Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
14:17 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions 8th WCCT - article |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (21) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Sunday, Oct 12, 2008 00:44] |
dear siegfried,
my question was on egtb.
however it was shown (and accepted by other 4 judges) that both your claimed duals are wrong.
as i am not an expert, i have to trust how it was proved in the reclaims from the booklet - i just copy it here (in german notation, sorry). hope this helps.
but please, focus back to my question.
Claim (2): Dual: 6.Lf8! Txa5 7.Lxf3 Tf5 8.La3+ Kd2 9.Le4 Tg5 10.Ld6 Ke2 11.Kc6 h5 12.Ld5 Lf2 13.Lf7 Kf3 14.Ld5+ Ke2 15.Lf7 Tf5 16.Lg6 Ta5 17.Lf7 Kf3 18.Ld5+ Kg4 19.Le6+ =
Reply: No dual: 6.Lf8? (. . . ) 12.Ld5 and now 12.– Lg1! 0:1 — Black has a rook vs. bishop advantage and better king’s position. Simply wins, for example: 13.Lf7 Lh2! 14.Le7 Tf5 15.Lg6 Te5 16.Ld6 Tg5 17.Lf7 Kf2 (15.Le6 Te5 16.Lc4+ Kf2 17.Lc5+ Kg2 18.Ld5+ Kh3 19.Ld4 Tg5 20.Lf7 L×g3 21.Lf6 Ta5 22.Kb6 Le1); 13.Lc4+ Kf2 14.Lc5+ Kg2 15.Ld5+ T×d5 16.K×d5 L×c5 17.K×c5 K×g3 (15.Ld6 Lh2! 16.Ld5+ Kf2 17.Le7 Tg6+ 18.Kd7 K×g3); 13.Lf4 Tg6+ 14.Kb5 Tg7 15.Ld6 Lh2! 16.Lc4+ Kf2 17.Lc5+ K×g3 18.Ld6+ Kg2 19.Ld5+ Kg1 20.Lc5+ Kf1 21.Lc4+ Ke1 22.Lb4+ Kd1 23.Lb3+ Ke2 24.Lc4+ Ke3 25.Lc5+ Ke4 (14.Kd7 Lh2! 15.Ke7 h4! 18.Kf7 Tb6 19.Lc7 Tb1 20.Ld8 h×g3 or 20.g×h4 L×c7 0:1 EGTB)).
Claim (3): Dual: 6.Tc5+! Lxc5 7.Lh6+ Kb2 8.Lxf3 Ta3 9.Le4 Txg3 10.Lxh7 =
Reply: No dual: 6.Tc5+? L×c5 7.Lh6+ and now 7.– Kd1! 8.L×f3+ Ke1 0:1. Again, Black has a rook vs. bishop advantage and better king’s position and wins, for example: 9.Lf4 Lg1! 10.Le4 Ta4 11.Lf5 h5 12.Le5 Kf2 13.Lg6 Ta5 14.Lc7 Tg5 15.Le8 Lh2! 16.Lb6+ K×g3 17.Lc7+ Kg2 18.Lc6+ Kg1 19.Lb6+ Kf1 (14.Lf4 Kf3 15.Le8 Lh2! 16.Lc7 Tg5 17.Ld8 Tg7+ 18.Kc8 Th7; 12.Lc7 Lh2! 13.Lg6 h4 14.g×h4 Tb4+ 15.Kc6 Tc4+ 16.Kd5 T×c7 0:1 EGTB; 10.Ld5 Ta7+ 11.Kc6 Lh2! 12.Le5 Ta6+ 13.Kd7 Kf2 0:1, or shifted moves 10.Kc6 Lh2 11.Ld5 Ta7 0:1); 9.g4 Ta7+ 10.Kb8 Kf2 11.Lb7 Kg3 12.g5 Kh4 13.Lc6 (13.Kc8 Le3 0:1) Tf7 14.Ld5 (14.Kc8 Lf8 0:1) Tf1 15.Lc4 Tf4 16.Ld3 Lf8 17.g6 L×h6 18.g×h7 Lg7 0:1 EGTB (12.Lc8 Tf7 13.Ka8 [13.Ld2 Ld6+ 14.Ka8 Tf8 15.Kb7 T×c8 16.K×c8 K×g4 0:1 EGTB) Te7 14.Lf5 Le3 0:1); 9.Kc6 Ta6+ 10.K×c5 T×h6 0:1 EGTB.
| | | (22) Posted by Paz Einat [Sunday, Oct 12, 2008 17:35] |
No need to be an expert - just logical thinking.
