Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
8:44 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General PCCC is no more a part of FIDE |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | | (81) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Friday, Mar 27, 2009 18:02] |
Today is 25 years of Comins Mansfield's death (27.3.1984). He was the president of PCCC in 1963.
http://pzrdig2.bloger.hr/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comins_Mansfield
Good old times of chesscomposition. What will be in the future?
| | | (82) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Friday, Mar 27, 2009 21:39] |
After reading the documents, which were called up in this thread, I myself have come to a "conclusion" (inside quotation marks on purpose, because of course I may well miss some information; in this case, whoever knows something specific and in written, please advise). Anyway, I would like to share my own personal understanding, feel free to comment.
First, we have the news entry in the Uralsky Problemist website:
http://www.selivanov.ru/newss/?act=show_news&id=164
QUOTE
22 March 2009
At the FIDE Presidential Board which was held on the 5-8 of March in Istanbul (Turkey) the decision about FIDE structure changes was made.
A number of commissions were annihilated and special FIDE projects were established instead of them.
One of such special projects “Chess Composition” was introduced instead of annihilated FIDE Permanent Commission of Chess Composition (PCCC). By the FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, FIDE Vice President Andrey Selivanov was appointed to the advisor of the special project “Chess Composition”.
This is confirmed by the page
http://www.fide.com/component/content/article/1-fide-news/3848-appointment-of-new-commission-chairmen
While you are on this page, please read the names of the FIDE commissions and of the Special Projects, doing so it will be easier for you to follow my thinking.
There is an important point in Andrey's statement: instead of the annihilated FIDE PCCC. In my opinion, this is a confusing term, simply because we have FIDE (internal) commissions (Qualifications, Technical, Arbiters, Trainers, Events, World Championships & Olympiads, Development CACDEC, Chess in Schools, Women's Chess, Medical), and an external Permanent Commission for Chess Composition. We don't have a FIDE PCCC. Are you already confused? If so, let's see what the FIDE General Secretary writes in his "Proposal to reform FIDE Commissions and Committees":
http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2008/79th_fide_congress/annex_8_2008.pdf
QUOTE
August 2008
Chess Composition Commission
In our first draft, we proposed that the duties of the CCC should be carried out as a special project under the responsibility of a project manager. During the discussions in the PB meeting of Mexico, it came out that it should be maintained. His Chairman was asked to draft a proposal regarding membership and duties of this Commission. We received recently a document from the “Permanent Commission for Chess Composition” which describes the duties and activities of this commission. When reading this document, it seems that this Commission is independent of FIDE, functioning autonomously like the Organisation responsible for Correspondence Chess. In this case, of course, Fide does not need a Commission in charge of the activities of Composition Chess. What it needs is somebody within FIDE to coordinate with the “Permanent Commission for Chess Composition”. Our initial proposal to dissolve the FIDE Commission for Chess Composition and transform it as a special project was adequate. We overlooked also Correspondence Chess. The same should be done with this Organisation. It will be added later in our proposal a Special Project.
In the first sentence, Mr Leong mentions CCC, which I understand is a FIDE internal commission. Later on he calls up a Chairman who was asked to draft a proposal and he confirms that FIDE received a document from PCCC. He goes on saying that he came to the conclusion that PCCC functions as an independent organisation, like the one responsible for correspondence chess and, therefore, FIDE do not need a commission, but what they need is somebody within FIDE to coordinate with PCCC. So, he suggests that the FIDE CCC (not PCCC) should be transformed to a special project.
What I understand, so far, is that the FIDE internal CCC is transformed to a special project (like Chess Art and Exhibition, Chess for the Disabled, Chess Media, Computer and Internet Chess, and International Organisations), whose adviser (Mr Selivanov) is to coordinate with PCCC. There is no mention that PCCC is annnihilated.
The duties of the special project adviser (as outlined in http://www.fide.com/images/stories/NEWS_2008/79th_fide_congress/annex_8_2008.pdf) are:
QUOTE
V- Composition Chess
a- The Project Manager shall coordinate with the “Permanent Commission for Chess Composition” and advise the PB on policies and relationship matters regarding Composition Chess.
b- The Project Manager shall prepare documents and material needed in his field of competence and make recommendations to the GA, the EB or the PB, after consultation with the PB Member concerned.
