Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:01 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | (1) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 16:31] | PCCC reconstruction
I publish my letter with the opinion about decisions made in Bratislava that was sent to Mr. Uri Avner and other delegates.
I am sure that only after the detailed discussion during the Congress in Brazil it will be possible to make any decision about PCCC future.
All decisions made in Bratislava have no legal power. Moreover I still haven`t received the answer from Mr. Avner.
"Dear Mr. Avner,
Thank you for your letter. On behalf of Russian chess composition
devotees I must inform you that in this case the mechanism of making
decision, form of it, and also hasty manner of it surprised us very
much. The PCCC Presidium disparages possible meaning of FIDE decision
for chess composition development in all official documents that were
introduced by the Presidium (and there were only two of them: short note
on the official web site and your letter). The Presidium seemed not to
analyze it and not to provide any program (or outline of such) of
actions under new conditions. In our opinion these issues had to be
discussed by the Presidium first and foremost and then presented for the
Commission approval at the nearest Congress.
Meanwhile, there are only two general phrases in your letter about these
issues: ?this formal status may well be to our advantage and open up new
horizons for developing our activity? и ?we have every reason to expect
the FIDE to recognize our past as well as future titles?. Both phrases
are unfounded and are not confirmed by any facts. They represent only
wishful thinking not supported by any program.
Technical problems of the Commission reorganization could have been
gradually solved in the regular course of work (but also with the
approval of the Commission). But it looks like just these very questions
were hastily included in the agenda of Presidium meeting. Moreover, the
Presidium exceeded its powers. Such questions should be solved only by
the Commission itself after detailed discussion (not via e-mail, but at
the Congress). In particular, I think that all delegates (including me)
have the right to get to know the decisions made by the Presidium in
full and not only short extract cited in your letter.
Concerning the decision about new organization creation and its name, it
is impossible to approve it without further details. Moreover, such
hurry in this matter can be hardly understood, it makes us think that
the delegates were not provided will all information intentionally. In
any case it seems necessary to organize open discussion of these
proposals already in Serbia (even if unofficially) and of course at the
Congress in Brazil.
I think that delegates have the right to get explanations why it was
Switzerland which was chosen for the registration of the organization
(why, for example, not Germany, where Secretary of the Commission Gu"nter
Bu"sing lives), what other variants of the naming were discussed and why
exactly this name was chosen (I would like to know, for example, if
anyone suggested to keep the current abbreviation PCCC), and so on.
It is also strange that the Presidium decided to self-appoint itself as
the governing body of the new organization. Traditionally, in cases of
such reorganizations old governing body sends in resignation or declares
itself temporary (ad interim). It is the Commission that must confirm or
renew the mandate of the governing body. Formal approval of the
Presidium`s decisions as they are written in your letter allows the new
governing body abandon all democratic principles.
The request in your letter to confirm our participation in the new
organization is even more strange. The Presidium has no right to exclude
members of the Commission or to accept new members. It is the
prerogative of the Commission itself. If according to your letter the
working principles of the new Commission will not be changed then the
question about participation of PCCC member-countries in it has no
sense. At the same time the positive answer to this question can be
understood as a default approval the new organization regulations
without reading them. It is absolutely unacceptable.
In connection with written above as the delegate of Russia I ask the
Presidium to:
1) postpone the decision about new organization registration and its
renaming till the Congress in Brazil.
2) prepare a short document describing the new status of the Commission
and mechanism of communication with FIDE, as it is seen by the Presidium.
3) prepare the Regulations of new organization for delegates to look
them through at the Congress and to confirm them.
4) organize a widely open discussion of the suggested changes before and
during the Congress in Brazil.
I hope that delegates from other countries will support this opinion.
Andrey Selivanov, delegate from Russia"
| | | (2) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 19:57]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [09-04-13] |
After the creation of the WACC (or IACCS, or whatever the name) by yourself, I understood that you had built a new dissident organization to federate chess composition.
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1239645799&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=505
In these circumstances, it would be only natural for you to resign from the delegation for Russia in the new ICCU. This resignation should probably be accepted without any discussion. This will also give you more time to focus on your responsibilities in the FIDE, and in your new association.