The study clearly cannot be regarded as being "anticipated" by an EGTB position (even if such anticipations would be acceptable). The position after the 11th move is most probably in the db (I guess it's there I just didn't look) but the main ideas are in the previous moves.
The score of zero points given to this study is unacceptable.
| | | (23) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Oct 12, 2008 23:18] |
I agree 100%. The only way this study could get 0 points, would be if it was unsound, or if the judges in question believed it was unsound.
I wonder if the diagram of the study with the analysis was shown to the delegates before their decision. I mean, if it was made clear to them that the judgment was completely wrong. By this, I don't suggest that the decision of the PCCC was right or wrong. There is an obvious injustice here, but correcting it, is a totally different matter.
| | | (24) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Oct 13, 2008 08:15]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [08-10-13] |
If the justice is not restored or if a clear explanation from Belarus why they gave zero to my study is not given, I think It'll be my first and last participation in WCCCT.
 (= 5+7 )
15th Place (10 points): D55 (Score=2.1, D=-0.2)) 1.Se3 f2+ [a)] 2.Kg3 f1=S+! [b)] 3.S×f1 Td3+ 4.Kh4 [c)] Th3+! 5.K×h3 Lg4+ 6.Kh4! [d)] d1=D 7.Td5! [e)] D×f1 [f)] 8.L×e4+ Lf3 [g)] 9.Td1! D×d1 10.L×f3+ D×f3 stalemate
Twofold consecutive theme rendition.
a) 1.– Le2 2.L×e4 Kh2 3.L×f3 Td4+ 4.Kf5 L×f3 5.Sf1+ Kg2 6.S×d2 T×d2 7.Ta6; 1.– Lc2 2.Ta1+; 1.– Kh2 2.S×d1 f2
3.Tf5
b) 2.– Kg1 3.Ta1 f1=D 4.S×f1 Td3+ 5.Kf4 Tf3+ 6.K×e4
c) 4.Kf4? Tf3+ 5.Ke5 T×f1 6.L×e4+ Kh2 7.Td5 Tf2
d) 6.Kg3? d1=D 7.L×e4+ Kg1 8.Se3 De1+ 9.K×g4 D×a5
e) 7.L×e4+? Kg1 8.Td5 De1+ 9.Sg3 Le2! 10.Kh3 Lf1+! 11.Kg4 Lg2
f) 7.– D×d5 8.L×e4+ D×e4 9.Sg3+
g) 8.– Kh2 9.K×g4 Dh3+ 10.Kf4 Dg3+ 11.Kf5 Dg5+ 12.Ke6 Dg4+ 13.Lf5 D×h5 14.Td3
FIN: The thematic play is doubled, the introductory play is less enjoyable.
ISR: Active black play and an uncommon appearance of the stalemate theme.
RO: Good construction; 2 thematic moves consecutive.
| | | (25) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Monday, Oct 13, 2008 08:33] |
Following this discussion, I have found that a crucial question was left out of it. Really, there is not one, but two _different_ questions concerning the situation. The first one, which is mainly being discussed here, - is Belarus judgment correct? Let's say, for clarity, that Belarus had not done their best. There can be different opinions, if the violation is severe or if this is the only severe error in all the judgments, but I'll stop now and move to the second question which is more significant in this case - what PCCC could have done? Somehow nobody emphasizes this part of problem. I personally see four ways of action, and three of them were discussed during the Congress.
1. Leave the results as they are. This is classical decision used many times in different sports events. The judge could have done field mistake and he will punished for it by governing body, but the results stay. So, PCCC did not invent anything new by selecting this decision.
2. Cancel the results and repeat the competition. This decision is used rarely but there are still plenty of precedents. In our case at least the endgames should have been returned to their authors, new theme and judges selected and endgame section of 8 WCCT repeated. The result would have been postponement of 8th and all the following WCCTs for at least three years, probably longer. I do not think such option could have been considered seriously.
