DP, unpublished article

[Algimantas]

Editor in chief of De Problemist dr.A.van der Stoep refused to publish my article (response to an article S.Yushkevitch, in English, published in DP N5, 2013) because of "low quality articles."
I believe that I had the right of reply - and also in English, although I am not a member of the editorial board of DP, as S.Yushkevitch.
Therefore, the article is published on this forum.

Regarding S.Yushkevitch‘s article „CPI: steps towards disappearance“ (DP, N5, 2013)
Algimantas Kaciuska

Belarus-2012, C25, endgames 5/D2
PWCP-V, A29, endgames 5,26/D4
PWCP-V, C8, endgames 15,26/D9
PWCP-V, D7, endgames 16,25/D48

1. Contest „Belarus-2012“, C25.
Clear serious mistake of 4 judges and contest co-ordinator. I did not notice the mistake, sorry.
But... Organizer of this contest is not CPI, it was conducted by Belarus Draughts Federation. CPI is unable to influence course and results of such contests, it is only able (if decided that there are serious violations), not to classify the contest results. C25 in his/her category took the 49th place (10 creations are classified). I think that “the mistake with the 49th place” in one of the contest categories, should not cross out the work and results of contest organizers, participants, prize-winners.
2. PWCP-V.
As justly notes S.Yushkevitch in his article, concerning A29, C8 and D7 I (like S.Zilevicius) was of different opinion than of the 4 judges of this championship and CPI. S.Zilevicius and I publicized our opinion on FMJD website still in the course of the championship, in the official document (along with preliminary results):
http://fmjd.org/downloads/cpi/PWCP-V-Remarks-2.pdf
After our opinion was publicized during the championship, neither participants nor e.g. S.Yushkevitch entered some objections or contradictions regarding the evaluation of 4 judges and decision of CPI (as S.Zilevicius and I think, it was wrong), though there was a deadline to enter objections.
I do not intend to defend opinions and decisions of A.Moiseyev, A.Uvarov, V.Vorushilo, R.Shayakhmetov and V.Shulga, because I did not and do not agree with them. Nevertheless I can say that A29, C8 and D7 in this world championship’s relevant categories took the 24th, 17th and 14th places (their authors received no classification points), authors of these creations did not pretend to get prizes in this world championship. Besides that, many colleagues treat the mentioned endgames in the manner like the mentioned judges and CPI (in its decision). Therefore, probably not incidentally there were no protests during the championship regarding solutions of the mentioned judges and CPI (except opinions of S.Zilevičius and me, publicized in the official document during the championship).
3. Facts given in S.Yushkevitch’s article are true in essence. But I disagree withy S.Yuhkevitch’s angry conclusion started in the title („steps towards disappearance“) and completed in the last words of the article („such a CPI is not needed any longer“).

[Arjen]

Dear Algimantas,

I do agree with the words 'such a CPI is not needed any longer'. I will explain this shortly.
First I would like to say that it isn't true Arie van der Stoep refused your opinion. He incorporated this in his article in DP December 2013.

In PWCP-V there have been some violations of the rules (RI), we all agree. The claim that the concerning compositions were not significant for the final rankings, and so arguing that this isn't important, is a sophism. The argument that there were no protests isn't also valid, because CPI always have the duty to comply with the rules (RI). At least, I strongly think they have to do this. The biggest problem I think is the lack of balance between Western and Eastern European 'influences' in CPI. For example: many CPI-documents were written in Russian, the board of CPI only consists of members from Eastern Europe, jury's also, and so on. And, as Arie van der Stoep noted in DP December 2013, the fact that already published compositions are allowed in new championships is not widely supported by Western European composers. All these problems leads logically to a desinterest in CPI of Western European composers. Such a CPI isn't needed any longer, indeed.

Kind regards,
Arjen Timmer

[rusms]

Hello, everyone !

I was one of 4 unfortunate judges who scored 3 problems with questionable finals in PWCP-Y. I will talk only for myself. Yes, I knew rules ! I also contacted and consulted privately (just in case) with Mr. S. Yushkevich and he confirmed clearly that all these finals are illegal. In addition - it was some sort of pressure from Coordinator Mr. Kaciuska, who also wrote me in several emails with Interpretation of rule.

