Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:35 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General ISC rumblings |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Neal Turner [Saturday, Feb 22, 2025 12:20] | ISC rumblings
From the WFCC front page:
Note: The Central Controller did not accept four results of the Category 1.
However these results have been accepted by the Solving Committee.
What's going on here?
So now a decision by a tournament organiser can be overridden by the Solving Committee?
Interesting.
| | | (2) Posted by Arvydas Mockus [Sunday, Feb 23, 2025 16:45] |
'2. Organisation: at the WCCC of the preceding year central controller(s) are appointed by the WFCC delegates who will take the overall responsibility of the contest.'
Argumentation Regarding the Illegal Decision in ISC Organization
1. Legal Basis
According to the WCCC organizational structure, the central controllers (CC) are appointed by WFCC delegates during the WCCC of the preceding year. This procedure is clearly defined and established in the organizational rules.
2. Actual Violations
There is no "Solving Committee" (SC) as a governing body for ISC organization – In ISC organization, there is no officially recognized decision-making body called the "Solving Committee" that has the authority to appoint or dismiss CC.
SC had no right to make a decision – Since the appointment of CC is an exclusive right of the WFCC delegates, the SC had no authority to either appoint, replace, or reject the CC.
Disregard for the Delegates' Decision – If the CC appointment was not carried out according to the official WFCC procedure, and instead the decision was made by the SC or another unauthorized body, this constitutes a serious procedural violation. This sets a dangerous precedent, where one committee can arbitrarily assume the functions of another institution.
3. Violation of Intellectual Property and Authorship
The CC’s work is a complex process involving task selection, organization, decision-making, and result publication.
If the SC used or published the CC’s prepared materials (such as tasks, evaluation systems, or official decisions) without its consent, this could be considered unlawful appropriation.
In such a case, it could be regarded as a violation of intellectual property rights.
4. Consequences
Legal Precedent – This situation sets a dangerous precedent where unauthorized individuals can make decisions contrary to the official WFCC procedures.
Loss of Trust – Such actions reduce transparency and undermine confidence in both the WFCC and the ISC organizational process.
Institutional Coup – This effectively constitutes an institutional coup, where an alternative governance practice was established without the approval of the delegates, violating WFCC regulations.
5. Demands
The SC decision regarding CC must be immediately annulled as unlawful.
Accountability – Those responsible for this unlawful decision should be held accountable and, if necessary, suspended for procedural violations.
Institutional Review – The WFCC must ensure that similar procedural violations cannot occur in the future by reinforcing the CC appointment mechanism.
WFCC delegates must assess confidence in the Solving Committee (SC) during the session, considering the recent regulatory violation. Since the SC made a decision without legitimate authority, concerns arise regarding the legality and accountability of the committee’s actions.
Therefore, it is proposed:
To officially include this issue in the WFCC session agenda – Delegates should have the opportunity to discuss the SC’s actions and their legitimacy.
To hold a vote of confidence in the SC committee – If the committee has overstepped its authority, delegates have the right to express no confidence and propose structural changes.
To strengthen the regulations – Ensuring that in the future, neither the SC nor any other body can override the decision-making authority of WFCC delegates.
| | | (3) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Sunday, Feb 23, 2025 23:31] |
Paragraph #8 from ISC current rules clearly states when the appointed committee may override the decision of the Central Controller:
Rules and Appeals: General applicable solving rules of the WCSC/ECSC apply accordingly.
Appeals by solvers have to be sent to the central controllers who will decide in the first
instance. In case of disagreement a 3 man committee with members of the WFCC Solving
Committee will be appointed for the final decision.
It would be interesting to find out the answers to the following questions:
1. Did the Central Controller receive appeals from the 4 solvers?
2. Is WFCC going to maintain paragraph #8 from ISC rules?
I think it is not a good idea to let a committee override a decision made by the Central Controller.
When the Central Controller makes a mistake, WFCC may decide to appoint a different Central Controller.
But the whole authority for the final results should remain exclusively in Central Controller's hands.
| | | (4) Posted by Roland Ott [Monday, Feb 24, 2025 09:14] |
The central controller of ISC 2025 wrote this to the members of the Solving Committee on 27 January:
I made the decision not to accept Azerbaijan's Category 1 results due to significant statistical anomalies and other violations. Azerbaijan's local controller, Ilham Aliev, was informed of my decision but refused to accept it and filed an appeal. In such cases, the rule states:
"In case of disagreement, a 3-man committee with members of the WFCC Solving Committee will be appointed for the final decision."
I request the formation of a three-member committee with whom we can discuss the matter in detail. In my opinion, the committee should include Marek Kolčák as the SC spokesman, Axel Steinbrik as the most experienced ISC Central Controller, and the committee should decide on the third member. Of course, you are free to form the committee differently if you see fit.
It shows that the central controller of the ISC has accepted the protest of the local controller in Sumgait as deputy of the four solvers of category 1 as a valid objection.
The Spokesman of the Solving Committee then announced the composition of the 3 man committee, to which no member of the Solving Committee objected.
And as is well known, this 3 man committee approved the protest of the Azerbaijani local controller by 2:1 votes, which according to the ISC rules was the final decision.
| | | (5) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Feb 24, 2025 10:21] |
The ISC Cat-1 tournament is intended to be rated tournament. For the rated tournaments there is a sentence in the rules like this:
QUOTE
The representative (committee) has the right to confirm or not the acceptability of the tournament and
determines the tournament coefficient.
So in my opinion SC do have a right according to rules to accept or not results of the rated tournament. Actually as all other rules this one is confusing too. It gives right SC to decide that tournament is not rated. It does not state that they can remove partially some results.
I think the rules should be improved so it's clear who has rights to do what. As the rules are listed now it's very confusing. And in my opinion all "should" should be replaced with the "must" in all rules so that it's clear what is allowed and what is not allowed.
Personally, I think that SC should have rights to decide to accept/reject complete/partial results from the tournament because there are many mistakes made by tournament directors (re-using the problems that were already used in earlier solving events, selecting problems younger than 6 years, giving points for black moves in endgames etc., incorrect scoring points etc.). But the rules should be very clear and mandatory and not the optional rules.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General ISC rumblings |
|
|
|
ISC 2025