3. Arbitrarily change Belarus zeros to some other marks. This is extremely rarely done in any sports, though one could find a small number of precedents. The key word here - "arbitrarily". After the authors are known we are not speaking about giving just marks to compositions, but about manually selecting the winner of competition. And yes, the marks can be changed so that Russia stays above Slovakia. So the person changing marks will simply select the "correct" winner. It is difficult to speak about "justice" after such a decision, and I also see other possible difficulties.
4. Find the mutually acceptable decision. This is what was not tried at Congress. It is difficult to say if such a decision could have existed, and at any case the unofficial negotiations between Subcommittee members, Russia and Slovakia representatives would have been required. There is always a difficult question - who should start such negotiations? Anyway, this was not done and no one would ever know if such opportunity existed.
| | | (26) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Oct 13, 2008 11:37] |
@Sergiy: What will it help not to take part in further WCCTs? Working as german team leader I heard such statements sometimes ("they did not include my problem in the award, so I will not furthermore work for the WCCT..."), sorry, but this is the level of my 6 years old son!
@Georgy: Another possibility: Simply exclude the marks of Belarus from the result in section D.
| | | (27) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Oct 13, 2008 11:39]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [08-10-13] |
QUOTE
The first one, which is mainly being discussed here, - is Belarus judgment correct? Let's say, for clarity, that Belarus had not done their best. There can be different opinions, if the violation is severe or if this is the only severe error in all the judgments, but I'll stop now and move to the second question which is more significant in this case
The violation is severe, since they gave zero points without any explanation, even if they had been asked to do so during the WCCT judging process. Even worse, in Jurmala the only contribution of the Belorussian delegate to the discussion was a straight "our country will not change our scores" and new bits of information were revealed in every session (in the beginning, it was thought that they had not received the answers to the first claims and they considered D13 unsound, then --during the last session before voting-- the cheap excuse of EGTB was introduced - not officially in front of the PCCC, but as a word of mouth conveyed by the Belarus team captain through a delegate, who was trying hard to shed some light to the story).
Edit : please see my post below for an important correction in the above paragraph.
QUOTE
...what PCCC could have done? Somehow nobody emphasizes this part of problem.
This is a very good question. First of all, we should all be aware that the protest was addressed to the director who is the only responsible person to decide. He felt that he was not able to do so and considering that there was already a written complaint from Ukraine that he was not authorised to exclude / change, or whatever, any scores (in quite strong and unfair language to my opinion), he referred the issue to PCCC. The oxymoron is that according to the rules, there is no clause that protests are allowed after the announcement of the preliminary results. Don't get me wrong, the Slovakian appeal was more than reasonable and very well documented, but strictly speaking the rules do not foresee any claims and changes of the announced results by the PCCC. The Russian delegate had, understandably, already mentioned that in case the protest were accepted, a counter-claim by Russia would be put in force and who knows what other chain of reactions would occur in that case. So, coming back to your question, the prevailing trend during the sessions was that a "politically correct" solution should be found. And this is what was done in the end.
QUOTE
1. Leave the results as they are. This is classical decision used many times in different sports events. The judge could have done field mistake and he will be punished for it by governing body, but the results stay. So, PCCC did not invent anything new by selecting this decision.
About the judge(s) : it is quite odd to me that the judges' name(s) were never mentioned in the PCCC sessions (I hope, at least, they were mentioned in the sub-committee). Anyway, for the future, I strongly believe that each judging country should advise, upon assignment, at least two names of judges.
QUOTE
3. Arbitrarily change Belarus zeros to some other marks. This is extremely rarely done in any sports, though one could find a small number of precedents. The key word here - "arbitrarily". After the authors are known we are not speaking about giving just marks to compositions, but about manually selecting the winner of competition. And yes, the marks can be changed so that Russia stays above Slovakia. So the person changing marks will simply select the "correct" winner. It is difficult to speak about "justice" after such a decision, and I also see other possible difficulties.
The protest was asking the director to exclude the zeros because of insufficient explanation and violation of the rules, not to change their marks. I cannot recall this third option that you mention to have been discussed in the PCCC, probably it was done in the sub-committee.
