Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
10:45 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | (101) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 12:49]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-02-11] |
Vladimir,
You say:
I'd save word ['shocking'] for Mr.Avner's behavior during the congress in Rio, his disrespect to Mr. Selivanov - a representative of PCCC's parent organization.
Perhaps the root of this dispute lies in your incorrect view of the FIDE/PCCC hierarchy...
Who told you that FIDE is the 'parent' of PCCC?
Mr.Selivanov?
Please refer to Mr.Avner's letters on the PCCC official site...
April 18th: PCCC is not "a commission within FIDE, but ... an independent organization."
Nor does the fact that PCCC was operated "under a mandate from the FIDE," establish the hierarchy you have suggested here...
See Mr.Avner's letter to the FIDE President: "For more than 50 years we [PCCC] have enjoyed complete autonomy within FIDE."
PCCC does not require FIDE's mandate to exist.
Would you now claim that PCCC's autonomy is "shocking" news?
As for the side-show that you've made of Mr.Avner's performance -- I have no interest in fighting about petty, personal rivalries.
All this East/West cap-gun-rap-artist stuff is just too nerdy for any member of a hard chess gang.
I'll neither concede nor deny any of your issues, most of which are better left on your delegate's couch.
Remember: if Mr.Selivanov (whose bid was rejected) had his way, you would find no delegate, no president, and no PCCC!
This attempt to disrupt and overthrow PCCC was improper, and entirely beyond his authority.
So, where is your outrage about the revelations within the FIDE minutes?
Why haven't you (and the delegates) called to censure Mr.Selivanov for his actions?
Surely you agree, the best dictator is never preferable to the worst elected President (reminder: the key difference being one vastly superior removal process).
Frankly, what disappoints me more than Mr.Selivanov's actions, and more than the silence of the delegates, is how PCCC failed to capitalize on this ideal crisis...
PCCC was handed the perfect opportunity to sever all ties with FIDE, but opted to preserve the status quo.
The Federation for a single chess-variant (mad queen) has no business infecting a union of problemists.
Sadly, three main factors prevent intelligent people from accepting the clear need to remove FIDE from this competitive artform:
1) Lust for the word "FIDE" in their titles,
2) Parties are beholden to FIDE's (minimal) financial sponsorship,
3) Certain members have been compensated (by outside groups) for their FIDE titles.
Chess is a word that was always way too big for the mad queen federation.
If PCCC fails to recognize the larger picture here, they must be unfit to lead...
...I'll be voting with my feet.
Cuz, If you know like I know, you don't want to step to this...
| | | (102) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 13:42] |
QUOTE
Perhaps the root of this dispute lies in your incorrect view of the FIDE/PCCC hierarchy...
Or it lies in the fact that a dying organisation wants to take everyone with it into its grave. In a few years FIDE will not have any meaning anymore because everyone will see that it only ruins chess, like for example with the zero tolerance rules for people who come too late for a game - and if it's just a few seconds.
| | | (103) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Friday, Feb 12, 2010 09:08]; edited by Miodrag Mladenović [10-02-12] |
Kevin wrote:
QUOTE
Who told you that FIDE is the 'parent' of PCCC?
Please check this link from the PCCC site:
http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/general.htm
This is the link to the option: "What is PCCC" from the top menu. The first sentence in this article is:
The Permanent Commission for Chess Compositions (PCCC) operates by definition under a mandate from the FIDE.
My English is not so good as yours but still I do understand this sentence.
Let’s assume that you gave me a mandate and money to operate some of your business. Would it be correct that after some time I come to you and I say:
"You know I do not have to do anything with you. I am doing an independent business. By the way I'll keep your $7000 that you gave me."
For me this is not right. (Please note that I am not a delegate of Serbia in PCCC so this is my personal opinion and not the official one).
| | | (104) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, Feb 12, 2010 14:04] |
Kevin,
You have written so brilliant a presentation of a view I do not share, that I feel obliged to answer you.
1. "For more than 50 years we [PCCC] have enjoyed complete autonomy within FIDE."
This is badly formulated statement because it contains an oxymoron. So, this can be interpreted in many different ways. How you would like the following interpretation: “We wanted to use some advantages that connection with FIDE had given to us and tried not to give anything back”? Or: “For a long time we deliberately ignored our own Statutes”?