The term Project Manager was apparently re-phrased to Adviser at some later stage.
According to Uralksy Problemist website:
QUOTE
The advisor is supposed to perform the following functions: to develop chess composition, to improve the image and authority of composers and solvers, to cooperate with PCCC that will be now independent organization (the associate FIDE member), coordination PCCC budget and control of FIDE financial help usage. In particular 5 000 euro was provided from the FIDE budget for the PCCC in 2008 and 7 000 euro - in 2009.
I don't know what an associate FIDE member is. The closest term used by FIDE is Affiliated International Organizations, but PCCC is not listed in the page of those organisations.
http://www.fide.com/component/fidedirectory/?view=affiliated
But, wait for a moment, there are some more to come.
There is another letter of the FIDE General Secretary, presented by Andrey in this thread, which was addressed to PCCC:
QUOTE
For "Ex-members of Permanent Commission for Chess Compositions"
"Dear Colleagues in Chess,
As you may well be aware, at the instance of the FIDE President two years ago, a study on the re-structure of Commissions was conducted. Reasons were already explained in the Agenda and the Minutes of the FIDE Executive Board 2007 and the FIDE Congress 2008 both of which are published on the FIDE website. The Presidential Board Meeting in Istanbul held on 6th March 2009 confirmed all the changes, implementations and appointments of new Chairpersons and members of the re-structured Commissions.
On behalf of the FIDE President and FIDE, we thank ALL of you for the enormous amount of work you have contributed over the past several years. We hope that for those who have not been re-appointed, you may continue to contribute by correspondence and/or attend meetings of the Commissions. We will constantly monitor the work of those appointed as well as take into consideration of those who contribute even though they are not members.
I don't exactly know, but I guess there was some reaction from the PCCC Presidium, so Mr Leong sent a clarification answer. Paz quoted this letter, but I don't know when it was sent to PCCC.
QUOTE
The PCCC is considered as an international organisation affiliated to FIDE; along like the Commonwealth Chess Association, Arab Chess Union etc... All IOs are independently run from FIDE and their events are recognised by FIDE and which FIDE titles are awarded.
In the re-structure of Commissions and Committees, it was decided that the PCCC continue run its own affairs as it has been. FIDE will consider an application for budget from the PCCC and FIDE's Adviser to Chess Compositions will be our liaison. Henceforth, future reports etc should be done through our FIDE Adviser. His role will be the liaison and only monitoring the activities of PCCC as well as ensure the FIDE budget, where allocated, would be appropriately spent.
In fact, the interim answer of the PCCC Presidium confirms the above:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/pcccfide.htm
QUOTE
In response to several queries about the latest developments related to the status of the PCCC we submit the following information:
Lately, we received a message from the FIDE Secretariat saying that after restructuring their commissions the FIDE reached the conclusion that the PCCC should be regarded as independent organization. In this status, FIDE would like to see us continue our work much as before and would be willing to accept us as affiliated organization, like the Correspondence Chess Federation and several others. Our activity and titles would still be recognized by FIDE.
The PCCC Presidium will meet shortly to discuss the new developments and come back with an effective resolution that would keep the interests of chess composition intact. We are well aware of the dangers and pitfalls that may lie ahead, but we strongly believe in the ability of our organization to overcome any difficulty imposed on us from any direction.
My questions:
1. How is it derived from the above documents that PCCC is abolished by FIDE and a new organisation is needed?
2. How is it derived from the above documents that the titles awarded in events organised by PCCC are in danger not to be recognised by FIDE?
Thank you for your patience and apologies, in advance, if I have misunderstood something.
| | | (83) Posted by Valery Gurov [Friday, Mar 27, 2009 22:31] |
2Vladimir:
I think that all chess roblemist and solvers is fine undestand about what I have written. You have not understood, because "not in a theme". You not chess problemist, not solver, you never were on one chess congress.
