do understand that process is not error free. There are thousands of entries and it's not easy to process them. Everyone does make an error. Actually I just realized that I did make an error myself. It looks like I accidently sent same problem for two different albums. Of course that I did not do that intentionally and luckily Juraj caught an error. However I just think that it's a good practice when error occurs to put some brief explanation. I would recommend whenever something like that happens just to put once sentence with explanation when post is updated. Otherwise problemists are confused and not sure what's going on.

Thanks for congrats.

Misha.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1710
(9) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Nov 15, 2007 11:36]

My two funny cents:

It has turned out I have made the same kind of mistake. The same composition sent into two Albums. The reason is now clear for me: it was participating and indeed awarded in the formal tourney. Closing date in 1997, publication of result in 1998. As for a long time we in Slovakia used to use only closing date as important, that is why it was to 1997. Then I finally decided to follow award publication dates and it got sent again. My mistake.

Do you dare to guess the outcome? It is "in" for 1995-1997 period, it is not in for 1998-2000.

Not bad result in 1998-2000 period as it has at least made it into Album Annex for those years with 7 points. Anyway, besides the different judges there might be another important factor: the development of fairies - that is quite rapid recently.

And by chance, again it is me who has caught the error - just yesterday when I have started work over Annexe comments. This time, however, the letter of explanation to the author is not necessary for obvious reasons :-) Just I will inform Annexe publishers...
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1711

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General Fairy section of FIDE Album 2001-2003