QUOTE
4. Find the mutually acceptable decision. This is what was not tried at Congress. It is difficult to say if such a decision could have existed, and at any case the unofficial negotiations between Subcommittee members, Russia and Slovakia representatives would have been required. There is always a difficult question - who should start such negotiations? Anyway, this was not done and no one would ever know if such opportunity existed.
This issue is not about Russia and Slovakia. As Peter mentioned just before the voting, this is not a matter of points, but of principles.
Now, some random thoughts about the future :
1. If the WCCT director is allowed to ask the countries for adjustments in their scores, this should be made very clear in the announcement. Personally, I'm in favour of such an "intervention" and the WCCT-8 director has to be congratulated for his initiative.
2. Only the tables with the scores of the preliminary results should be submitted to PCCC for (a typical) confirmation. The compositions with names should be made public only in the final booklet, after the confirmation of the results.
3. If protests are allowed, these should be resolved by the director, the involved team captains and the sub-committee before the PCCC confirmation and the publication of the compositions with names, places, etc.
Btw, I think that your proposal to have each problem's points calculated as the sum of the scores and not according to its place in the award is reasonable and should be examined seriously by the subcommittee for WCCT-9.
| | | (28) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Oct 13, 2008 12:09] |
After reading about Sergiy's case, too:
It is inacceptable what Belarus did. Their whole judgement (not only the zero-point-studies) should be deleted and either done by someone else or left out. Of course, this will influent the whole outcome and even more if the judgement is done by someone else so I'd prefer to leave it out, i.e. remove their points. Neither in the Slovakian study nor in Sergiy's it is understandable for me how the study gets no points. Both are nicely executed, although in my opinion Sergiy's is better here due to the analytical variations of the Slovakian one. But there are other factors that can't be measured in just a few minutes so I can only give the opinion that neither deserves zero points but can not say how many they would deserve.
| | | (29) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Oct 13, 2008 21:28] |
QUOTE
The violation is severe, since they gave zero points without any explanation, even if they had been asked to do so during the WCCT judging process.
I was informed that I make a mistake here, which I feel I have to rectify : Belarus gave zero points to D13, D33, D47, D55 in the first round without any explanation, but they had not been asked by the director to reconsider their score. I should know from the Ukrainian protest sent by email on 28 August, which I admit I did not notice at that time (I returned from my summer vacations on 29th, and I was flying to Jurmala the day after).
| | | (30) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Oct 14, 2008 14:14] |
Here are the studies with big differences of scores that the tourney director asked judges to reconsider in his letter of June 21st. You can see that he didn't mention about all the studies!
SCORES TO BE ADJUSTED:
no. D-3: scores given vary between 1 and 3
no. D-5: scores given vary between 0.5 and 4
no. D-16: scores given vary between 1 and 3.5
no. D-18: scores given vary between 1.5 and 3.5
no. D-24: scores given vary between 0 and 4 (!!)
no. D-28: scores given vary between 1.5 and 3.5
no. D-29: scores given vary between 1 and 3.5
no. D-50: scores given vary between 1.5 and 3.5
no. D-59: scores given vary between 1.5 and 4
no. D-64: scores given vary between 1 and 4
no. D-68: scores given vary between 1.5 and 4
no. D-69: scores given vary between 0.5 and 3
| | | (31) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 09:18] |
one interesting question still remains without answer.
knowing the facts below, the pccc confirmed the wcct results.
the question sounds: "was the decision of pccc right or was it wrong?"
here are the facts about the (un)lucky D13 (for diagram see post no. 19 within this discussion):
1. it has got 0.0 points from the belarus judge.
2. slovakia sent a protest (post no. 8).
3. the protest only asked to follow the rules.
4. there were two other countries protesting for the very same reason.
5. everybody knew that accepting the protest means changing the winner of the wcct.
6. during the pccc meeting it emerged that belarus was not asked to reconsider the "zeros" (post no. 30).
7. belarus captain said if they were asked they surely would change the score.
8. the reason for the "zero" score was "anticipation" by egtb (another broken rule - post no. 13).
9. director did not decide and forwarded this issue to pccc.
10. pccc did not propose any other way out but forced to vote on confirming the results.