Russia is the main country for chess composition. Its composers and solvers are unanimously recognized, and many of them have been titled by the PCCC during these last years (29 since 2005). Everybody is happy with that, and I think that’s a fair situation where the talents are awarded and honoured without any distinction of nationality.
From the many contacts that I have with Russian composers, it seems that most of them do not share your points of view, do not support your dissident action, and do not consider that you represent their ideas any more.
| | | (3) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 20:55] |
Dear Guy,
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov support this actions, it is FIDE, and it is enough! Kirsan will tel us what to do and Ali Nihat Yazici will organize us a congresses, we will pay, and everybody will be happy like in a fairy-tale. :))
| | | (4) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 22:23] |
@Guy wrote:
QUOTE
From the many contacts that I have with Russian composers, it seems that most of them do not share your points of view, do not support your dissident action, and do not consider that you represent their ideas any more.
Andrey is Russian delegate elected by Russian problemists. I do not think it's a fair statement to say that most of Russian problemists do not share his point of view. You do not know this for sure. I think that you are wrong. You are just speculating about this.
I think that letter by Andrey is very good and that instead of breaking into two separate organizations it's better to try to find solution at the congress in Brasil. If PCCC was subcommision of the FIDE and the decision has been made by the FIDE to reorganize this commision (not by Andrey). So it's wrong to blame him for this change.
| | | (5) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 22:28] |
Miodrag,
You are speculating that I speculate. This is for sure!
| | | (6) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Monday, Apr 13, 2009 22:31] |
The decision to separate FIDE and PCCC has been made by FIDE.
The decision to create a new association (WACC) has been made by FIDE, represented by Andrej Selivanov.
| | | (7) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 00:18] |
WACC and IACCS is only proposals for discussion, and ICCU - the not democratic solution which have accepted without discussion. Look differences!
| | | (8) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 00:32] |
As far as I have understood, PCCC (or ICCU whatever the name) remains an independant organization, and decides by itself of its own future and strategy. The only difference being that FIDE does not consider it as a permanent commission.
You should be happy with that, as you can now build your own IACCS organization, integrated in the FIDE, and much better for sure.
We wish you good luck.
| | | (9) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 00:37] |
The solution is so near!
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1239662198&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=517&pid=3466
| | | (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 04:37] |
This is fast becoming an absurd reconstruction exercise.
This "open letter" reads like something drafted from deep in shadow -- the only thing "open" about it, in fact, is the unsubtle suggestion that the PCCC board might prefer to self-annihilate, so that FIDE's pawns may complete a Phenix.
Andrey, you speak for FIDE -- why don't you layout (read: sell) the FIDE plan for chess composition?
What plump trimmings after they carve this old bird?!
Please sir -- a cheery song for those you would have, to FIDE specifications, burn their own house down.
| | | (11) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 06:18]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [09-04-14] |
Being the head of the special project under FIDE and PCCC delegate from Russia at the same time, Andrey reminds me of Janus, two-headed Roman god of doors and gates, beginnings and endings. Very symbolic!
| | | (12) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 09:48] |
Now I see that publishing of this letter was necessary. This discussion has openly shown the fact that a group of people has quite a specific understanding. There are three statements which are considered axioms by them:
1. FIDE is Bad and is unable to have a good ideas.
2. Andrey Selivanov is Bad and is unable to have a good ideas.
3. PCCC Presidium is Good and all its decisions are Excellent by definition.
I do not want to dispute these axioms, but in my experience there is no reason not to listen to persons you do not like - they quite often have the ideas that can be beneficial to you.
In the current case Andrey Selivanov wants only one very obvious thing - and it is an open discussion. He has not forced or required any decisions - he wants to be sure that all the possibilities are analyzed. And I do think that this is beneficial for chess composition in general. In the XXI century there is no excuse for making decisions behind the closed doors.
Also, Andrey is doing everything openly. All his thoughts are published in the Internet for everyone to read and criticize. It is as a rule considered a sign of democracy, isn't it? On the contrary PCCC Presidium goes all-out to give as as little information as possible. Even information about FIDE decision had appeared much later than it had become known from this site. Are we really so small and weak that we must be protected from outside world?
