MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

11:15 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions ECSC-2009
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(1) Posted by Alexander Leontyev [Wednesday, May 13, 2009 21:53]

ECSC-2009


Непонятно, почему 12 сербских решателей, и, таким образом, 3 команды из Сербии, а не две, официально(!) участвовали в турнире? Согласно пункту 4.5 Правил ECSC(http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/ecscrule.htm) "The organizing country is allowed to nominate 2 teams. In this case 8 solvers from the organizing country can participate". Были ли протесты по этому нарушению Правил? По моим наблюдениям, румынские решатели обычно очень чутко реагируют на подобные нарушения.
I can't understand, why 12 Serbian solvers, and thus 3 but not 2 Serbian teams, participated officially in the ECSC-2009? According to point 4.5 of rules for ECSC (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/ecscrule.htm) "The organizing country is allowed to nominate 2 teams. In this case 8 solvers from the organizing country can participate". Whether there were protests on this violation of Rules? On my supervision, Romanian solvers usually react very sensitively to similar violations .
 
(Read Only)pid=3641
(2) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, May 13, 2009 22:42]

By reading rules it looks to me that you are absolutely right. However rules are not making any sense to me. Due to personal reasons I have not been there in Subotica but by reading our newspaper I found out that we had two senior teams and one junior team. Since we do have 8 seniors better than any of our junior not letting third team to participate would mean to eliminate Serbian juniors from ECSC. Theoretically this could make junior ECSC competition invalid (not enough competitors). I am not sure if this was a case or not but this just adds more justification that rules are not good.

Personally I think that rules should be changed completely. There is a rating list that can be used to determine who can compete or not. In most of the other sports when there are individual competitions there is no limit per country but rather by results.

Personally I think that rules should be respected even if they are bad. However the complaints should be done before competition starts. I do not see how that can be fixed now? There are several possibilities and none of them sounds good:

1) You remove Serbian A team from the list and take their bronzal medals
2) You remove senior B team and fine some of the solvers who made good results and perhaps won some solving norm
3) You remove junior team and fine some young solvers who just start competing. Most likely this would make them abandon chess problems completely. Even worst this can make junior championship invalid. This would mean to take medals from all juniors.

This would be the same injustice as takening grandmaster norm from Feokistov because he was not competing officialy in Turkey. Somehow nothing has been learned from this experience.

I am not an official member of any commision but I am recommending changing of rules and make them in a such a way that best solvers (in a real meaning of this word) are competing.

I apologize but I do not know Russian to translate my message.

I am wondering if Marko Klasinc can add some comment on this issue. I think that he is a member of solving subcommete of PCCC (or whatever it is now). Since I saw him participating in this event I would expect that he does have some explanation for this situation.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=3642
(3) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, May 13, 2009 22:59]

There is another holi in ECSC rules:

This is from ECSC rules:
 QUOTE 

4.2. A country participating with one team is allowed to nominate a further two solvers for the individual championship. Maximum number of solvers from one country is 6 except pt 4.5.
4.5 The organizing country is allowed to nominate 2 teams. In this case 8 solvers from the organizing country can participate.
4.6. The three best solvers of a ECSC are entitled to participate in the following ECSC (individual) independently of their qualification in a national championship and even if not among the six solvers as defined in pt 4.2.

If analyze rules closer we come to the conclusion like this:
Per 4.2 & 4.5 there can be no more then 6 solvers from one contry except from the host country that can have 8 solvers. However per 4.6 there could be another three solvers from any of the country.

For example, in Turkey Bojan won silver and I won bronzal medal for Serbia. Since we were host country we were allowed to have two teams 8 solver. But if for whatever reasons if I or Bojan did not want to be part of the team. We could use rule 4.6 and participate as individuals. This would mean that there are 10 solvers from Serbia.

I think that rules should be corrected so that it's very clear how many solvers from one country can participate. My proposal would be to allow one senior team per country (4 solvers), one junior team (perhaps 3 solvers) and top 30 solvers from the rating list.

I also think that rules should be same for both ECSC and WCSC.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3643
(4) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, May 13, 2009 23:24]

I decided to read all articles of the rules and I found another very questionable rule:
 QUOTE 
6.1. The problems to be solved should be originals, or, alternatively, little known published problems.


