Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
9:23 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | (21) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 14:35] |
Guy, you are a great dreamer! I haven`t created any organization. And I am not going to do it. It is not in my power. Only delegates that represent countries in PCCC are able to do it. I took part in 17 Chess composition Congresses and I am the Russian delegate for several years. I respect all PCCC delegates and decisions of PCCC. And of course I will follow them. But today it is necessary to make decisions that will let chess composition overcome all difficulties. And when I speak about chess composition of Russia I express not only my opinion but the opinion of best Russian composers such as Jacov Vladimirov, Viktor Chepizhny, Nikolay Kralin, Oleg Pervakov, Alexander Feoktistov, and many others of those whose authority is undisputable in the world of chess composition.
| | | (22) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 14:45] |
Dear Guy!
First forget everything about IACCS or WACC or something. There is no such organization and nobody is trying to create it (at least, for now). The topic created by Andrey was intended only to discuss a name for new organization , that is, what is now ICCU. Let's say he wanted just to discuss a name for ICCU.
Second, I can repeat it again and again: new PCCC should clearly define its relations with FIDE. Currently, all this has become a big "terra incognita" and this may lead to any unexpected and undesirable consequences.
Third, we do not really know how much money can chess composition attract. So, I would not try to stop anyone who wants to do something to attract money.
Dear Dejan!
Your example is wrong. It is up to new PCCC if it will want contacts with FIDE or not. In this sense it _is_ independent. But if such contacts are considered desirable, then there is an obvious line of action.
To base on your example, let's say that your daughter has a small cosmetic defect. It is up to her if she wants to do something with it or leave it as it is (that is independence). But it will be quite normal, if you find a doctor yourself and give his phone number to your daughter.
Dear Kevin!
In this case, it was not necessary to search for sinister plots where they do not exist, is it?
| | | (23) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 15:06]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [09-04-14] |
Andrej,
Please don't be personal on your writings. To call someone a "dreamer" is not appropriate in a discussion, even if you have nothing else to say.
About facts, two main points are open:
- The conflict of interest in your positions
- What is your action plan?
Still no answer, unfortunately.
| | | (24) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 17:35] |
Dear Guy, i am glad that this question appeared. Please pay attention to four points of my letter to Mr. Uri Avner. The basis of the discussion about chess composition future is inside them. My Plan of Actions will be grounded on the solving of these problems.
At the moment the plan project is being discussed with other chess composers. It will include the following issues: chess composers competition system, solvers competition system, FIDE album publishing, creation of the register of all chess composition and solvers competitions, creation of the Chess Composition Grandmasters Board, introducing of new honorary titles for famous composers, cooperation with FIDE, PCCC budget and so on.
The detailed plan will be represented in Serbia. I will with pleasure take into account your opinion and opinion of others about the realization of this plan.
I hope you will be exactly so strict to the work of the PCCC Presidium.
| | | (25) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 19:23]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [09-04-14] |
Andrej,
I am glad that you prepare something to show, as fixing problems has never been a plan.
What emerges from this debate is that, so far, your only plan is to take the position of Uri Avner.
Sorry to tell you that, but this does not look like very serious.
It now seems to me that you focus all your efforts to achieve your only "target", whatever the bad consequences that it can have on our community.
Doing this, you add your clear non-sense of responsibility to your obvious lack of technical skills in management.
We will remember all that, and I personnally will not forgive that you have voluntarly tried to split the problemists community in two antagonistic sides.
| | | (26) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Tuesday, Apr 14, 2009 21:14] |
@ Miodrag: If I have to pay, I shall pay to chess composers, not to chess managers.
In my country chess problemists have to pay to chess federation and can't do anything without chess federation. Chessproblemists always have to beg for permition. Chess federation is member of PCCC, chess federation has a monopol on chess including problemchess. Still our chess functioners and chess managers are deciding about destiny of problemchess. They talk only to those who bring the money into chess federation and prepare a job for managers. It is important. They know that Congresses of Chess Composition bring money and they are interested in organization of Congresses. Just don't tell me that nowbody can't earn money from organization of congress. There are two congresses in Croatia! Some of our managers were very jalous on Josip Varga.