Anyway, I ask everyone who has simply refused to read Andrey's letter to return to it and read only his suggestion - four numbered statements at the end of letter. I would like to know why you have negative opinion about them.
And Vladimir, I would agree with you that current Andrey's position is awkward. But I would like to point at two things. First, he has never acted as "Janus". All his messages are strictly written from one of these positions. Second, it is really PCCC Presidium who keeps him in this position. Nothing have been really decided about relations with FIDE and so Andrey's status remains officially undefined.
And also Kevin, may I ask you to be a little more frank? Who are those "FIDE pawns"? What is their goal? Why have they selected so strange and roundabout way?
| | | (13) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 10:53]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [09-04-14] |
1. FIDE is not bad, and has made good things for some chess players. The price to pay is sometimes a little bit high.
2. Andrej has probably some proposals to organize chess composition in a better way. He has now the opportunity to detail all that.
3. PCCC praesidium has been elected. Even in this case, its decisions can be contested, but surely not its authority and legitimity.
| | | (14) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 11:27]; edited by Dejan Glisić [09-04-14] |
Georgy wrote: 'In the XXI century there is no excuse for making decisions behind the closed doors.'
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov appointed Andrey Selivanov for advisor or manager of 'special project Chess Composition'. FIDE founded 'special project Chess Composition' instead of PCCC.
FIDE and Kirsan made decision without our delegates and behind the closed door.
Was it good idea? Was it democratic idea or intervention? The time will show us.
Presidium of PCCC can do everything what is allowed in Statut. PCCC will confirm (or not) Presidium's decisions and suggestions at Congress in Rio.
Still we are not private services of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov or Ali Nihat Yazici.
Edit: http://videos.chessdom.com/ali-nihat-yazici ('Very simple and precise description of chess as part of a free market economy.'); http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4179 ('Ali Nihat Yazici, President of Turkish Chess Federation, sues European Chess Union')
| | | (15) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 12:34] |
Guy Sobrecases writes:
1. FIDE is not bad, and has made good things for some chess players. The price to pay is sometimes a little bit high.
2. Andrej has probably some proposals to organize chess composition in a better way. He has now the opportunity to detail all that.
3. PCCC praesidium has been elected. Even in this case, its decisions can be contested, but surely not its authority and legitimity.
1. Yes, but you will probably agree that there could be some price. Until now we were using FIDE name without any feedback. As far as I understand, this was the main reason of FIDE decision.
2. Well, he has already detailed some of it. For example, it is quite easy for him to include composing and solving tournaments into big FIDE events. The Olympic tournaments at next Chess Olympiad are an example.
3. It is true, but up to some boundary. When a _new organization_ is being created, we (that is, commission itself) at least should have the rights to receive full information and to confirm the renewed leadership.
Dejan Glisić writes:
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov appointed Andrey Selivanov for advisor or manager of 'special project Chess Composition'. FIDE founded 'special project Chess Composition' instead of PCCC.
FIDE and Kirsan made decision without our delegates and behind the closed door.
Was it good idea? Was it democratic idea or intervention? The time will show us.
Presidium of PCCC can do everything what is allowed in Statut. PCCC will confirm (or not) Presidium's decisions and suggestions at Congress in Rio.
Still we are not private services of Kirsan Ilyumzhinov or Ali Nihat Yazici.
The main decision concerning change of PCCC status was accepted at FIDE Congress with presence of PCCC President. Then your statement "FIDE founded 'special project Chess Composition' instead of PCCC." is simply wrong. FIDE wanted chess composition organization to continue work independently. At the same time it has created 'special project Chess Composition' and appointed Andrey Selivanov as advisor/manager to ensure communication with this organization and resolve any difficulties. This is internal FIDE decision, which has nothing to do with PCCC.
(!!!) Andrey Selivanov is not expected to get any leadership position in new PCCC except something like "voice of FIDE" (probably without right to vote). (!!!)
It is quite possible that this is exactly what you (and others) do not understand, so I have separated this line. And yes, if we want FIDE to confirm our titles, our competitions and probably even to make come funding of composition, then we have to be at least prepared to do some negotiations with FIDE (and currently this means - with Andrey Selivanov).
| | | (16) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 13:17]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [09-04-14] |
About money, who can believe that chess composition can attract sponsorship on a large scale?