Here is a list of problems from ECSC:
1. – 1st Prize T. H. BWEE
2. – 3rd Prize A. ZARUR
3. – 2nd Prize F. PACHL
4. – 1st Prize J. FRIDLIYIUS
5. – 4th Prize V. F. RUDENKO & V. CHEPIZHNY
6. – 2nd Prize M. VLASOV
7. V. NOVIKOV
8. 1st HM A. SOCHNIEV
9. ORIGINAL J. POLASEK
10. 15th Pl. J.-P. BOYER
11. HM Ch. POISSON
12. 3rd Prize P. A. PETKOV
13. 2nd Prize T. AMIROV
14. 1st Prize C. GOUMONDY
15. 1st Place M. MARANDYUK
16. R. VIEIRA & F. A. SONNENFELD
17. 1st Prize J. GORDIAN + E. ORLOV
18. 1st Comm. M. PEVSNER

So 11 of 18 problems are prize or 1st place winners. There was only one original. 1st Prize by T. H. BWEE is not a little known published problem. Prize winning problem cannot be placed in this category. In my opinion there should be never prize winning problem selected for solving competition. There is always someone who knows the problem. If problem is not an original than it should be some not prize winning problem and should be older than 30 (maybe 40) years.

How to deal with this irregularity now?

This rule 6.1 should be either removed from the rules or there should be an additional explanations clearly stating what is “little known published problems”?
 
 
(Read Only)pid=3644
(5) Posted by Alexander Leontyev [Thursday, May 14, 2009 06:44]; edited by Alexander Leontyev [09-05-14]

Миодраг затронул большое количество тем и допустил несколько неточностей
1) "You remove junior team ... this can make junior championship invalid. This would mean to take medals from all juniors".
По моим подсчетам, даже если сейчас удалить 4х сербских юниоров из списка официальных решателей, то юниорский чемпионат все равно наберет необходимое количество стран и участников. Будет как раз 10 участников из 7 стран.

2) "This would be the same injustice as takening grandmaster norm from Feokistov because he was not competing officialy in Turkey".
Это произошло с Феоктистовым на WCSC-2008 в Юрмале.

3) "I am wondering if Marko Klasinc can add some comment on this issue. I think that he is a member of solving subcommete of PCCC (or whatever it is now)".
По мнению некоторых известных российских композиторов и по моему мнению тоже, PCCC на данный момент не существует, а значит нет и никаких ее комиссий, комитетов, делегатов (депутатов), президентов, председателей и т.д., но это надо обсуждать в другой теме.

4) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, May 13, 2009 22:59]
"... in Turkey Bojan won silver and I won bronzal medal for Serbia. Since we were host country we were allowed to have two teams 8 solver. But if for whatever reasons if I or Bojan did not want to be part of the team. We could use rule 4.6 and participate as individuals. This would mean that there are 10 solvers from Serbia".
Да, если бы и Вучкович, и Младенович участвовали в ECSC-2009 только индивидуально, то сербов могло бы быть 10 (но не 12 же!), но Вучкович был в команде, Младеновича не было на турнире вообще, поэтому от страны-организатора в Суботице могло быть максимум 8 решателей. О чем тут может быть спор?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3645
(6) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Thursday, May 14, 2009 07:06]

Alexander wrote:
 QUOTE 

1) "You remove junior team ... this can make junior championship invalid. This would mean to take medals from all juniors".
По моим подсчетам, даже если сейчас удалить 4х сербских юниоров из списка официальных решателей, то юниорский чемпионат все равно наберет необходимое количество стран и участников. Будет как раз 10 участников из 7 стран.

My statement was hypothetic one. If it was some other competition it could happen that removing 4 juniors from Serbian could lead to tournament irregularity. My statement was written with intention to show that ECSC rules are bad.
 QUOTE 

2) "This would be the same injustice as takening grandmaster norm from Feokistov because he was not competing officialy in Turkey".
Это произошло с Феоктистовым на WCSC-2008 в Юрмале.

Thank you for correcting me. Sorry for my mistake. I did go back to look the tables and tournaments but I knew that it happened somewhere. And in my opinion this was a terrible injustice to Mr. Feokistov.

