MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

2:28 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  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-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Backdated Compositions
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(21) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 07:56]

The wording is not good.
The idea is not good.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12225
(22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 08:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-21]

The word is diction. "I was reading the dictionary. I thought it was a poem about everything." --Steven Wright.
The depository is unassailable. "A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on." --John F. Kennedy.
Your opinion is unsupportable. "You're in pretty good shape for the shape you are in." --Dr. Seuss.
The bad idea is backdating compositions. "Nothing dies harder than a bad idea." --Julia Cameron.

I offered a proven solution, and to absolutely nobody's surprise, in perfect unison, the proverbial peanut-gallery (which managed to think of nothing!) declared the remedy both excessively grand, and simultaneously not good. "You never see what you want to see, forever playing to the gallery." --Robertson Davies.
Backdating became an insignificant problem -- a proverbial nut, which encompassed all the ills of the world. "The only way to support a revolution is to make your own." --Abbie Hoffman.

Conclusion: Got a brand new deja vu, an antonym to me is now synonymous with you.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12226
(23) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 12:32]; edited by Hauke Reddmann [14-05-21]

Possibly, to get a repository (no doubt that this is work, work, work)
we need some idealist with unfazable determination...just like the
late Milan who brought us MPF single-handed. (I think a repository
needs about the same amount of programming.)
Now, ArXiv stems from the high energy physicists, where it wasn't
unusual that 100+ authors collaborated on a single paper, and so
it wasn't surprising it germinated there. A sledgehammer to crack the
nut "priority squabbles"? Surely. Still, this would be a sledgehammer
I'd love to have in my tool shed :-)
(Dudes, if I'd be 30 years younger and studying IT, not chemistry,
I would volunteer...)

Hauke

(minor EDIT for spell)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12228
(24) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, May 21, 2014 15:04]; edited by Neal Turner [14-05-21]

@Kevin

It's not something I've given much attention to, but as you bring it up I think the idea of a seperate Fairy Codex would be a good idea!

The current Codex was conceived at a time when 99% of problems were made with the orthodox rules and so naturally the emphasis is on the orthodox.
Comparing the orthodox environment with the fairy environment we see that the former is quite static with the rules changing very slowly if at all.
This means that the conventions which have evolved over time remain valid.

It's a different picture with Fairy Chess - here we have a dynamic, ever-changing environment with new elements being thrown into the mix on what seems to be a daily basis.
It's no wonder that the Codex can't keep its sights on such a moving target!
So I say let the Fairy enthusiasts have their own Codex - but they should be careful what they wish for.
Whatever comes out of it, it'll certainly be an entertaining spectacle watching them fight over this bone!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12230
(25) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 22, 2014 02:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-22]

By the way, WFCC already has most of the guts needed for an online depository, and it can be used to send entries to the FIDE Album.
So, any suggestion that the delegates are doing nothing (particularly with regard to move forward on this depository possibility), was far too hasty on my part.
I will say this: I think everyone would feel much better if they laid out future plans.

I'd be happy just to learn that there is a plan for a Fairy Codex.
I'd be happy just knowing that the delegates recognize the need to examine the foundations of the classification system.


@Neal,

>"...as you bring it up I think the idea of a seperate Fairy Codex would be a good idea!"

I can't tell you how many years I have been ranting about a Fairy Codex... it's rather startling to discover that somebody was unaware of this!
For the past year, I have been fairly quiet on the matter -- presuming I had reached an over-saturation.

I don't want to get back on my old soapbox too much, so I'll just commend you on making a good case (though, I probably made the same points, 100x before).

>"It's a different picture with Fairy Chess - here we have a dynamic, ever-changing environment with new elements being thrown into the mix on what seems to be a daily basis. It's no wonder that the Codex can't keep its sights on such a moving target!"

Yes, but the Codex has undergone several changes (sometimes right in step with changes to the FIDE rule book).

>"So I say let the Fairy enthusiasts have their own Codex - but they should be careful what they wish for."
>"Whatever comes out of it, it'll certainly be an entertaining spectacle watching them fight over this bone!"