De-facto, as far as I know, PCCC never had a complete autonomy. Level of ties very much depended on specific Presidency, and ordinary variations of it were quite acceptable for all delegates. Now, unfortunately, the situation is beyond ordinary and that is the reason some hidden controversies have surfaced.
2. Remember: if Mr.Selivanov (whose bid was rejected) had his way, you would find no delegate, no president, and no PCCC!
I have seen this statement repeated over and over, but never supported by any real facts. Just a question for you: if you think this was his goal, why is it not achieved yet? I can definitely tell you, that if I had means available to Andrei and the goal you ascribe to him, I would have already reached it several years ago.
On the other side, consider the following situation. You have the means to support what you would like to support, but the person standing at the point through which this support should be channeled is your personal antagonist. What will you do in such a case and how your actions can be interpreted from outside?
3. So, where is your outrage about the revelations within the FIDE minutes?
Why haven't you (and the delegates) called to censure Mr.Selivanov for his actions?
I doubt he selected the best course, but I have no right to criticize any of Andrei’s actions right after Rio, because I’ve seen the attitude to him and his words there. You are lucky you are not a delegate (I still feel ashamed).
4. Frankly, what disappoints me more than Mr.Selivanov's actions, and more than the silence of the delegates, is how PCCC failed to capitalize on this ideal crisis...
PCCC was handed the perfect opportunity to sever all ties with FIDE, but opted to preserve the status quo.
Maybe, the delegates simply felt responsibility? How many people are you ready to sacrifice to have “ideal PCCC”? The main consequence of a mentioned “Bulgarian crisis” is that Petko Petkov no longer visits Congresses. Who is happy with such a result? Do you think that solving championships will become better if Piotr Murdzia no longer takes part in them (Poland, as far as I know, strongly supports keeping ties with FIDE)? The list can go over and over…
I always thought that democracy means finding the best solutions, not using majority axe against minority.
5. Sadly, three main factors prevent intelligent people from accepting the clear need to remove FIDE from this competitive artform:
1) Lust for the word "FIDE" in their titles,
2) Parties are beholden to FIDE's (minimal) financial sponsorship,
3) Certain members have been compensated (by outside groups) for their FIDE titles.
1) I’ll rephrase you statement as: “Desire of worldwide recognition of achievements beyond closed composition society”. I consider such а desire quite logical.
2-3) Why not? This is some support for composition. The national chess federation's support also depends on ties with FIDE. And you are easily ready to deprive some people of such support.
4) The thing that you have missed altogether: in current circumstances the organization with ties with FIDE is “The PCCC”. So, it is quite possible that if your idea is accepted several competitive composition organizations will emerge. Are you sure that this is what you want?
I consider these arguments quite valid.
Also, nobody has ever explained "the clear need to remove FIDE", except desire not to be associated with specific people and some extremely unlikely virtual scenarios. I still do not see any possible negative consequences. A matter for thought: why chess world reunited under FIDE, despite all Kasparov had done?
6. My position.
I think we need to restore control over the situation before the point of no return is reached. “Restore control” in our case means “regain the abilities to analyze the situation, to hear different opinions, to organize discussions, to find the best solutions acceptable to everyone”. Fortunately (from my point of view), several steps in this direction were made in Rio. Unfortunately, there is still a long way ahead.
| | | (105) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Saturday, Feb 13, 2010 03:05] |
From what I heard from Piotr Murdzia, he doesn't really care about that political stuff so he won't stay away from solving competitions only based on PCCC vs. FIDE stuff.
Best,
Siegfried
| | | (106) Posted by Joose Norri [Saturday, Feb 13, 2010 04:53] |
Miodrag,
let's assume a nuclear reactor is to be built. If the money is to come from tax payers, they of course decide whether they give the funds. Should they also have a say on the design?
Best, Joose
| | | (107) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Feb 13, 2010 08:23] |
Joose wrote:
QUOTE
Miodrag,
let's assume a nuclear reactor is to be built. If the money is to come from tax payers, they of course decide whether they give the funds. Should they also have a say on the design?
Of course that tax payers will not design reactor. However they can decide at any time to replace complete management of the nuclear reactor if they are not happy with a progress and they can put new management if they think it will improve progress.