3) "I am wondering if Marko Klasinc can add some comment on this issue. I think that he is a member of solving subcommete of PCCC (or whatever it is now)".
 QUOTE 

По мнению некоторых известных российских композиторов и по моему мнению тоже, PCCC на данный момент не существует, а значит нет и никаких ее комиссий, комитетов, делегатов-депутатов, президентов, председателей и т.д., но это надо обсуждать в другой теме.

Once again I never learned Russian. However I do understand most of the sentences written because of the similarity with Serbian language. However in this case I did not understand completely this sentence so I am not going to comment it.

 QUOTE 

"... in Turkey Bojan won silver and I won bronzal medal for Serbia. Since we were host country we were allowed to have two teams 8 solver. But if for whatever reasons if I or Bojan did not want to be part of the team. We could use rule 4.6 and participate as individuals. This would mean that there are 10 solvers from Serbia".
Да, если бы и Вучкович, и Младенович участвовали в ECSC-2009 только индивидуально, то сербов могло бы быть 10 (но не 12 же!), но Вучкович был в команде, Младеновича не было на турнире вообще, поэтому от страны-организатора в Суботице могло быть максимум 8 решателей. О чем тут может быть спор?

There is no any issue in Subotica about this because you are right. Bojan was member of the first team and I did not participate. However, once again, my post was more to show that ECSC are not good and in my opinion should be improved so that there are no articles that are conflicting.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3646
(7) Posted by Alexander Leontyev [Thursday, May 14, 2009 07:22]

"My statement was hypothetic one.... My statement was written with intention to show that ECSC rules are bad".
Теперь я понял Вас, и я согласен, что правила должны совершенствоваться. О том же заявлено и в декларации решателей и композиторов, принятой в Суботице -http://www.selivanov.ru/newss/?act=show_news&id=176, (см. пункт 4)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3647
(8) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:21]

From my point of view this kind of discussion only proves one thing - that current solving rules are inadequate. Thу reason is easy to explain - the rules were created when solving competitions were considered as a free time entertainment for composers during congresses. From that time the status of competitions have grown tremendously, but the rules were changed only cosmetically. The list of things which should be mentioned (or not mentioned) in the rules can go on and on.

For example, I am going to create here a thread concerning special cases in points count and/or distribution. There are a lot of standard cases in the competitions. They repeat themselves over and over, but the judges every time have to make decision anew and these decisions differ from competition to competition. So, I think we should at least document such cases and, hopefully, later include the optimal decisions (if they can be found) into the rules.

Concerning the question discussed here, I think the answer for future competitions should be easy. As currently there is no official competitive selection of participants, we should accept well known wildcard system. For example, for WCSC the statement in the rules can be something like this.

"The organizing country may accept personal requests from solvers who want to take part in WCSC. If it is possible, up to 10 additional solvers can be officially included into competition. These additional participants should represent different countries (up to 3 solvers from organizing country, up to 2 solvers from any other country). As a rule, the solvers with higher rating should be given advantage."
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3648
(9) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Thursday, May 14, 2009 08:56]

Georgy, I do agree that your proposal if accepted would improve rules. However I still think that the best option is to rewrite rules completely. What does mean maximum 6,8 or whatever the number of solvers from one country is limited on. At ECSC there is a separate junior and separate woman championship. So if country has three solid senior solvers, three solid junior solvers and three solid woman solvers that means that one solver has to be eliminated from the competition without any particularly good reason. At the same time country that does not have any reasonably good solver can participate with 6 solvers. This does not make any sense to me.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3649
(10) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Thursday, May 14, 2009 10:34]

Frankly speaking, from my point of view the rules for all our competitions (at least, WCSC, WCCT, WCCI, Album) should be rewritten from scratch. But this is a big work which nobody will try to do, until he is sure it will not be in vain...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3650
(11) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, May 14, 2009 19:32]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [09-05-14]

Dear Georgy,

you say :

"...from my point of view the rules for all our competitions (at least, WCSC, WCCT, WCCI, Album) should be rewritten from scratch...."

not less than that !

By the way, because you already said that the whole organization would also better be scratched, your point of vue seems at least to be homogeneous.