Yes, no doubt about it, there will be disputes -- largely (if not entirely!) about naming conventions (which generally implies a greater likelihood for computer support).
If some set of rules (for a given fairy element) are not accepted, interested parties can easily spin-off a new name for the element (or reclassify it, as necessary).

For this reason, it is best to start from the foundation -- areas where everyone can find agreement.
And, to do this, it is important to define many fundamental terms underlying the orthodox game (e.g., what elements are involved in each step of a castling move?).

This is not an exercise that orthodox composers want to cede entirely to fairy enthusiasts -- it will almost assuredly have implications for the "FIDE Chess" condition (which is only a grouped set of fairy elements -- albeit, the most commonly referenced set -- and even if slow, these elements are still evolving).
Talk about a moving target -- that is exactly what Orthodox is, and the vast majority of Fairy problems have been tied to this moving target.

The deep, dark secret is: WFCC has no authority over the Codex -- it's based upon the FIDE rules (read: in the hands of chess players) -- and it has been slow to recognize that problemists must assert some authority in managing of these changing rules.
This can be done the hard way (by some agreement with FIDE), or it can be done the easy way (we establish a primary rule book, from which all updates -- and all prior rule books -- can be instantiated as fairy conditions).

This might fundamentally alter the classification of all problems (including orthodox!).
But, the deeper and darker secret is: this has already been happening (virtually undetected by the Ortho-Squad, who refuse to notice the implications)!
The evolution of orthodox rules has already had some impact on older orthodox problems (which have become wrongly classified, retroactively).

In this forum, I showed the impact that Dead Reckoning has had on orthodox problems, and I asked for some accounting.
I made inquiries as to the definition of Orthodox (is it the latest FIDE rules, or the set of all rule books, or a larger set of rules, or something else)?

The response: crickets. And jeers, "who needs a definition of Orthodox / Fairies?"
These are words WFCC uses in the Codex, words WFCC uses in the Albums, words WFCC uses to categorize problems into sub-Albums!
It is not that they see no reason for a definition of such a meaningful word, their refusal to admit to an honest meaning is entirely motivated by a corrupting need to delay the consequences (which naturally follow from any honest meaning, for these terms).

You can not build a Fairy Codex, without fundamentally altering the nature of the Orthodox/Fairy relationship.
You will require that WFCC sanction your definition, and that definition will have consequences on the poorly categorized sub-Albums.
Changing to a proper categorization will affect traditions, journal editing, solving and composing contests, sub-Album Points, Composing TITLES!!
Even the type of titles given to FIDE Judges (e.g., Studies, #2, #3, s#, h#, Fairy, Retro, etc) would be impacted.
Suddenly, the extra-points earned for studies might come into question.
Nothing is certain, except that the fundamental mistakes will continue to snowball, until either WFCC (no longer able to delay the inevitable reckoning) takes responsibility, or a significant number of fairy enthusiasts defect -- the latter will be necessary, if only to likely hasten the former.

That is why there is no Fairy Codex.
That is why there are no plans to create one.
That is why WFCC refuses to allow the fairy enthusiasts to create such a Codex -- no matter what damage it inflicts upon the integrity of problem chess!

An honest Fairy Codex is the Global Warming issue of the Problem Chess Community -- except the deliberate denial is much, much worse (and the risk is much, much less).
And yes, it is entirely due to the corruption of good-natured individuals... our delegates, our associates, our friends!

A mob of good people all looked away, in broad daylight, at what damage their own fundamental failures have done.
You can't pretend that we have not squandered the potential benefits of a logical, elegant introduction to fairy chess.
You can't dream that these failures don't have an impact upon the future of all problem chess, because Fairies are the future -- and good people are recklessly impeding it!

There is no such thing as good/bad people, Neal -- only good/bad actions.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke.
Here, many would even conspire to silence the truth.
No Fairy Codex = a triumph of evil.

What good person could want to claim (or confer) titles proclaiming mastery in Orthodox/Fairy Chess Composition, when they are not allowed to define these terms?
Without these terms, it is not even possible to write an honest first chapter of a beginner's book (the very audience that concerns WFCC's future).