We are voluntairs and we self-finance our activities. So, I shall pay to chess composers and to chess composing magazines, chess composing societies, but I don't want to pay money to greedy chess managers and organizers who keep their monopol and do nothing for chess composition.
You still don't have such a troubles. Good for you.
| | | (27) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 00:10] |
This was published week ago on the www.fide.com:
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3926-new-title-and-rating-regulations
| | | (28) Posted by Roberto Stelling [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 03:42]; edited by Roberto Stelling [09-04-15] |
Title Regulations:
FIDE International Title Regulations from 1.7.2009 - Final text, revised 25.3.2009
0.32 Titles for chess composition, the judging unit being the Permanent Commission for Chess Compositions: Grandmaster of Solving (GS), International Master of Solving (IMS), FIDE Master of Solving (FMS); Grandmaster of Composing (GMC), International Master of Composing (IMC), FIDE Master of Composing (FMC); International Judge of Chess Composition (IJCC).
3.0 Requirements for Chess Composition Titles
as established by the regulations of FIDE PCCC.
But there is no reference to PCCC in the rating regulations.
| | | (29) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 04:44] |
In his open letter, Andrej suggests that we have NO reason to expect FIDE to recognize PCCC's past titles, as well as any future titles (presumably to be awarded by ICCU).
Is it really "wishful thinking" -- as Andrej claims -- to expect FIDE to recognize Composing and Solving titles in the same manner that they have been awarded since their inception?!!
First, let's debunk his comment, as it relates to past titles.
FIDE's website maintains (as recently as last week) that all FIDE titles awarded are "awarded for life."
It is wishful thinking to believe that FIDE, after breaching this contract, would have any credibility to remain the international body for chess -- nevermind solving, or composition!
Thus, Andrej's comment could only apply to FIDE's recognition of future titles.
Unfortunately, we must find such primers to extract any meaning from this "open letter."
It is my understanding that Andrej has some stature in the FIDE organization -- so why can't he openly state FIDE's intentions? What does FIDE expect to gain from this reorganization? Why all the cloak and dagger, Andrej?
One conclusion: FIDE may intend to usurp PCCC's authority to award composing / solving titles.
And, unless Andrej is prepared to argue how FIDE might perform this function better than the PCCC has (for many years), I would find such a powergrab disgraceful.
Thus, I would encourage the congress to establish themselves as the legitimate authority over the awarding of both Composing and Solving Titles (past, present, and future!), and to proclaim that this authority shall not be infringed upon, regardless of whether FIDE will chose to honor these titles or not. Either FIDE must support this decision, or FIDE's "good name" must be removed entirely from these titles.
I may not like the PCCC's record for awarding titles, but I certainly have no reason to trust that a FIDE takeover would improve the situation (save perhaps for Troitzky).
| | | (30) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 07:21] |
@Kevin wrote:
QUOTE
In his open letter, Andrej suggests that we have NO reason to expect FIDE to recognize PCCC's past titles, as well as any future titles (presumably to be awarded by ICCU).
I do not know if you are aware or not that Andrej is a holder of GM solving title and most likely within the next album he will become a GM in composing. Why do you think that he will do some things against his own interests? This just tells us that he is in the same boat as we are. He is a vice president of the FIDE but he is not the only one deciding about PCCC. I think that we should all work together (all problemists) to try to get a best for chess problems.
Throwing a rocks on Andrej would not help at all. He is a legally appointed member of the FIDE to work with chess problem community. I think that the best solution for this current situation is to talk about future of PCCC organization at congress in Brazil.
By the way I did talk to some other problemists about this situation. One of them attended all previous meetings organized by PCCC (both WCSC & ECSC). They also think that decision should be made at congress in Brazil.
| | | (31) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 09:28] |
I am beginning to tire fighting this strange binary white-or-black logic. I do not understand unexpected jumps to conclusions and some obvious logical errors.
Dear Guy!
May I ask you to explain how you have found your conclusion in message (25). I do not understand your logic. It looks to me as if another person have suddenly written this message instead of you.