I think that you never saw anybody from presidium PCCC. Why you so dared and confidently argue on about what simply do not know? My e-mail: valery_gurov@mail.ru, please!
| | | (84) Posted by Torsten Linß [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 00:43] |
Wow, the new SCCPA is acting very fast: http://www.selivanov.ru/news1/olympic/...
| | | (85) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 04:58]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [09-03-28] |
Valery,
QUOTE
I think that all chess roblemist and solvers is fine undestand about what I have written.
You are wrong. I am a problemist(there is even a chance I published my first problem before you. :-)) and a solver and I did not understand EVERYTHING you were talking about. You are 'not in a theme'.
I think I am not the only one who did not hear about 'stolen certificates'. I'd like to see if you can support such a strong accusation. Instead, you decided to discuss my personality and let me know how low on the food chain in this community I am. So much for crying about democracy and respect. I am sorry but I have more trust in PCCC official statements than in you words. So either provide some proof or apologize.
One of the 'scandals' you mentioned - judging of WCCC study section was covered on this forum. All sides had an opportunity to support their case. There was a vote on this issue in Jurmala. You may disagree with the decision(however, Georgy Evseev put a convincing argument why it was a right one) but formalities were followed. I failed to understand how it qualifies for a scandal? Look at the dictionary for scandal: 'shocking and immoral aspects of someone's behavior'. Controversial issue -- agreed, but what so shocking and immoral? Stolen certificates are definitely a scandal but can you provide some evidence?
If you decide to answer to me please answer to the points and issues in question. No need to discuss my personality.
| | | (86) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 05:49] |
Владимир! Специально пишу для вас по русски. Думаю с момента отъезда из Твери вы его не забыли. Хотя именно вы исказили мою первую информацию с сайта, переведя на английский и сказав, что я захватил власть. Для чего? Чтобы обострить ситуацию? Почему только вчера вышла информация на сайте комиссии? Это говорит о том,что у комиссии нечего сказать и создана плохая традиция все важные вопросы решать без обсуждения. Я открыт,, как для критики, так и для предложений. И я знаю. что такое клевета. Я четыре раза участвовал в выборах в Государственную Думу и что только мне не приписывали -и собственные яхты с сотнями любовниц и заводы, которые якобы я имею. Все это делали мои соперники для дискредитации. Однако люди разбирались, где правда, а где ложь и голосовали за меня. Я имел десятки тысяч голосов. Поэтому я 10 лет работал в Государственной Думе и много сделал для своих избирателей. Многие до сих пор жалеют, что я ушел из Думы. В ФИДЕ я являюсь вице-Президентом с 1997 года. В 20065 году в Турине я был избран тайным голосованием - 88 делегатов проголосовали за мое избрание вице-президентом - это был лучший результат из 6 кандидатов, включая представителя США. СОсновная моя работа - в исполнительной власти России, в моем подчинении 3500 работников государственных инспекций труда по всей России.5 лет я руковожу таким коллективом. Чтобы у вас не было приватного мнения - более подродно можете обо мне узнать у Александра Ажусина, который передает вам привет. Моя активность всегда направлена на развитие, а не на разрушение. Мне дали полномочия в ФИДЕ развивать композицию, но не командовать ей. И я не претендую на руководство комиссией. Есть 5-6 достойных любителей композиции. Проведя огранизационные мероприятия в этом году, можно оставить Ури Авнера Президентом комиссии. А в следующем году на выборах определить нового руководителя. Моя задача - обеспечивать взаимодействие. А сегодня истерики у тех, кто думает, что руководить композицией будет назначенный человек.И нечегот не хотят менять. Я сопротивлялся больше всех ликвидации комиссии в ФИДЕ и призывал Авнера быть активней. Что из этого получилось - вы видите. Если бы я не имел полномочий как вице-президент ФИДЕ, то комиссию упразднили бы 2 года назад.