Best, Misha.
| | | (108) Posted by Joose Norri [Saturday, Feb 13, 2010 09:01] |
Well, then I might have a good chance to run a reactor one day, if I get the electoral majority...
| | | (109) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Feb 14, 2010 05:24]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-02-14] |
I vowed never to reply again... thus, I shall suffer the onion of facetious consequences for having offered the following retort:
But first, in my defense, let it be known that my endurance was broken only out of respect for the gentlemen involved in this discussion.
Now then, first, to Miodrag:
I had long foreseen the arrival of this "FIDE's mandate" quote (which you recently offered).
In fact, you will find the quote was already sited in my previous entry (see just prior to the debunking of your similarly anticipated conclusion).
As for your other argument... well, I say... if you'll permit a reduction in the nuclear analogy...
FIDE bought the PCCC a nice lunch (if you like a cold sandwich).
Now, does this constitute an agreement to allow FIDE to drive the PCCC home?
First, FIDE is not licensed to drive this vehicle (chess problems extend beyond their charter).
Second, FIDE cannot help but steer off course (favoring the mad queen variant).
Third, FIDE has a poor driving record (with infractions beyond negligence).
Fourth, FIDE has already accepted passenger status (to save face, I suppose, to whatever degree this is possible while riding alone in the rumble-seat).
I have no opinion about how PCCC has been driven.
I'm outraged that Mr.Selivanov attempted to run us all off the road.
(but, it cannot go unstated that Georgy has provided a more interesting argument to the above point).
Which brings me to Georgy's post,
>You have written so brilliant a presentation of a view I do not share, that I feel obliged to answer you.
I worried my presentation was somewhat lacking, but having great respect for your judgment, I'll simply thank you for the compliment... and for your thoughtful reply...
There are a few points I would like to discuss further...
But, I require more time to consider your post.
| | | (110) Posted by [Sunday, Feb 14, 2010 11:42]; edited by [10-02-14] |
Vladimir Tyapkin write
>>delegate Selivanov's absence from much of the proceedings
>Georgy Evseev was the official delegate from Russia in Rio, not Selivanov.
Then I must apologize for my mistake -- as Mr. Selivanov has represented Russia for some
time now, I simply assumed he still was the delegate. (I don't remember this point
being made at the opening of the meeting, but I must simply have been inattentive.
But now that I check, I see that the fact is mentioned in the Rio bulletin.
But then, I think, that explains quite satifactorily the upset when he came into the
meeting and insisted to be heard, just as the relationships between FIDE and PCCC were
being discusssed, and had reached a point of some confusion.
I should not have countenanced such behaviour myself, I hope: while Members and perhaps
also extraordinary Members have the standing to demand to be heard, others present (such as
FIDE representatives, observers, etc.) do not -- they can only be invited by the commission
(democratically, if you like) to present a matter and to reply to questions. While
meetings are public, they are not free-for-all, and non-Members, no matter how distinguished,
are also outsiders. It was a moment when I missed the former president John Rice.
I think the proper way to handle this would have been to have a Member propose that the
Mr. Selivanov was called in to help, and then have that proposal voted on. But that is with
the benefit of hindsight, obviously.
Disregard of procedure, conscious or not, is likely to produce negative impressions --
regardless of whether the chairman of the meeting is capable of handling the matter or not.
It's not a coincidence that diplomats are sticklers for protocol. And there has already
been another instance of similar disregard of what the statues say -- at Wageningen where
the FIDE concept of what constitutes a legitimate delegate collided with what the PCCC statues
actually state, and insisted on be given precedence.
| | | (111) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Feb 14, 2010 17:03] |
Kevin "Monstertruck" Begley wrote:
>First, FIDE is not licensed to drive this vehicle (chess problems extend beyond their charter).
>Second, FIDE cannot help but steer off course (favoring the mad queen variant).
>Third, FIDE has a poor driving record (with infractions beyond negligence).
>Fourth, FIDE has already accepted passenger status (to save face, I suppose, to whatever degree >this is possible while riding alone in the rumble-seat).
>I have no opinion about how PCCC has been driven.
>I'm outraged that Mr.Selivanov attempted to run us all off the road.
Now why does immediately "Accident Prone" by Status Quo come to mind? :-)
Hauke
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