Too many on the WFCC board are beholden to tradition, and titles (including their "Delegate" title).
For people of higher character, who care about this art form, and are primarily devoted to its integrity, the easiest revolution is to begin anew.
I have taken a more difficult path -- trying to convince members of this forum that it is in our best interest (and WFCC's best interest!) to establish a plan for reform of a corrupt system; so far, that has led only to dead ends.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12240
(26) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, May 22, 2014 09:00]; edited by Neal Turner [14-05-22]

Maybe this has been done - I don't know.
But what if the advocates of the Fairy Codex produced something - a draft, an outline, a road-map - in other words something tangible that could actually be considered, instead of just some abstract notion of 'Fairy Codex' floating around in the ether on gossamer wings.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12244
(27) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, May 22, 2014 09:52]

 QUOTE 
By the way, WFCC already has most of the guts needed for an online depository, and it can be used to send entries to the FIDE Album. So, any suggestion that the delegates are doing nothing (particularly with regard to move forward on this depository possibility), was far too hasty on my part. I will say this: I think everyone would feel much better if they laid out future plans.

Some years ago WFCC tried to implement an online submission system to the album. We issued an invitation asking for comments and help in bug testing. The ankona project leader got active feedback from two problemists only. Nevertheless even if the server was not fully ready to support the whole process of submission, filtering, judging, etc. we mentioned in the 2010-12 album announcement that participants in the h#2 section could submit their entries online instead of sending an email to the director. Only two composers chose the alternative of the online submission. The numbers are simply disappointing.

During the discussion in this forum about the limit of submitted entries to the album, the idea of establishing a universal database was proposed by a member. WFCC contacted the individuals in charge of currently maintaining the two most important databases. Both replied that they cannot help due to personal reasons.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12245
(28) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, May 22, 2014 14:27]

Once upon a time I had some opinion, then after being a delegate in 2008 I've learned something and improved my opinion. After being a delegate in 2011, I've learned more and improved my opinion again.

The main thing I learned is that a hypothetically ideal world differs from the reality. Especially, what I personally consider as ideal, simply does not look ideal (or even good) to the others.

A delegate represents all prolemists of his country (not only me or Kevin) and WFCC represents all members (not only one).
The supreme mission of WFCC is achieving a compromise which will unite all problemists of the world.
This mission has been so far very successfully carried out and the apparent conservatism is probably the only safe tool for that.

Many possible novelties were rejected by the delegates because the supreme mission of WFCC would not be convincingly maintained.
Making a decision requires a serious responsibility which is not required for uttering some proposal.

Any individual may have a "personal ideal concept" which might be accepted or NOT ACCEPTED by the others.
A personal concept could be imposed to the others by various types of force (including a deceptive argumentation through politics and media).
Spitting and offending, speaking generally about conspiracy, corruption etc., reveals pathetically that an individual himself is not convinced by his own argumentation.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12247
(29) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 22, 2014 20:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-22]

@Nikola,

This is Oscar Goldman speaking.

Here is what I have gathered from your far out story...
All engines Go! ...WFCC Delegate badge arrives, we learn the secret handshake... Rodger that!
Rocket Arm switch on! ...Our opinions immediately undergo an alien process of rapid, successive improvements... Here comes the throttle!
We have Separation! ...From Reality Base, we gaze with condescension upon an idealistic, hypothetical world below... Comin' a-port with the sideslip!
Blow-out - damper three! ...We begin to compromise upon establishing any meaning for our own terms (e.g., "Orthodox")... Pitch is out!
Can't hold altitude. She's breaking up. She's breaking up!

WFCC: "Gentlemen, we can rebuild this new Delegate. We have the technology. Better Opinions. Stronger. Faster."

I don't know if you're familiar with my references to the six-million-dollar-man mythology, but I'll tell you the problem with it...
The people in charge, with the capability to build the world's first Bionic Man, never investigated the cause of their own crash -- WHY?

>"The main thing I learned is that a hypothetically ideal world differs from the reality."
>"Especially, what I personally consider as ideal, simply does not look ideal (or even good) to the others."