| | | (87) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 05:52] |
Владимир! Специально пишу для вас по русски. Думаю с момента отъезда из Твери вы его не забыли. Хотя именно вы исказили мою первую информацию с сайта, переведя на английский и сказав, что я захватил власть. Для чего? Чтобы обострить ситуацию? Почему только вчера вышла информация на сайте комиссии? Это говорит о том,что у комиссии нечего сказать и создана плохая традиция все важные вопросы решать без обсуждения. Я открыт, как для критики, так и для предложений. И я знаю. что такое клевета. Я четыре раза участвовал в выборах в Государственную Думу и что только мне не приписывали -и собственные яхты с сотнями любовниц и заводы, которые якобы я имею. Все это делали мои соперники для дискредитации. Однако люди разбирались, где правда, а где ложь и голосовали за меня. Я имел десятки тысяч голосов. Поэтому я 10 лет работал в Государственной Думе и много сделал для своих избирателей. Многие до сих пор жалеют, что я ушел из Думы. В ФИДЕ я являюсь вице-
Поошу извинить редактора сайта за ошибки - повторяю текст.
Президентом с 1997 года. В 2006 году в Турине я был избран тайным голосованием - 88 делегатов проголосовали за мое избрание вице-президентом - это был лучший результат из 6 кандидатов, включая представителя США. Основная моя работа - в исполнительной власти России, в моем подчинении 3500 работников государственных инспекций труда по всей России.5 лет я руковожу таким коллективом. Чтобы у вас не было приватного мнения - более подродно можете обо мне узнать у Александра Ажусина, который передает вам привет. Моя активность всегда направлена на развитие, а не на разрушение. Мне дали полномочия в ФИДЕ развивать композицию, но не командовать ей. И я не претендую на руководство комиссией. Есть 5-6 достойных любителей композиции. Проведя огранизационные мероприятия в этом году, можно оставить Ури Авнера Президентом комиссии. А в следующем году на выборах определить нового руководителя. Моя задача - обеспечивать взаимодействие. А сегодня истерики у тех, кто думает, что руководить композицией будет назначенный человек.И нечегот не хотят менять. Я сопротивлялся больше всех ликвидации комиссии в ФИДЕ и призывал Авнера быть активней. Что из этого получилось - вы видите. Если бы я не имел полномочий как вице-президент ФИДЕ, то комиссию упразднили бы 2 года назад.
| | | (88) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 06:39]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [09-03-28] |
Andrey, I am very flattered that you decided to answer me personally(in my native Russian). I am also very touched that my humble opinion carries so much weight(too much for not being 'in a theme') that it could change anything. You should appoint me as the chief of your PR(sorry could not be serious after 12 hour work day on Friday).
First, I disagree that I have twisted your words. I simple translated your post and I briefly laid out my opinion to spark a discussion. Since not a lot of people could understand Russian well enough, I just translated what was published on your site. This was news and I felt I could share it with this community.
Secondly, I am on nobody's side, I am an outsider for either FIDE or PCCC. I have absolutely no contact with any PCCC or FIDE officials(well, I had a brief exchange with Harry on unrelated business). As Valery noted, I was not present on any PCCC congress. I have no agenda whatsoever. I must admit that I have more harsh words but now I have to resist and be more careful.
Thirdly, I respect you personally a lot(looking forward to meet you in person). I must second Miodrag and admit that I check your web site almost on a daily basis. I think you are doing a great work for the chess community.
I think you still have quite a strong position to make PCCC be a special project under FIDE. Do not blow it!
I guess, it's my 15 minutes of fame here.
| | | (89) Posted by Valery Gurov [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 07:27] |
2ALL:
I apologise for my bad English in the previous messages! I wished to offend nobody!! If I am necessary I can repeat in Russian everything that have told!!!
2 Taypkin:
Уважаемый Владимир!
Пишу по-русски, так как Ваш ответ дает мне понять, что мои английские фразы были неверно истолкованы.
Я вполне допускаю, что Вы шахматный композитор и решатель, просто я не настолько эрудированный человек. Поэтому приношу Вам свои извинения.
Я не говорил об украденных дипломах гроссмейстеров и мастеров. Я говорил о том, что они сделаны для нашего времени ужасно дешево, я говорил о том, что их передают на комиссии без торжественного вручения, как будто их хозяева украли их. Вот о чем я говорил.