(you carefully wrote Album, and not Album...FIDE)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3651
(12) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Friday, May 15, 2009 02:19]

The subject raised by Alexander was explained at the Captains Meeting in Subotica, May 7th. It is very important to explain it again, so I will spend some more space here.
Some years ago, Serbia made an official proposal to adjust the PCCC rules to the FIDE rules and to let the host countries of WCSC and ECSC have 3 teams (as in Chess Olympiad, or European Championship in chess). In fact, such rules haven't been found in FIDE papers, they are deducted from the chess praxis. Most often, the third chess team is made from juniors or young players, and all three host teams could officially compete for medals. For instance, in the Moscow Chess Olympiad 1994, golden medal belonged to the Russia A, while Russian Juniors won the bronze medal.
This year Serbia (Novi Sad) is the host of the European Team Championship in chess, and the organizer is planning to have 2 x 3 teams, third team being made of young players in both men and women competitions.
In the chess praxis, the number of host teams (1-3) depends on the capabilities and interests of the organizing country. When Serbia applied for the 5th ECSC, one of the important motives was to give chance to larger number of Serbian problemists to participate. We believe this is the way to popularize and develop the Problem Chess.
As the PCCC delegate I approached Marko Klasinc, spokesman of the Solving Subcommittee, with request for an urgent decision on the matter. The participation of the Serbian Junior Team (age 14, 15, 17, 18) was accepted in the PCCC Presidium meeting in Bratislava, at the end of March 2009. However, it was left to be approved by the complete PCCC if the results of the Serbian Junior team would be counted as official.
As you may see from the final rank, the last two places were occupied by Serbia B and Serbia Juniors. No individuals from these two teams won any medal, but all our juniors were happy to have such a great experience. In fact, the Serbia A was also placed bellow the rating expectations, after 3 gold medals in a row. I'm not happy about these 3 results, but I'm proud we could hardly be criticized for having any advantage as hosts.
As concerning the PCCC rules, I do agree that many changes and improvements are needed. The Jurmala protests in 2008 should have been the last warning. The doubts about the regularity of the WCCT, WCSC and ECSC results spoiled the whole atmosphere in the PCCC meeting and the closing ceremony. Now, through many discussions in this Forum, we could feel this dangerous tension spreading around and leading us nowhere, instead trying to work together on better rules.
To turn to the concrete proposals, the idea of the wildcard system, mentioned by Georgy, sounds progressive to me. The rules should be adopted according to development of a field, and some chances should be created for those excellent solvers who couldn't be in the national selections for any reasons.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3654
(13) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, May 15, 2009 07:30]

@Jacques Rotenberg

Please, stop reading between the lines - that place intentionally left blank.

And do you really think that "rewritten from scratch" and "scratched" has the same meaning?

Please, put your irrational fears to better use.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3655
(14) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, May 15, 2009 09:31]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [09-05-15]

Georgy,

Thank you for your answer, that's a delight!

I do read your posts INSIDE the lines, and not BETWEEN the lines. You explained in long and detailled messages your vues on the (ex-)PCCC.

But now that you write "...that place intentionally left blank." Perhaps should I read also your texts between the lines ?

As you are using injunctions ("....stop reading...", "...put your..."), and as you speak of fear, should I understand that you want to scare me ?

All in all, an open and friendly way of chatting.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3656
(15) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Friday, May 15, 2009 10:39]

@Marjan

Thanks for a good explanation.

However, although I do agree that it's very important for juniors to participate in competitions like ECSC I have to notice that this decision by PCCC is again very questionable. I'll explain why:

Because of how rating is calculated all the results are potentially influencing performance rating of all solvers. Since the decision about accepting Serbia junior team results as valid or not will be made in August in Rio this means that next rating list that is due in July 1st will not be valid. It's impossible to publish this list without knowing if Serbian junior results will be valid or not. This means that rating calculation cannot be done and that all solvers who are expecting some norms have to wait for official results in August. Since the calculation of rating is not yet done after ECSC it's hard to tell at this time if there will be issues or not but potentially someone's norm for some of the solving titles will depend on the decision of commission for solving.

Personally, I think that it would be better to avoid confusion and make this decision prior to the July 1st. I think delegates should vote remotely what should be done. Otherwise I can see that this will lead to the new issues in some near future. For example what if there is some competition between July 1st and congress in Rio. Based on the list that will be published in July (that may be a final one or not) some tournament organizers can be under impression that they do have enough solvers from different countries so that their tournament is officially OK for gaining of some norms. However because of the rules if later on in Rio decision is made to remove Serbian juniors from the competition it's possible that norms will not be possible to achieve.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3657
(16) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, May 15, 2009 11:06]

@Jacques Rotenberg

I am sick of my words being misinterpreted. You have commented all personal remarks and somehow missed the main question:

Does "rewritten from scratch" and "scratched" has the same meaning?