11. the voting was secret according to wish of the slovak delegate (which was me).
12. the results were confirmed by majority out of 27 delegates (16 in favour, 10 against, 1 abstention).
13. next week after the congress, the director resigned from all his positions within pccc.
any opinion is welcome, but especially i would like to invite the pccc delegates to express their own.
| | | (32) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Wednesday, Oct 15, 2008 10:12] |
Peter, to your question: "was the decision of pccc right or was it wrong?", my opinion, just based on these facts, is: the decision was wrong.
Moreover another question is: "was a vote the right thing to do in this case?"
On this point my opinion is: when there is major and objective irregularity (and seems to be the case) the result should simply be invalidated, there is no question to ask for a vote (which obviously is subjective). The next question, once invalidated the result, "how about a new valid result ?" could have been the subject of a vote... And of course it would have been a difficult issue, requiring lengthy discussions...
| | | (33) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Monday, Oct 20, 2008 00:59] |
shall slovakia send an open letter?
after coming back from the jurmala congress, we were faced this question immediately. our composers could not understand how was it possible to get such a crippled outcome about the 8th wcct.
for me personally, it was uneasy to think about supporting the open letter. chess compostition means to me first of all a lot of friendships at home as well as abroad. i considered the 8th wcct closed, even if in very strange way. i much preferred the open internet discussion to inform people worldwide and to hear their opinions.
such a disussion has started two weeks ago at this forum. since then, a lot of opinions were posted and two interesting facts came out:
1. nobody, even not the "opposite side", ever complained about the fact the pccc decision was very unfair.
2. despite hearing the voices of delegates would be of most interesting (in fact their votes decided), no-one but harry has taken part in it.
maybe that pccc at jurmala really tried to solve the situation in a "politically correct" way, as mentioned recently. however, if the expression "politically correct" means completely incorrect (and this is the case) then i definitely prefer the "politically incorrect" solution.
the discussion at this forum reminded me the sad feelings i had sitting hours and hours at the pccc meetings at jurmala. while very few people discussed the issue, the majority of delegates was completely silent. exactly as within this internet discussion.
and here i have understood the most important point. four long years i have forced many composers here to do their best. and they really did - we have had the very best entry in the tournament. these years surely belonged to the most beautiful in my life. now, if they ask serious questions to be answered, and if the delegates do not say anything, it is my duty, as the captain of the slovak team, to stand at the side of truth and to tell it loudly. therefore i have done one of the most difficult decisions in my life - i have decided to support this initiative completely.
slovakia shall send an open letter.
| | | (34) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Monday, Oct 20, 2008 10:42] |
The careful wording of my answers in this thread were intended to keep degree of conflict low. I was trying to explain things, not to call to feelings. This approach has not been mirrored by Slovakia. On the contrary, they were trying to create the sensation on injustice done. So, I have to explain position of Russia more fully. The best way to do it is first to comment on so called "facts" provided by Peter Gvozdjak.
1. D13 has got 0.0 points from the belarus judge.
2. slovakia sent a protest (post no. 8).
Confirmed.
3. the protest only asked to follow the rules.
This is already WRONG. The protest asked to make Slovakia the winner. Belarus had a cheap way out, saying that at the moment of judging their judge had decided that all 0 studies were "below publication level". I understand that this probably would not have been true, but anyway the rules formally were not broken.
4. there were two other countries protesting for the very same reason.
I know only about Ukraine protest. Israel said that they had decided to wait, but join the protest later if it would be required. It is significant, that Russia also had a study with unexplained 0 mark.
5. everybody knew that accepting the protest means changing the winner of the wcct.
This is UNTRUE, WRONG, FALSE, INCORRECT. The results would have depended upon how the zeroes would be changed. So, the winner would have been selected by someone changing the marks and doing so with full knowledge of consequences.
6. during the pccc meeting it emerged that belarus was not asked to reconsider the "zeros" (post no. 30).
7. belarus captain said if they were asked they surely would change the score.
8. the reason for the "zero" score was "anticipation" by egtb (another broken rule - post no. 13).
I would say that these facts have nothing to do with current situation. The "adaptation" of marks is itself breaking the rules. One cannot criticize details of something what is illegal as a whole, though he can accept it (also as a whole).