This activity is a matter of interest of perhaps 2000 people in the world. Companies have never invested large amounts of money in such model. That's very sad, but it seems that philantropy does not exist in business.
The introduction of some composing and solving events in the Dresden Olympiad was a great success. If this is an idea of Andrej, he must be congratulated for this initiative. In the opposite case, one still wait for a practical action proposal from him. Where are the plans?
Once again, I think that the position of Andrej of delegate for Russia in the PCCC (ICCU) is not acceptable any more, as he's the creator of the dissident association IACCS in the same time.
I even think that his position of delegate in the PCCC was not compatible with his position in the FIDE as Chairman (and interlocutor of the same PCCC...).
There is in this situation a clear conflict of interest, especially when FIDE has decided that PCCC is not a permanent commission any more.
| | | (17) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 13:29]; edited by Dejan Glisić [09-04-14] |
Dear Georgy, maybe now I understand. I wish that my daughter marry independently, but I appointed a husband for her. Is it my internal stuff?! :)) If I send her to Rio, will she find another husband for herself? :))
Edit: That's it Guy - a clear conflict of interest.
| | | (18) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 13:54] |
@Guy,
There are lot of "conflict of interest" situations in chess problems. Since it's not profitable organization and we cannot afford to pay some professionals to lead the organization there are always conflicts like this one:
1) For example, Marko Klasinc is a member of PCCC commission for solving titles. At the same time he is very good solver competing in all of our competitions. Of course, there is a conflict of interest but does that means that he will abuse it? No, I know that Marko would never do such a thing. He is honest men that will never take advanting of his position. I just took his name as an example but this does apply to other members of this commission. Same is valid for commission that is awarding composing titles.
2) All the PCCC delegates are at the same time either composers or solvers. This means that whenever they send problem to some magazine or some tournament there is a conflict of interest. If the judge is from the country that is candidate for next meeting and PCCC delegates are making decision if the competition will be there or not, here we are, it's a conflict of interest. Of course it would be impossible to impose a rule that PCCC delegates should never compose any problems. It simply does not make any sense.
At the bottom line, there is no money in chess problems and I do not see how can anyone make some money for living from chess problems.
@Dejan,
I see that you are very concern about paying money to participate in chess problemist meetings. However I do not see how we can avoid this. Even with new organization there will be always some charge for accommodation and travel costs. Either you find some sponsors or you have to pay from your pocket. Also FIDE is giving 7,000 Euros to cover some costs for organization of chess problem competitions. By separating from FIDE this will mean that some fees will have to be collected from somewhere. I am sure that even registering organization in Switzerland will not be cost free. If there are no member fees and somebody pays all the costs for this registration than again there is a conflict of interest. The person who paid for registration will ask for some favor later on.
Also, I know that when Serbian team goes to some competition we do get some money from the government through our chess federation. If we do separate from the FIDE I think they will stop to provide finance help to our organization. I do think it's a similar situation in other countries. This means that at the end the meetings will be attended only by someone who is enough rich to pay expenses on his own. It does not make any sense to me. The title of World Champion in solving of chess problems will be meaningless.
| | | (19) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 14:11]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [09-04-14] |
Miodrag,
Being a solver, and to know about solving, is of course mandatory to join a solving commission...nobody contests that, and there is no conflict of interest in this case.
What I talk about here concerns a conflict between two positions for which someone has been appointed, or elected, or represents a group of persons.
For example: a chairman of a real estate company, being Minister in the same field of activity in the same time (construction and transportation for example).
I believe that the conflict of interest appears now clearly in the positions of Andrej.
| | | (20) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 14:14] |
> And also Kevin, may I ask you to be a little more frank? Who are those "FIDE pawns"? What is their goal? Why have they selected so strange and roundabout way?
Are you really asking me to identify, by name, here in public, the members of FIDE's covert operations unit?
And, you would have me provide frank details about their goals and techniques?
Sir, have you been eating large quantities of doughnuts?
If you know a publisher with a large cash advance, I wouldn't even sell this as fiction.
If you must quote me on the subject, here is my official statement: There is no such thing as Keyser Söze.
Good day.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