And you are already fearing something. You reaction shows it. And I recommend you to use this fear for something positive, like explaining your position or preparing some suggestions, not simply off-topic criticism.

@Everyone
Sorry for off-topic, but I cannot leave the meaning of my words changed.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3658
(17) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Friday, May 15, 2009 12:11]

@Alexander (post nbr. 7)
I read this declaration and it sounds very good to me. I do support it. Let's hope that in some near future rules will be improved in a such a way that there are no issues at all.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3659
(18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, May 15, 2009 17:52]

Georgy,

you said :

"...from my point of view the rules for all our competitions (at least, WCSC, WCCT, WCCI, Album) should be rewritten from scratch...."

Is there anything left ??

From your previous messages (about PCCC, WCCT, ... and others) I understood that your point of vue is that the whole organization would also better be scratched.

If I made a mistake, ok, just tell it !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3662
(19) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Saturday, May 16, 2009 15:06]

@Jacques Rotenberg

Ok, I'll write everything once more.

1. From my point of view, PCCC is badly in need of reforms. We need many changes: in organization structure, in relations with FIDE, in rules of competitions. I know that I am not the only one with such opinion.

Of course, others can have another opinion. So, the best course of action (again from my point of view) is the open discussion, as wide as possible. So, I am doing all I can to prevent muting such a discussion. And the absence of any official reaction is for me the sign that PCCC Presidium wants it muted.

2. You could probably ask: why we need do it now? There are two reasons.

First, there have to be some changes anyway, because of FIDE decision. So, it is a good moment to do some internal audit for PCCC and lay plans for the future.

Second, I'd really started to mess with all these "political" questions when the Uri Avner's official letter appeared. From my point of view this is a masterpiece of reticence. Why, for example, Minutes of Bratislava meeting are still not published (and even not sent to delegates)? Why everyone can only from this topic get to know that some ECSC questions were discussed in Bratislava? Frankly speaking this Bratislava meeting looks for me much more like King's Council than the meeting of democratic representatives.

The letter also shows that some normal democratic procedures during expected reorganization are ignored. So, I also think that democracy in PCCC need defending and this is also the reason I'll not remain silent.

3. I do not consider PCCC President beyond criticism. If I do not like something in his actions, I am saying it openly. But on this forum this is always interpreted as my desire to destroy the PCCC, make President resign or organize some kind of revolt (or everything at once). Your first answer to my message shows this quite well - and this explains my harsh reaction. I consider this a prejudice: instead of reading my posts my opponents here search them for expected confirmation of some evil plot.

4. "...from my point of view the rules for all our competitions (at least, WCSC, WCCT, WCCI, Album) should be rewritten from scratch...."

Let's take WCCT as an example, because there are some time limitations: next congress (after Rio) should give start to new competition with rules which exclude kind of conflict from 8th WCCT. You should know that I presented at Jurmala a suggestion for rules change. As it now seems traditional to me - there is no reaction from PCCC to it.

OK, here is what I think a correct procedure.

A. At Rio PCCC creates an experts board with the task to develop new WCCT rules. The board includes those who wants to actively work on such rules.

B. PCCC transfers to these experts all suggestions received during all past years. Also the experts try to research and find all analytical articles (concerning rules) published after previous tournaments.

C. PCCC makes possible to send thoughts and suggestions to the experts and also organizes some feedback, which allows everyone at least to know that his suggestion was reviewed.

D. PCCC sets some report dates (for example, 6 months before the next congress, 3 months, 1 month) at which the board reports about the current state of work. 1 month before the congress the board should be ready with one or more variations of new rules which are published as a project and can be discussed before and at the congress.

E. The new rules are accepted at the congress.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3665
(20) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, May 16, 2009 15:24]

 QUOTE 
A. At Rio PCCC creates an experts board with the task to develop new WCCT rules. The board includes those who wants to actively work on such rules.

Such a board already exists: The WCCT sub-committee.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3666

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions ECSC-2009