Насчет WCCT(Вы видимо это имели в виду) то вся эта ситуация была спровоцирована закулисной игрой определенного круга лиц. Никакого голосования ВООБЩЕ не должно было быть, надо было просто ФОМАЛЬНО соблюдать правила соревнования. А словаков за их хамство на награждении вообще надо было дисквалифицировать. А Ваш любимый президет целый месяц потом забрасывал нас письмами с предложением пойти им навстречу, разделить золото и т.д. Пацу и Вам не понравилось, что я называю это скандалом? Хорошо, называйте это проблемами.
Меня удивляет, что люди на этом форуме, которых никто в глаза не видел(я пишу не о Вас), так живо и нахраписто обсуждают проблемы PCCC, каких то других соревнований, называют Илюмжинова бандитом, а Каспарова героем и демократом и т.д. Каспаров - демократ!? Да, это смешно всем, кто хоть мало мкальски с ним знаком. Миша Младенвич очень сдержаный человек и у ж если его так прорвало, то становится понятно какая демократия в PCCC...
Вы можете верить всем официальным бумагам pccc и дальше, как Вы наверное верили всем официальным изданиям в СССР - самой демократичной стране в мире. Я Вм рекомендую почитать мои статьи про конгрессы в Шахматной поэзии, гарантирую, что понравится.
Приношу извинения за мой плохой английский в предыдущих сообщениях. Я никого не хотел обидеть. Если надо я могу по-русски повторить все, что сказал.
| | | (90) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 09:11]; edited by Jean-Marc Loustau [09-03-28] |
这是一个很大很高兴有一个站点的各种意见能够表达自己,在几个不同的语言! !
But, am I right?
| | | (91) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 11:33] |
Je suis pas tout à fait d'accord avec toi, Jean-Marc, car В чужой монастырь со своим уставом не ходят. Mais il est vrai que Бог је прво себи браду створио.
| | | (92) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 13:52] |
Valery said (to somebody): "You not chess problemist, not solver, you never were on one chess congress. I think that you never saw anybody from presidium PCCC."
For the record: Please!
When did you obtain the authority to go around punching people's Problemist Cards?
Last I checked, any enthusiast and their opinions -- whatever they may be -- were welcomed.
Perhaps something was lost in translation?
I put your text into an online translator, going from English to Russian, then back to English.
Here is what came out:
[ A "problemist" is somebody who skydives into chess congress, and buys lunch for my crew. ]
jeje, kidding you, of course.
Seriously though, the tone of this nearly pointless thread seems free-falling into speculation and insults.
Two words that might help: Rip Cord.
| | | (93) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 13:55] |
Dear All
I have decided to write here my opinion and analysis. This will be a long post, because I tried to cover all the
possibilities and remain as objective as possible. Of course, it is not always possible and I'll put the statements which
obviously present my personal opinion only in brackets [like this] All the estimations and probabilities also show my opinion only. And, of course, nobody has to agree with everything else.
So, let's start.
THE FIDE
One may like it or not, but FIDE currently is the only organization which unites all kinds of chess activities. There is
simply no alternative. So, the decision to be with FIDE or not with FIDE is in practice the decision to be with world
chess movement or fully separate from it. [In my opinion the second decision which was supported by several posts here
will lead to transforming PCCC into Secluded Society of Old Cranks (SSoOC(TM)), which will seem harmless enough to let
them continue their perversive activities until all of them die of old age. Sorry, this joke is not intended to be funny.]
THE PAST
It looks like not everyone sees that until now PCCC was in extremely advantageous position. Harry's post (82) shows it
quite well. There were no two different commissions "CCC" and "PCCC", but only one of them, known as PCCC :). In fact PCCC
was internal part of FIDE, but at the same time fully independent. Rather rude joke from Andrey Selivanov (67) really
quite well describes our previous position. PCCC was able to make any decision absolutely independently, but its value was
as if full FIDE Congress approved such decision. PCCC President signature in a sense meant the same as FIDE President
signature. And all this without any kind of control or pressure from FIDE itself.
Was this position abused by PCCC? No, never.
Was this position well used by PCCC? Also no.