Dear Kevin!
Your statement is wrong. There is a lot of space between "we have EVERY reason" and "we have NO reason". In fact in current situation we have no right for _any_ expectations just because new PCCC status is undefined. I can show you how everything can go wrong even when nobody is interested in it.
Example 1. Past titles. You are absolutely right that all FIDE titles awarded are life. If FIDE has awarded the title it can not be taken back. So, somewhere in the FIDE database there is a list of titles awarded to composers and solvers. There is another list with the same contents in the PCCC database. And here is my question: are you sure that these lists are identical? They should be, but is it really so? For example, all certificates for _my_ titles are given by PCCC. This means that I can be reasonably sure that my name is included into PCCC database or can be easily restored there. But I have no way to check if _my_ titles we confirmed by FIDE. Even if all PCCC bookkeeping was excellent, there is always a margin for human mistake - and so some of past titles may require reconfirmation.
Example 2. Future titles. Let's for the sake of this argument suppose that Andrey Selivanov fully supports the new PCCC and does everything to confirm our titles at FIDE level. But in several years both FIDE President and chess composition manager/adviser can be replaced. And new manager can well have another opinion and without any regulations will do anything he wants. All future titles will be threatened.
As for your suggestion, there is a big difference between well known FIDE titles and some internal titles of little known organization. This is easy to have such titles, but it is clearly not the best possible solution.
The best solution, from my point of view, is to create some kind of contract between new PCCC and FIDE which formalizes relations between them.
In general, the best newsline I would be happy to see is "Uri Avner and Andrey Selivanov has met in <place any city/country here> to discuss the relations between PCCC and FIDE". Unfortunately, this is seems unlikely due to personal tensions betweens them.
| | | (32) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 10:22] |
@Georgy wrote:
QUOTE
For example, all certificates for _my_ titles are given by PCCC.
You are lucky that you've got your certificates. I do not have any certificate that I am GM in solving and composing chess problems. My composing title has been awarded about two years ago and my solving title has been awarded about a year ago. I am wondering what the rules are if somebody gets certificate or not? And who is responsible for taking care about this? Who did you get certificate from? When I checked with Marjan Kovacevic last time few months ago he did not get his composing GM certificate either.
| | | (33) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 11:11] |
@ Miodrag,
First off, Yes, I am aware of Andrej's titles. I am aware of yours as well. :-)
I congratulate you both -- they are well deserved. But, for the purpose of this thread, I would prefer to leave my admiration aside, and focus on my concerns about Andrej's "open letter."
Second, please do not categorize me with those who have made personal attacks. I have not "thrown rocks" at Andrej, nor am I in league with any persons who have. Quite the contrary: read through the old threads, and you will find that I have been nothing but generally supportive of Andrej (out of nothing but optimism and high regard for his good character).
My optimism faded after reading his open letter, which made apparent (to me) that Andrej may indeed have conflicting interests in the matter of PCCC's reorganization.
* When he questioned the "hasty" PCCC decision to create a new organization, I began to wonder: whom does he serve?
Did he ever question FIDE's even hastier decision to burn down PCCC?
* When he questions the venue (Switzerland) to register this new organization, again, I wondered: whom does he serve?
Does he really have some legitimate reason to protest Switzerland? If he speaks for you, Miodgrag (or anybody else), please do speak up -- why must we oppose Switzerland?
* When he claims that the PCCC "decided to self-appoint itself as the governing body of the new organization," and goes on to suggest that the old governing body should perhaps resign, it became crystal clear that he does not speak for me.
How could he miss that FIDE, and NOT the PCCC, engineered the demise of PCCC. Who else then -- but the democratically elected members of PCCC -- would he expect to be appointed as the governing body? Why does he suggest an "interim" governing body should be appointed? By whom? Why didn't he openly state his preference?
* Whom does it serve to deligitimize PCCC/ICCU?
* Whom does it serve to delay PCCC's speedy transition to ICCU?
* Why can't FIDE provide details as to their view of who should have authority to award solving/composing titles?
* Why has nobody else suggested, prior to Andrej's open letter, that the PCCC board should step-down?