No one had known knows preliminary results before this adaptation, and so if any team had required to undo this adaptation, the commission probably would have to seriously consider this suggestion. This was mentioned in the first Ukraine protest, but both Slovakia and Ukraine decided to follow the other path. "Backup" decision would have been a kind of gamble for both Slovakia and Russia.
9. director did not decide and forwarded this issue to pccc.
Confirmed.
10. pccc did not propose any other way out but forced to vote on confirming the results.
Nobody had proposed any other way. During Subcommettee it was said definitely that changing the marks when the authors are known is "greater wrong" than support of "field decision" of judge. So nobody, even Slovakia, have suggested anything except confirming or unconfirming the results. That is why this question was presented to vote.
11. the voting was secret according to wish of the slovak delegate (which was me).
12. the results were confirmed by majority out of 27 delegates (16 in favour, 10 against, 1 abstention).
I cannot confirm this (I am not a delegate), but there is no reason to doubt these statements.
13. next week after the congress, the director resigned from all his positions within pccc.
I cannot confirm this, but again this is probably true. But again this fact does not confirm anything.
Now, more about position of Russia. Of course, after the preliminary results appeared, our country immediately saw the possible conflict and discussed the ways of its resolution. The first question we have asked ourselves was: whose problems are really better? And our answer was definite: our problems had received better marks from judges, than Slovakian problems. If average marks itself are counted then Russia would have received 40,85 points while Slovakia only 39.375, and it would required more than 6 points (!) from Belarus to change this. If we discard highest and lowest marks, and count all the remaining ones (Belarus zeroes and all other suspicious marks are removed) we will have: Russia - 123.75, Slovakia - 119.875. So for us the truth is that the weaknesses of current judging system had really allowed Slovakia to compete for the first place but just another weakness stopped them.
Three more thoughts.
1. Let's compare between Russia and Slovakia the number of "killing marks", when of the judges have given mark at least 1 point lower than all other judges.
Slovakia
1. A31 3 3.5- 3.5 - and 2 from SRB (23 points, no change up to extra 1,5 points)
2. C17 2.5+ 2.5+ 3 3 - and 1 from UKR (no points, no change up to extra 1,5 points)
3. D13 3 1.5 2.5 3 - and 0 from BLR (5.5 points, special case, change cannot be predicted)
4. F1 2.5 3- 2.5 1.5- - and 0.5 from UKR (no points, no change up to extra 1 point)
Russia
1. A47 2 2.5 3- - and 0.5- from SRB (2 points, extra 0,5 points add 5 points in results)
2. C65 4- 3.5 4 - and 2.5 from UKR (24 points, no change)
3. C41 3 3.5+ 3.5 - and 2+ from SWE (21 points, extra 0,5 points add 1 point in results)
4. C3 3 3+ 3 - and 2+ from SWE (no points, no change up to extra 1 point)
5. D33 3 2.5 2.5 2- - and 0 from BLR (no points, special case, change cannot be predicted)
6. E38 3+ 3 4+ 3 - and 2 from GRE (20 points, no change up to extra 1 point)
Everyone can compare these data himself and then decide who should complain.
2. I do not think Slovakia has the right to speak about justice after their extremely severe judgment in fairy section. I would like Peter Gvozdjak to repeat here his words about this section he told me in Jurmala and explain how they correspond with Slovakian marks. Only 4 problems with 3- and more, while other teams have given 11, 14, 15, and 15 such marks. This is even more strange, when Slovakia obviously had the best problem in this section. Why did they try to kill competition?
3. The preliminary results as they appeared should not be changed anyway, because they were incomplete. Other changed could have been required which are not seen in published preliminary results. For example, look at full results of 7th WCCT and say what you think about compositions A17, D59, D81, F59. Here I am sure there are more compositions in different sections which are left out of scope of current protests because their authors do not even know they have a reason to protest. And moreover under the current rules the changes in such problems affect other teams, including the leaders.
| | | (35) Posted by Ján Golha [Thursday, Oct 23, 2008 21:28] |
Open letter from Slovakia - http://www.soks.host.sk/
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions 8th WCCT - article |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