Was this position underused by PCCC? Well, yes. [Consider this a criticism. When Andrey Selivanov was elected a FIDE
vice-president, PCCC _should_ have tried to find some dividends from it, from additional budget to official approval or
labeling of some competitions. As far as I know, nothing was done, while Andrey's suggestions were mainly rejected with
cold frown. All this, for the sake of "independence", I presume. But, continuing Andrey's risky analogy, when you get married you lose your independence, but with new interdependence you can win significantly more.]
FROM PAST TO PRESENT
The above situation was too good for PCCC to continue infinitely. Internal audit (which cited in FIDE documents) is a good
way to find any abnormalities.
[But why does nobody ask, what was done to avoid this kind of divorce?]
According to available FIDE documents there was the following sequence of events.
1. After internal audit I.Leong had decided that FIDE does not need a Commission on Chess Composition.
2. Later he changed his mind and decided to keep Commission. [Add 1 point to Andrey Selivanov, I do not see who else could
have influenced his opinion.]
3. At the Dresden FIDE Congress he returned to his initial opinion. [Subtract 1 point from Uri Avner, who was in Dresden
and had a discussions with I.Leong.]
4. In March 2009 this decision was approved by FIDE.
THE PRESENT
The current situation is quite ambiguous.
On the one hand, PCCC simply no longer exists in juridical sense. To understand why, simply open official PCCC site and
press "What is PCCC" button. The very first phrase is "The Permanent Commission for Chess Compositions (PCCC) operates by
definition under a mandate from the FIDE." So, as soon as mandate revoked, there is no legal base for PCCC to act.
IANAL [I always wanted to use this abbreviation], but I think a lot of work is required to legally register a renewed
composition organization. And it will be necessary if we will want to interact with FIDE. [There is probably no need to
register a SSoOC.]
On the other hand, no one, including FIDE, wanted to destroy PCCC or force it to be resurrected from nothing. So, PCCC
can continue operate as before, but in understanding that its status is currently temporary and undefined.
THE FUTURE
This part, of course, is the most speculative, but I tried to cover all the possibilities. I see five ways the situation
can develop, which fall in two groups. I'll number these possibilities because then can sometimes convert from one to
another.
A. BREAK
The commission decides not to have any relations with FIDE (60% estimate probability).
A1. SSoOC
Andrey Selivanov decides not to pursue the issue (20% local probability, 12% overall probability). He reports to FIDE that
commission does not want to work with FIDE, special project is canceled, composition is left out of world chess movement,
support of composition by local chess federations (where it exists) gradually stops.
Expected result: everything seems OK in the beginning, slow degradation, death of composition as art in the end.
A2. CIVIL WAR
Andrey Selivanov decides to use FIDE resources to keep composition under the FIDE wing (80%, 48%). He starts to organize
separate commission associated with FIDE. He will have support from countries where local federations support composition
and also from those who will see positive trends.
The first result is bad (expect to see divided different inferior albums, world championships, maybe even congresses). Later, frankly speaking, I do not see how old commission can _win_ this war. So my estimate is 2/3 for Selivanov's win (with end result of B1 with worse situation, see below, overall probability 32%) and 1/3 for mutual attrition with end result like in A1, only much faster (overall probability 16%).
There no unique expected result in this case.
B. WORK
The commission decides to continue work with FIDE (40%).
B1. DICTATORSHIP
Andrey Selivanov successfully forces the creation of puppet commission (20%,8%). The main threat here is that the
"dictator" himself is selected by FIDE. It is quite possible that, for example, everyone will be happy with Andrey's
dictatorship but, after the another person will be appointed by FIDE President everything will change dramatically.
Expected result: unpredictable, better to avoid.
B2. COLLABORATION
Andrey Selivanov offers available FIDE resources to commission and commission decides to use these resources for future
development of chess composition (40%,16%). This requires a lot of _work_ from both sides. [Under work I mean real and
probably hard work, and not simply presiding at Congresses and pretending that all is well.] The best solution will be to
start with preparation of some kind of agreement between the commission and FIDE, which will work as insurance and keep
the quality of relations independent of personalities.
Expected result: good perspectives for further development.
B3. DELAY
The commission tells everyone about collaboration with FIDE, but in practice is doing nothing (40%,16%). For Andrey they
are are telling that they are reviewing his suggestions, for everyone else they speak about developing plans for future
collaboration. [In practice the same almost meaningless routine we saw the last several years is going on.]