Do you hear your own voice in Andrej's letter?
I hear quite the opposite.
Frankly, either way, such decisions do not really affect me.
I only speak up to make clear that I do not like what I see happening here, and I want no part in it -- nobody should mistake my prior support for Andrej (which was optimistic at best) to be in any way compatible with the sentiments expressed in his open letter (which I found disturbing).
| | | (34) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 11:42] |
@ Georgy,
I do not disagree with your solution -- though I would prefer to read that FIDE concedes that PCCC (or ICCU, or whatever) has the ultimate authority over problem chess, including past, present, and future titles.
It has always been PCCCs authority to legitimize Solving and Composing titles, and it was FIDE's decision to undermine the legitimacy of this organization.
Do you really believe that FIDE has any right to expect a sit-down negotiation?
Suppose you discovered that PCCC had to surrender some authority to FIDE?
Would you really tollerate ANY concessions?
| | | (35) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 12:02] |
Dear Gyorgy,
Sorry if I have not been clear enough. As many wrote here before, my English can be misunderstood.
So, I prefer to copy these three quotes that will show clearly my feelings:
"There is no such thing as several Romanias, but only politicians who divide Romania depending on the interests of their parties and their clout."
Traian Basescu
"Don't fall in love with politicians, they're all a disappointment. They can't help it, they just are."
Peggy Noonan
"Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.”
Nikita Khruchtchev
| | | (36) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 12:17] |
@ Kevin,
You have asked good questions, I hope you will accept my answers, as far as I know them, instead of Miodrag (who of course, can also answer).
1. Did he ever question FIDE's even hastier decision to burn down PCCC?
This decision, unfortunately for us, was not hasty. The first ideas about dissolving of PCCC started to appear in FIDE at least 2 years ago, maybe even earlier. I definitely know that Andrey was able to postpone this FIDE decision for at least a year. In any case, there were several months between FIDE Congress in Dresden (where Uri Avner had taken part in the discussion) and FIDE's final decision in March 2009.
2. Does he really have some legitimate reason to protest Switzerland? If he speaks for you, Miodgrag (or anybody else), please do speak up -- why must we oppose Switzerland?
Nobody opposes Switzerland (or any other country). But the delegates have the right to receive the explanation of this decision, don't they?
3. How could he miss that FIDE, and NOT the PCCC, engineered the demise of PCCC?
Here I have to answer your question with another question. Why this decision (negative for composition without doubt) was all that sudden for everyone? Why does Presidium (who knew about it at least from Congress at Dresden) suddenly seem absolutely unprepared to it? Why were no plans laid before?
4. Who else then -- but the democratically elected members of PCCC -- would he expect to be appointed as the governing body? Why does he suggest an "interim" governing body should be appointed? By whom? Why didn't he openly state his preference?
This is a question of ethics. Before the FIDE decision they were democratically elected; after suggested reorganization they become self-appointed. And the solution seems quite easy: call _themselves_ interim and ask delegates to reaffirm their status later. This is so mundane and traditional that I do not understand why this was not done.
5. Whom does it serve to deligitimize PCCC/ICCU?
No one, maybe some FIDE chairmen and auditors.
6. Whom does it serve to delay PCCC's speedy transition to ICCU?
May well serve everyone, because currently the method of transition is not explained and new status is far from obvious. From the other side, the hasty transition may serve someone who is going to exploit general lack of information in composition society. The delay seems to have no negative consequences, but it will close this exploit.
7. Why can't FIDE provide details as to their view of who should have authority to award solving/composing titles?
Of course, FIDE should have the authority to award FIDE titles. Any organization has the authority to award their internal titles. But these titles will have different weight. So we should first decide, what we really want, and then negotiate with FIDE if we want the titles which are universally accepted.
8. Why has nobody else suggested, prior to Andrej's open letter, that the PCCC board should step-down?
Nobody has ever suggested that the PCCC board should step-down. Please, read answer to question 4 again. PCCC board should have required re-legitimization and I am sure it would have received it.
| | | (37) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 12:46] |
Thankyou Georgy.
I am finally starting to see the bigger picture here...
