|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| (81) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Friday, Feb 5, 2010 09:16] |
Thank you Vladimir for this translation.
I have now understood the meaning, but I am perhaps not as convinced as you that all that is very peaceful...
|
|
| (82) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Feb 6, 2010 23:14]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [10-02-06] |
Vladimir,
Who told you that the "Bulgarian Fiasco" has someting to do with Uri Avner ??
|
|
| (83) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Sunday, Feb 7, 2010 02:06] |
The most detailed public report about what happened: http://www.selivanov.ru/download/Magazins/Poezia/SP41.pdf (on page 4)
There were also some accusation on this forum, nobody tried to disprove it. I'd like to hear other side of the story if you disagree with Valery Gurov.
|
|
| (84) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Feb 7, 2010 08:19] |
Vladimir wrote:
QUOTE
There were also some accusation on this forum, nobody tried to disprove it. I'd like to hear other side of the story if you disagree with Valery Gurov.
I'd like to hear reason for cancelation of congress in Bulgaria. When this question has been raised before the answer was that explanation will be given at the congress. However I never saw any official explanation why this congress has been canceled. Can anyone give official explanation (if there is any) why this congress in Bulgaria has been canceled. I am sure if there is a good explanation about this nobody will raise this question again.
|
|
| (85) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Feb 7, 2010 23:47] |
Did the organizers themselves explain something ?
|
|
| (86) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Feb 9, 2010 04:42] |
So all that sounds like artillery shots.
Moreover, it seems that after defection of Bulgaria, in the last minute, the congress could be organized !!
By simple means, it seems that the defection of Bulgaria is under responsability of Bulgaria.
And also, the last minute organization - and success - of the congress has something to do with the efficiency of U. Avner as president.
Am I wrong ?
|
|
| (87) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Tuesday, Feb 9, 2010 05:24]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [10-02-09] |
>Am I wrong ?
I think you are wrong on both points.
>By simple means, it seems that the defection of Bulgaria is under responsability of Bulgaria.
It does not seem that way to me at all. I do not see any reason not to trust to Valery Gurov. "He (Mr Avner) was not delicate enough discussing financial arrangements(for some reason he decided to do it with the president of Bulgaria Chess Federation rather than congress organizers). In this situation, hotel representatives were scared away and asked for an advanced payment. Petko Petkov could not provide such guarantees...". As Miodrag already mentioned, the silence and lack of explanation from PCCC officials is quite telling.
Three years later - same old story: instead of using the proper venue(working out a deal with Mr.Selivanov), Mr.Avner decided to get over his head and plead the case to FIDE president directly.
>And also, the last minute organization - and success - of the congress has something to do with the efficiency of U. Avner as president.
I think all credits for the success goes to Harry Fougiaxis. If something happened on Mr. Avner's watch, it could be a pure coincidence. Please provide some evidence of Mr. Avner's assistance. I would agree with you if Mr. Avner were able to organize that congress in Israel. At best, it fits into Russian saying: "To create a problem for himself first and then overcome it heroically".
>So all that sounds like artillery shots.
If so, then we can take the official silence in this matter as a silent agreement of guilt. That would be my longest shot.:-)
|
|
| (88) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Feb 9, 2010 08:42] |
"..."He (Mr Avner) was not delicate enough discussing financial arrangements(for some reason he decided to do it with the president of Bulgaria Chess Federation rather than congress organizers). In this situation, hotel representatives were scared away and asked for an advanced payment. Petko Petkov could not provide such guarantees...". ..."
Are you seriously saying that the demand of the hotel for payment is bound in any matter with Mr Avner ???
Can you explain me how ???
"...>And also, the last minute organization - and success - of the congress has something to do with the efficiency of U. Avner as president.
I think all credits for the success goes to Harry Fougiaxis...."
Of course the responsability of the success of this congress is fully due to Harry Fougiaxis, but, in any case, it was the task of the president to find at the last minute a good willing organizer, that will be also a good one. It seems that Mr Avner did this job fully and with success !! I can't see how you are able not to see that.