[I am not against some delay in principle. I am even thinking that it can be the best solution in current circumstances.
Let us give everyone time to think and prepare some suggestions. I am against the delay that is used as excuse for doing
nothing at all. I'll not be happy if the commission will every time tell: we are not yet ready, because the question quite
difficult. Also, I think the delay will increase the number of composers interested in collaboration with FIDE.]
Expected result [optimistic]: There no unique expected result in this case. I consider the delay can only last until next elections. If no suggestions appear until then, I expect the following local probabilities for future development of situation: B1 (25%), B2 (50%), A1 (25%).
CONCLUSION
After calculating all my estimations, I have the following "final" probabilities.
SSoOC - 32%
DICTATORSHIP - 44%
COLLABORATION - 24%
There is no real possibility to "support" DICTATORSHIP result - you can only allow it to happen. Other positions can and
will have supporters. From my point of view the COLLABORATION model is by far the best, but at the same time it is most
difficult to achieve.
| | | (94) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 17:57] |
How does it matter whether composition/solving tourneys are sponsored by FIDE's global chess movement or by Echec's New Problem Artists and Solvers Society (EN-PASS)?
Sorry, I had to reject SSoOC -- I can accept the two bookends, but still in denial about the "O".
Anyway, Georgy claims that in the absence of FIDE's sunlight, problem art withers into near-extinction.
I do wish this doomsday claim were better substantiated -- it would improve his argument by 97%.
I do not see how FIDE has a strong influence -- either way -- on the trajectory of problem art.
Conjurred statistics aside, why should I care about any of these outcomes? And if I did care, how could I have any influence on the outcome? As far as I see it, this amounts only to a name change (on titles, albums, tourneys, and solver ratings). I see no reason to support such a break, but if FIDE should wish this, no problem.
I greatly respect those who have earned FIDE titles in solving/composing, but let's be honest...
It has long been FIDE's honor to put their name on the title for these standout masters of the chess problem.
If they would decide to surrender this honor, then hey, cheerio and good luck to them.
All that being said, please allow me to take a turn with some unsubstatiated speculation:
What is really going on behind all the re-shuffling?
As always, somebody sees profit in this: Money.
Just another set of politicians, seeking to turn a profit from their own shadow.
So, I expect to see (nominal) membership & entry fees, in exchange for big advertising, prize funds, and more sponsorship of problem journals. And, of course, greater visibility for us Secluded Cranks. :)
| | | (95) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 18:57] |
In the end, no organisation whatsoever could break our ART so we shouldn't care too much. Maybe there will be no FIDE albums if we can't get a solution and some less tourneys but the composing at whole is not really touched. Of course, if one goes for titles and stuff it's something else but we still regard people like Giegold, Kraemer, Zepler, Kohtz, Kockelkorn as good composers even without a title. So in the end, what matters is what is published, not under what conditions.
You can be sure of one thing: No matter how this will end, I still continue composing something and I still send it to magazines. If it is good it will be reprinted, if not it won't. This is how it always was.
Internet and IMO especially the world wide web interaction like on MatPlus forum and chessproblem.net have already done what would be an important matter for any chess society: Let problemists all over the world - but also those who neither compose nor solve but still enjoy seeing problems - have a voice that is heard.
The organisation (PCCC) may give chess composers some fancy like high quality anthologys (FIDE albums), international tourneys with good prize funds, master titles (although the use of those is also debated) etc. but not the base of composing itself because that existed before and will still be kept if they can't agree to each other. It worked before FIDE existed, it worked before PCCC existed. PCCC gave us fancy but losing the fancy should make nobody stop composing. If PCCC and FIDE can't get to a decision and therefor take this fancy, fine. But as long as we stand sane, we can lose only that fancy and not all food! Small groups like we already have - several dozen magazines - independently of chess associations or led by people who believe in the beauty of chess will not all stop appearing as long as someone subscribes to them.