I wish I could answer your questions:
Why does Presidium (who knew about it at least from Congress at Dresden) suddenly seem absolutely unprepared...?
Why were no plans laid before?
I have no clue.
But, why couldn't FIDE delay this interruption for 3 months, until the congress could meet and decide upon a course of action?
If this was delayed for at least 2 years, what harm was there to state the decision, but stay the execution for 3 months, so that the congress could address the matter directly?
| | | (38) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Wednesday, Apr 15, 2009 15:41]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [09-04-15] |
I wish Andrey could step down as the PCCC delegate from Russia and replaced by Georgy, maybe just temporarily. Georgy managed to argue the case on this forum much better despite having a similar (to Andrey) position. There is a certain hostility and suspicion to Andrey just because of his FIDE ties. It would remove the conflict of interests and allow personal issues to move aside.
| | | (39) Posted by Alexander Leontyev [Monday, Jan 11, 2010 10:04]; edited by Alexander Leontyev [10-01-13] |
On selivanov.ru (http://www.selivanov.ru/newss/?act=show_news&id=195) appeared FIDE decisions about chess composition. (You may use http://www.translate.ru to translate from Russian to English.)
"Решение Президентского Совета в Бурсе.
4-5 января 2010 года в турецком городе Бурса прошло заседание Президентского Совета ФИДЕ. На рассмотрение вопроса "О создании комиссии по шахматной композиции" был приглашен г.Ури Авнер. 4 января Президент ФИДЕ Кирсан Илюмжинов провел специальную встречу по рассмотрению этого вопроса. Во встрече приняли участие Первый Вице-президент ФИДЕ Г.Макропулос, Генеральный секретарь ФИДЕ И.Леонг, Вице-президент ФИДЕ А.Селиванов, почетный Вице-президент ФИДЕ И.Гельфер, а также У.Авнер.
Ури Авнеру было предложено рассмотреть вопрос о вхождении в ФИДЕ после создания и регистрации новой организации по шахматной композиции. Еще один вариант, предложенный Президентом ФИДЕ - восстановление РССС в структуре ФИДЕ.
Решения:
... 8. После создании новой международной организации по шахматной композиции подготовить решение о включение этой организации в ФИДЕ в качестве ассоциированного члена.
Ответственный А.Селиванов
9. Подготовить проект соглашения с вновь созданной организацией по шахматной композиции о взаимодействии при проведении мероприятий по шахматной композиции.
Ответственный А.Селиванов".
"Решения:
4. Утвердить календарь мероприятий по шахматной композиции 2010 года:
- 1-й Кубок мира по решению шахматных композиций (6-7 февраля 2010, Москва, Россия)
- 53-й Конгресс по шахматной композиции (9-16 октября, Крит, Греция)
Ответственный – А.Селиванов"
It is interesting that:
1) Probably, chess composers will see a switchback :) of PCCC, because, as I see, nobody don't try to register officially a new international organization of chess composers.
2) European champ.-2010 is not registered by FIDE, so it will be not official again.
3) WCCC–2010 will be under aegis of FIDE and it will be the 53rd, while 52nd WCCC in 2009 was not registered by FIDE.
4) On fide.com there is nothing about any competition in chess composition in FIDE calendar – 2010 (http://www.fide.com/index.php?option=com_fidecalendar&view=fidecalendar) or in any other place.
5) Also there is no any information about these decisions on http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/index.htm or here (on matplus.net) from dear Uri Avner, which signed as "PCCC/ICCU President" (see http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/iccu.htm).
| | | (40) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Jan 11, 2010 12:07]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [10-01-13] |
Why do we care about what FIDE says, anyways? We shouldn't give anything about the "official" decisions of the FIDE. If we composers decide so, the championships are official, and not if someone decides so who has no significance at all for chess composition. Why does anyone even listen to such an organisation?
We are the ones who decide! Not them! FIDE has no meaning whatsoever for us!
Or is every chess player now a racist because Bobby Fischer was one?
PS: Ah, now I see on point 5. We sell our souls for 7000 Euro.
PPS: Ok, removed the passage.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