"...Three years later - same old story: instead of using the proper venue(working out a deal with Mr.Selivanov), Mr.Avner decided to get over his head and plead the case to FIDE president directly..."
Here I think you missed it completely !!
This file precisely begins with the report of a FIDE meeting where Mr Selivanov is shown trying to destroy the PCCC !! in the back of everybody !!
Isn't clear enough ?
After this kind of behaviour, the least Mr Avner could do was to get to the FIDE, of course.
|
|
| (89) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 03:15]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [10-02-10] |
>Are you seriously saying that the demand of the hotel for payment is bound in any matter with Mr Avner ??? Can you explain me how ???
That is exactly what I am saying. Mr.Avner's demand for lower rates caused all the troubles.
|
|
| (90) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 03:42] |
I don't know Mr. Avner personally and I don't like him much as PCCC president, but here I must defend him:
A WCCC held on a place will bring between 30 and 50 guests the hotel does not have otherwise. So there is a good reason to ask for cheaper prices. I don't know how much cheaper he demanded it but I think something between 10 and 20 percent would be reasonable.
|
|
| (91) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 04:44] |
Mr Avner's mistake is clear now: he should have come to Siegfried first, an expert on how to negotiate a hotel discount. :-)
|
|
| (92) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 10:52] |
Did Bulgaria have no Ramada Hotel chain? :-)
(Perusers of the Rankzero blog will get the joke.)
Hauke, also wanting to add something constructive
to this thread
|
|
| (93) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 10:55]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [10-02-10] |
"...That is exactly what I am saying. Mr.Avner's demand for lower rates caused all the troubles..."
Interesting !
Do you mean a president has not to deal with the rates of the hotel ?
When a country submits an invitation for a WCCC, they have to give location and rates and dates (and other details...), and these are the details on which the delegates vote.
It is one of the duties of the president to take care that these points will be respected.
When some points have to be changed by the organizer (location, prices, and so on), the president may, of course, cancel the meeting. I think that such a thing never happenned.
The ORGANIZERS gave up ! thus causing trouble to PCCC raising the danger not to have a WCCC that year.
By the way, when an organizer can show to the hotel a letter of the president, it may only help him within the negociations !
|
|
| (94) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 20:56] |
Jacques, all you points are irrelevant, since you don't provide any evidence. The facts are that Mr. Avner got involved(you seem to agree to that and say that he has the legitimate right for doing so) into negotiations and congress in Bulgaria was canceled. We can only speculate about details until either Petko Petkov(who did not visit any congress since, while being a delegate from Bulgaria on several congresses prior to that) or Uri Avner come forward and tell all the facts.
Did I understand you correctly? You say a)Bulgaria proposal was accepted by delegates. b)somewhere in-between conditions were changed by organizers c) Mr.Avner was involved only to force organizers to stick to the original deal. If so, can you back up b) and c) with some evidence?
Otherwise, it's just a speculation. You want my conspiracy theory? Mr.Avner was pissed off by losing to Bulgaria(remember, the competitive bid was from Israel), went on vendetta and ruined the congress. Do I believe it? No, but prove me wrong.
|
|
| (95) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 21:37]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [10-02-10] |
'...The facts are that Mr. Avner got involved(you seem to agree to that and say that he has the legitimate right for doing so)...'
No, I don't bring any facts, I only consider the facts as previously reported, - mainly by yourself -.
I can't see any complaint here from the organizer against Uri Avner.
This is what I understand :
1) when a meeting fails the responsibility falls under the organizer
2) If an organizer has explanations, complaints, excuses, ... he is welcome to deliver them
3) Any other person is out of the picture
4) The use made by Mr Selivanov (and friends...)of any subject, to deliver public accusations constantly against Uri Avner is quite shocking.
5) If yourself don't believe in any paranoidic theory, what for do you tell it ?
|
|
| (96) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Wednesday, Feb 10, 2010 23:39]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [10-02-10] |
>1) when a meeting fails the responsibility falls under the organizer
I would generally agree but in this case there is a clear evidence of Mr. Avner's involvement.