I hope it is clear what I want to say. Things may become worse but not bad.
| | | (96) Posted by Torsten Linß [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 20:09]; edited by Torsten Linß [09-03-28] |
(a) [in reply to post 93 by GE]
Probabilities can only be assigned to events/experiments that can be
(potentially) repeated infinitely, but what is going on is a unique
process.
(b) [in reply to post 93 by GE]
We may find others´s opinions strange, weird, ridiculous and
incomprehensible. But this does not entitle us to denounce them as
``old cranks´´.
(c) [most importantly]
What we are witnessing is a situation that threatens the unity of
chess problemists. And I´m sorry to make this statement, Andrey is
pressing ahead with splitting the problem chess community - even if
he is doing this unintentionally.
Andrey has been apointed ADVISOR - and I like everybody to reflect
on the meaning of the word. But whom is he advising? FIDE or PCCC?
Instead it appears to many that he uses the present unclear situation
to install himself as the central figure in problem chess. In a
different thread he even suggested a name for a new problem chess
association.
There has been much criticism of PCCC and its executive committee.
And Andrey might be the best person to deal with the present
situation for the best of problem chess, but any kind of putsch
against the PCCC must be avoided. This would inevitably result in
a split in our community, and MUST be prevented!
| | | (97) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 21:37]; edited by Dejan Glisić [09-03-28] |
Reply to 95 (and 94): PCCC or other organization can't give you high prizes for international composition tourneys. You, or other organizers, have to find some sponsors if you want high prizes. Turn arround yourself and look for people who give to chess composition. Also ask yourself: what can I do for chess composition? The most of us are volunteers and sponsors.
PCCC is supposed to connect us into a harmonious and visible population. It can help us to find sponsors.
The last situation definitively isn't good for chess composition.
(Sorry, edit wrong word: harmful/harmonious)
| | | (98) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Saturday, Mar 28, 2009 23:11]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [09-03-28] |
QUOTE
Harry's post (82) shows it quite well. There were no two different commissions "CCC" and "PCCC", but only one of them, known as PCCC :). In fact PCCC was internal part of FIDE, but at the same time fully independent.
I would be interested, Georgy, to listen to your interpretation of what the General Secretary means when he writes in his proposal
QUOTE
What FIDE needs is somebody within FIDE to coordinate with the Permanent Commission for Chess Composition.
Our initial proposal to dissolve the FIDE Commission for Chess Composition and transform it as a special project was adequate.
One may say that there was no FIDE internal CCC, but this does not change anything. What I understood is that Mr Leong, is questioning the need of establishing a FIDE internal Commission or a special project.
| | | (99) Posted by Hans Gruber [Sunday, Mar 29, 2009 00:49] |
Dear all,
it is astonishing (and the most deplorable issue within this whole discussion), that so many gentlemen who are well-known as excellent composers spend so much time (and energy!) on the bureaucracy of the world of chess composition. What a wealth of compositions could be expected if this time (and energy) could be transformed into compositional efforts.
The administration and organisation of our world of chess composition is neither professional nor commercial and never has been - and this certainly is a tremendous strength of chess compositions, because it permits much more autonomy and independence of organisations not inherently related to chess composition (sponsors, investors, FIDE, etc.).
hg hg
| | | (100) Posted by Valery Gurov [Sunday, Mar 29, 2009 09:47] |
Again I apologise formy bad English!!!
All that has occurred - has occurred not casually. In our community I observe division of interests of different people for a long time already.
In a chess composition there are three types of people: composers, solvers and "contemplators" (or "admirers").
For solvers the composition certainly is sports (at least for the majority). Therefore they, in my opinion, in any case will vote for FIDE. The Increasing quantity of solvers comes on the congresses only for 3 days for competition.
For contemplators it is a charade or a crossword puzzle - "lovely pastime".
Composers share basically on two types - "sportsmens" and "artists". And sportsmens, on mine opinion, much more (look, for example, who participates in WCCI and who does not participate). I think that sportsmens will vote for FIDE.
Simple arithmetics turns out: if there will be a split the majority remains with FIDE.
Split is not pleasant to me. I see only one decision: meaningful dialogue between Avner (PCCC) and Selivanov (FIDE).
We will hope...
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MatPlus.Net Forum General PCCC is no more a part of FIDE |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