Sorry, no -- there is no value in claiming that you achieved "better" opinions, after becoming a WFCC Delegate.
That's a fine campaign slogan you have there: Elect me your representative, so I can have better opinions than you have.
Then, re-elect me, because my opinions are loftier!
What it says to voters: Must possess Delegate title.

Next time, simply narrate the journey to your new understanding, and let readers decide.
Your story is far out, Reality Base, but without the intermediate steps to get there, I'm afraid the life lesson reduces to an excuse (for WFCC's crash).

>"The supreme mission of WFCC is achieving a compromise which will unite all problemists of the world."

Exactly where did you obtain this charter? Who told you this -- did it arrive in a secret folder?
Your new (invented?) "supreme" mission statement is not found in any WFCC documentation, and it would imply that Delegates may freely compromise on the meaning of WFCC terms ("Orthodox", "Fairies", etc).
The mission statement is not something you can conjure, to facilitate a self-reinforcing delusion of perfect, conservative success.

WFCC website: "The goal of the WFCC’s existence and work is the dissemination and encouragement of chess composition throughout the world."
"The principal activities of the WFCC are derived from its goal; they include:
* the formulation of rules and guidelines in all domains of chess composition,
* the initiation of the publication of collections of chess compositions of general interest..."
The remaining activities I haven't space to address here (though more could be said, and everyone should read the charter).

So, anyone decrying the idea of an online repository, note these statements carefully (dissemination IS our WFCC charter, and publication IS one of our principal activities)!

Another principal activity is formulation of rules and guidelines -- and what do these require? DEFINITIONS! YES, that's it, Johnny!!

Allow me to impart some of my life lessons, concerning the charter of any reputable organization.
The first step (before you elect, long before any cigar compromise) -- the fundamental step -- is to DEFINE the nature of its affiliation.

Suppose you found an organization devoted to people interested in mathematics problems (read: you define that enthusiasm for math problem enthusiasm will constitute the nature of member affiliation)...
The next logical step (of fundamental importance) is to define what your organization will recognize as a mathematics problem (so, Delegates, what constitutes a chess problem?).
If your organization intends to recognize any subset classification spanning the constituents of all math problems, then it has a clear necessity to provide an unambiguous definition for these distinctions. This comes before the brandy is poured.

What is WFCC? The successor of PCCC??? Pardon me, but what in Bleep Circe is that?
No -- that's not an answer, and it's the wrong question -- the right question is: what is the nature of WFCC's affiliations (primarily to its individual members, but also to any parent/child organization, any committee, etc)?

Is WFCC a group of "FIDE Chess" enthusiasts, who happen to share an enthusiasm for problems?
Is WFCC a group of problem enthusiasts, spanning a larger set of "Chess" possibilities?
That's not a paper I can submit, Nikola, for a WFCC vote -- these are matters which require the consideration of the organization (which may want to consult the larger problem community).
I do not serve as representative for the larger community -- so, why would you continually ask me to submit a proposal on their behalf?

Every Delegate should know that WFCC's primary dedication should be to the integral foundations of our affiliation.
In my view, that is to the integrity of the problem art form; others may sense a primary dedication to the "FIDE Chess" condition.
What I am not suggesting is that anyone need break bonds of fellowship, over the nature of our affiliation.
I am simply informing you that WFCC has an obligation to define the fundamental nature of our affiliation -- just as any organization would be obliged to do.

Until WFCC establishes a clear nature of affiliation, you (the Delegate) are rendered incapable of any valid compromise (absent any means to prevent from compromising upon the nature of another's affiliation)!

Fairy enthusiasts have every right to insist that WFCC renegotiate the nature of our affiliation (based upon the fact that they have never established any).
Further, we have a right to know how WFCC defines our primary affiliation -- on this point, there can be no compromise.
Any denial of equal participation constitutes a form of taxation, while failures to formally extend affiliation constitutes an absence of representation.
What Delegates loosely call "compromise," fairy enthusiasts may rightly view as the exercise of arbitrary authority, without proper consideration for all members in affiliation with WFCC.
We have every right to expect a plan for Fairy Codex, and despite the fact that this falls under WFCC's responsibility, its board has long proven an impediment to any progress.
We require not a justification for the present classification scheme, but an honest reconsideration of the entire matter -- as we are entitled -- from a fundamental perspective, based upon logical definition; in the likelihood that it should prove necessary, dependable resolutions should be drafted, to commit to a managed transition (to an honest, logical, unambiguous categorization scheme, which values all forms of participation).