>2) If an organizer has explanations, complaints, excuses, ... he is welcome to deliver them
On the other hand, is not it strange that Mr.Avner stays silent and does not want to respond to accusation and clear his name? As Miodrag pointed out, there was a promise to explain the situation at the congress but it never happened.
>to deliver public accusations constantly against Uri Avner is quite shocking.
First of all, I'd consider it criticism rather than an accusation. Accusation is without evidence, criticism is based on the facts. In out case the evidence is Mr.Avner's letter to the president of Bulgaria Chess Federation. Let's ask Mr.Avner to make it public, so everybody could read it and decide for themselves. As an elected official, Mr.Avner is open for criticism and should either accept it or prove it wrong. I'd save word 'shoking' for Mr.Avner's behavior during the congress in Rio, his disrespect to Mr. Selivanov - a representative of PCCC's parent organization.
>5) If yourself don't believe in any paranoidic theory, what for do you tell it ?
To show how difficult to respond to a pure speculation. It could be true or false but I have zero evidence to support it. You don't believe 'Bulgaria fiasco' has something to do with Mr. Avner but don't have any evidence either.
I think there is no point to discuss this issue any further unless we have more information.
I suggest to move to the next controversial issue of Mr.Avner's presidency: the fairy award in Fide Album 2001-03. What's your opinion on it?
|
|
| (97) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 09:33] |
Vladimir,
It seems that you like to have fun making all sorts of assumptions. Behind the names that you mentionned are people who can suffer the rumors that you may bring. There are also composers and solvers reading this forum, and for whom the problemist activity is a serious matter.
|
|
| (98) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 10:23] |
Guy,
I would have whole-heartedly agreed with your well-weighted message, but two things prevent me from it.
1. Double standards
It is quite good that Jacques so fiercely defends Uri. But why he and many others allow themselves to attack, for example, Andrei Selivanov, using even less real facts? Does Andrei not belong to the "people who can suffer the rumors that one may bring"?
2. Lack of information
Do you think, that "composers and solvers for whom the problemist activity is a serious matter" have the right to receive much more information about work of PCCC? The assumptions are the result of lack of facts. The Bulgarian situation is one example. Here is another one.
There was a so called "Presidium meeting" in Bratislava in March 2009. Do you know what was discussed there? Probably not, and so everyone else, including PCCC delegates. There are very small information about this meeting, and no agenda or decisions were made known. This is another fertile soil for "assumptions".
|
|
| (99) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 10:36]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [10-02-11] |
Guy, I respectfully disagree.
Let me explain my ultimate goal. The current PCCC reminds me a medieval guild rather than modern democratic organization. I'd like to see it as an open and transparent institution. I think the culture of secrecy, behind-the-closed-door deals and meetings make PCCC weak and prone to the new scandals.
It is very unfortunate that a lot of hard information comes from private conversations and correspondence, not available to broader public and cannot be quoted freely. I try my best to back my statements by available sources.
I don't get your remark about people being hurt. It reads as if I criticize every other person on this forum. So far, only Mr. Avner may complain, but I criticize his specific decisions and actions not him personally.
I don't get how this discussion could affect other problemists. I fail to understand how my criticism of Mr. Avner may affect their problem activities(unless they spend all their free time reading my long posts instead of composing).
If you think that everything is perfectly fine in PCCC and I am just spreading baseless rumors, you and I must be living in totally different worlds. Honestly, it's hard to remain serious when the situation is so dare and hopeless.
|
|
| (100) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Thursday, Feb 11, 2010 11:08]; edited by Guy Sobrecases [10-02-11] |
Georgy,
1.
I agree with you that all rumors are to be condemned. Also those made against Andrej. In my opinion, rumors are not ethic practices and it seems that we can agree on this point.
2.
The main conclusions of the Bratislava meeting are available here:
http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/iccu1.htm
One may disagree with these conclusions, or about their level of detail, but they exist and show a clear position of the ICCU.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net  Forum General PCCC reconstruction |
ISC 2024