What we need is honesty -- not more talk about achievements of improved opinion (of unworldly loft), concerning the fantasy of an idealistic reality.
Not excuses -- action!!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12248
(30) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, May 22, 2014 20:32]

What I'm sure about, is that 40 delegates like Kevin would soon separate WFCC in 40 organizations. Well, these 40 delegates would never constitute any organization in the first place.
But I certainly don't expect that you would understand it, Kevin.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12249
(31) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 22, 2014 21:27]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-22]

No, Nikola.

Yet another volley of weary excuses -- except, shamefully, this time, it is made at the expense of my good character.
So be it... these petty, personal remarks are hardly sufficient to provoke me onto similarly low ground.

I very clearly stated, in my prior remarks, that WFCC charter is absent a binding affiliation, for all members -- and the formal establishment of this would preserve fellowship (not divide members), and encourage full participation.
This blatant, arbitrary refusal to acknowledge the full (and broad!) nature of all member affiliation, can only constitute a desperate attempt to foster (and perpetuate) a false and obscured division.

What you are selling has no foundation.
Goad me all you like, but it will not improve WFCC participation, nor will it serve the interests of the full membership.

Fairy enthusiasts still have a right to a Fairy Codex, and WFCC still has an obligation (spelled out, in the charter!) to provide this (no, not tomorrow -- but to make plans, solicit volunteers, and provide oversight).

How exactly do you presume that any inclusion of Fairy Rules/Guidelines, within the Codex, could constitute an act of separatist mutiny?
That step requires an insurmountable blunder of bad presumption -- you're correct: I may never understand your logic (and nobody should fall for it)!
Revolutions are founded on unity, my brother -- that is why everyone (including you!) should to join in, and make WFCC a better organization.

Someday, you can look back and say, "I'm proud of how much stronger we made WFCC... of our commitment to take the challenging, early steps necessary to provide greater participation of all types of enthusiast... and for having drafted plans which will assure for WFCC's transition into the future."

Delegate it all to a committee, if you like -- let them gather suggestions, investigate the matter, draft a report, and make recommendations.
Just understand that the scope of a Fairy Codex can not be limited to some ignored subset of enthusiasts; the implications are likely (almost certain!) to have broad impact upon the larger body (including all facets of our beloved, undefined notion of Orthodoxy).
But do not excuse inaction, on the basis that one person, in Mat Plus Forum, might have a different view -- this entirely dismisses the voice of everybody with a unique view.

If there were 40 of me, every single one would commit to finding common ground, building consensus, and establishing agreements for clear definitions of our most fundamental terms.
Not one would tolerate attempts to silence opposing voices -- every unique perspective can make positive contributions, even if it requires hearing from all 40 of me!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12251
(32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 22, 2014 23:22]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-22]

@Harry,

>During the discussion in this forum about the limit of submitted entries to the album, the idea of establishing a universal database was proposed by a member.
>WFCC contacted the individuals in charge of currently maintaining the two most important databases. Both replied that they cannot help due to personal reasons.

I share your disappointment concerning the limited use of online entry forms (though I don't understand it -- I do not personally contribute to FIDE Albums, but I did see the online submission page, and I certainly would have preferred it), and I can only imagine the difficulties involved in a dependence upon volunteerism (particularly given the involvement necessary for larger endeavors).
I can tell you that I did not see your call for volunteer software developers, and I would have responded if I had (and I have developed substantial portions for an online chess problem database, on my own -- including considerable amounts information WFCC makes available, which I have made far more accessible).

It involves considerable effort, and with no real prospect for return.
But, the most troubling aspect is not the coding, nor even the tedious work of gathering information -- in my experience, it is the constant inability to depend upon WFCC to provide consistency, guidelines, and rules (and there are no plans to provide even a basic sanctioning mechanism).

You can make every arbitrary decision by yourself ... and then what? That's certain to fail, and I want not to be the lightning rod deciding these matters.
I want that Delegates oversee this.

The reality is, we all have larger commitments in life... we can commit to help no more than fortune sees fit to afford us.
I do wonder if it might be more feasible to compartmentalize tasks (into smaller sized objects), and make use of a more open framework to enable a longer term of community support (more than a few volunteers), particularly for larger projects.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12253
(33) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, May 22, 2014 23:48]

I said that you would not understand. I don't know your character, I see only your posts. Their length itself is repelling. Offenses do not help the common acceptance. You fail to understand what the others are talking, actually you don't even show a wish to understand. But you show a wish to give lectures from your "high position", at least it looks like that.

I can't imagine that such behavior could be cohesive, but that's my problem. If you nevertheless achieve something good, I will appreciate it.
With the present structure of WFCC, many things can not be changed. And while once I thought that this structure should be improved, now I simply can't see how the structure could be changed without losing the cohesion.

My impression certainly could be wrong, but the opinions based on the ignorance do not help.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12254
(34) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, May 23, 2014 05:25]

@Nikola,

Actually, I do hear you.
The pompous, inconsiderate presumption, the rudeness, the personal insults... all were clearly heard.
In fact, I understand perfectly the reasons for your persistent attempts to make this personal.

Here is where we disagree...
You are free to make deliberately controversial remarks about a collective body, or an idea.
But, I consider your attempts to personally offend me (regardless that it has backfired) to be inappropriate in this forum, damaging to your cause, and very likely, to the extent that you have declared yourself an officially delegated representative, this will prove injurious to the long-term reputation of WFCC.

As to lecturing others (Ha!), this was on reading comprehension, and the dismissal of others, no less!
I enjoy lectures, Nikola -- so long as you come prepared, and stick to your subject; don't try to make me the subject (you know even less about me).

The truth is, I have listened to you, Nikola; I have succeed brilliantly in comprehending your meaning, even when you don't fully succeed in expressing yourself.
What I mainly hear is the helpless assertion that nobody hears you, and you ought not want to be heard repeating that.

> "...now I simply can't see how the structure could be changed without losing the cohesion."

Don't fret about cohesion -- whatever it is you perceive that to be, leave it for the lickspittle.
The WFCC charter says nothing about cohesion -- concentrate on problem solving (don't be afraid to disturb some hats -- just avoid being personally offensive).

If by structure you mean personnel, I see no reason to believe that this is the impediment.
All kinds of people have played delegate for the WFCC organization -- so far, it hasn't appreciably altered the course of its snowballing problems.

It's the do-nothing attitude, frankly.
They all seem so powerless, and so eager to deny every challenge.
The dinosaurs were not so dogmatically opposed to change.

> "My impression certainly could be wrong, but the opinions based on the ignorance do not help."

There is a high probability that I comprehend this statement, unfortunately it would be entirely unfair for me offer any response to this, as it was drafted.
I want not to presume, and I want to be sensitive about language barrier issues, therefore I must instead ask you to submit a revision.
Thank you.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12255
(35) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, May 23, 2014 12:26]

OK Kevin,
including myself into this topic was a mistake. Now I must find a way to escape.
If you see my posts as
>The pompous, inconsiderate presumption, the rudeness, the personal insults... all were clearly heard. In fact, I understand perfectly the reasons for your persistent attempts to make this personal. <
then I apologize. I am sorry, that is exactly how I see your posts.

I must guess what you see as a personal insult.
I did not mention your personal character, but the character of your posts. I know many people, icluding myself, who can't express their characters by writing. And I know people who write very nice but their personal characters are very different.

So I repeat, I don't talk about your personality!

I mentioned how your writing looks in my perception. I am sorry if my perception is wrong. And some other people have mentioned their perception of your posts. But you're persistent in your style.
There are issues which should be initiated (like Fairy Codex) but I can't see that your style might be efficient.
That is the point of my posts and I don't see from your answers that you understand that point.
I repeat, this is my perception and I'm sorry if I see the things wrongly. I can't help it but I repeat. "If you nevertheless achieve something good, I will appreciate it."

> "My impression certainly could be wrong, but the opinions based on the ignorance do not help."<

Perhaps this you find insulting. I presume you don't know how WFCC Assembly functions, how the delegates are appointed and why achieving a compromise looks as the only solution in some cases. If my presumption is correct, your comments about WFCC are based on ignorance and therefore highly inappropriate. If you know those things better than me, my presumption is wrong and I apologize.

Bye, bye
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12257
(36) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Friday, May 23, 2014 19:08]

 QUOTE 
I share your disappointment concerning the limited use of online entry forms (though I don't understand it -- I do not personally contribute to FIDE Albums, but I did see the online submission page, and I certainly would have preferred it), and I can only imagine the difficulties involved in a dependence upon volunteerism (particularly given the involvement necessary for larger endeavors).

It is quite easy to explain: the community itself is quite happy with the present system of submission by email.

 QUOTE 
I can tell you that I did not see your call for volunteer software developers, and I would have responded if I had (and I have developed substantial portions for an online chess problem database, on my own -- including considerable amounts information WFCC makes available, which I have made far more accessible).

I only contacted the two individuals in charge of WinChloe and YACPDB, it was not an open call. If you are a programmer, then you could start developing the interface for the depository. WFCC can support you financially (for example paying for the server expenses like we did for the ankona project). What we cannot do is to force problemists worldwide to embrace the idea of this depository.

I admit that establishing a depository is not among the current priorities of WFCC (the failure of the ankona project is still fresh). Kostas explained very well what the Codex foresees for the priority date of the originals participating in informal tournaments. If I publish a problem in a magazine whose cover says e.g. "October 2012" but the magazine itself appeared in March 2013, the infamous footnote (27) automatically establishes that the priority date of the problem (=publication date for informal tourneys) is March 2013. Of course, the editorial team of the magazine is free to include this original to compete with the rest of the originals published in 2012 if they wish so. This does not change the priority date of the problem: it cannot anticipate a similar problem which was actually published (in some other source) in December 2012.

As Kostas wrote, the decision taken is meant only for the album - it has nothing to do with priority dates and anticipations. Every problem should be allowed to participate in only one 3-year evaluation cycle of the album, this is the important point. Therefore I think that the decision taken by the Assembly was the only practical one. The Presidium could stubbornly stick to our initial decision (these "late" originals should participate in the 2013-15 cycle, which was fully in line with the Codex), but then we would have to cope with a very difficult issue: we should check every magazine that was labeled as published in 2012 to see when it was actually published. Die Schwalbe was not the only magazine facing difficulties at that time; let's not forget The Macedonian Problemist, Problem Paradise, Phénix, diagrammes... To me, we eventually took a wise decision to accept these originals to participate in the 2010-12 cycle. After all, the very same approach (i.e. to silently ignore the infamous footnote 27 of the Codex) was adopted in all previous albums, wasn't it?

 QUOTE 
It involves considerable effort, and with no real prospect for return. But, the most troubling aspect is not the coding, nor even the tedious work of gathering information -- in my experience, it is the constant inability to depend upon WFCC to provide consistency, guidelines, and rules (and there are no plans to provide even a basic sanctioning mechanism).

I dare say you exaggerate here. The PDB team, Dmitry Turevsky and Christian Poisson did not ask for any guidelines and rules imposed by WFCC. On the contrary, WFCC failed when we tried to create one more database (mainly because of lack of support by the community).

 QUOTE 
You can make every arbitrary decision by yourself ... and then what? That's certain to fail, and I want not to be the lightning rod deciding these matters. I want that Delegates oversee this.

I am afraid I do not understand what you mean.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=12260
(37) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, May 24, 2014 09:27]

@Harry,

I have much to say in reply, but I'll need a few days...
It will not be comprehensive (wait for the book) -- I want to be very brief -- but, I'll try to help you appreciate that my statement (which you label an exaggeration) is actually an understatement.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=12265

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

MatPlus.Net Forum General Backdated Compositions