However, I decided finally to score (not eliminate) all these 3 problems in PWCP-Y. Why I did so ? An answer is simple: I was totally disagree with this rule! I expected that I might be alone with my opinion and once we don't have agreement - it will be pass to CPI and precedent will be created. In fact - there were 4 (out of 5) of us who decided to go against rule.

An issue was passed to CPI - head legal organization which has legitimate rights to create, update and interpretate rules. I do believe - I did right and honest thing. CPI decided to score problems - so be it.

Finals 5,26/D4, 15,26/D9, 16,25/D48 and similar finals must be (my dream) absolutely legal and must participate in future problem events under CPI. I don't want to confuse forum readers - this highly restricted rule is still in affect today but precedent created. I really hope new CPI administration will find a time to review and revise this very questionable rule.

These finals are perfectly legal in ending composition because they all are covered in Moser 1962 edition. Why should we treat them differently for problems ?? The main point is - all these positions are "itself finals", there is no play after we reach them.

My personal opinion - composition should have only 3 major restriction: originality, economic solution (no alternative play) and economic final. Nothing more. Anything else is OK. Even position legality not necessary needed: full freedom, full fantasy, full imagination!

I would like to share with you couple compositions. Here there are 4(!) "illegal" finals combined into one problem. Should we eliminate these positions from Concourses ?

#1

А. Моiseyev, MIF, 10-11-2013

30.38.20.27(34)21 and we have motive:

Black to move


... or another way:

#2

А. Моiseyev, MIF, 10-11-2013

23.21 etc+

Why we should eliminate all these and many, many other beautiful problems with these finals ???

Composition should open gates, not build walls !

Respectfully,

Alex Moiseyev
Columbus, OH, USA
=================================================================================
I still don't know where I really belong: West (reside in USA) or East (raised in USSR). Probably it will be accurate to say: "citizen of the World" I think my personal view on this matter commit main West principle: freedom.

[Algimantas]

Dear Arjen,
Who problemists of the Netherlands, France agree to work in CPI FMJD? We do ask / invite / wait for 4 years.
Best regards,
Algimantas

[sy]

A.Moiseyev reflections towards finals in problems on 100-square board are not actually. They could be actually in 1930s, when G.Gortmans, W.B.Monsma, and many others, including R.C.Keller, discussed: how rules have to be formulated. Reflections of A.Moiseyev are “yesterday day” for problemism on 100-square board. But his post is interested not his reflections, but that A.Moiseyev gave us above a very romantic portrait of himself, I quote in Italic:

“I still don't know where I really belong: West (reside in USA) or East (raised in USSR). Probably it will be accurate to say: "citizen of the World" I think my personal view on this matter commit main West principle: freedom.”

Well, I always believed that main West principle is: a law.
And also that not geography (“West” and “East”) is “a deadline”, but “honest” and “dishonest” is a deadline dividing people.
Honest people do put a law first of all.
Dishonest people do put themselves first of all.

The portrait of A.Moiseyev, which he gave us, is charming, but not full.
To complete his portrait I quote below in Italic the fragment from his text written 24.12.2013 in Russian at SHASHKI V ROSSII website, topic “дискуссии о композиции” (“discussions over composition”). The fragment is given in my translation in English, keeping A.Moiseyev’ colors. The original text from Russian website completely is placed by Italic in the end of my post.

“… наиболее честное решение такое: если я считаю, что моё мнение правильное, то оно важнее закона.”
“…the most honest decision is: if I do think that my opinion is correct, then my opinion is more important than a law.”

I think, this text’ fragment from SHASHKI V ROSSII website, at first, takes no comment more and, at second, this text' fragment is perfect “finishing touch” to A.Moiseyev’ portrait.

S.Yushkevitch
__________________________________________________

alemo
Тема сообщения: Отправлено: Дек 24, 2013 - 09:44 PM
Зарегистрирован: Апр 04, 2003
Сообщений: 5690

Зорик, там вопрос был не только насчёт финалов, а серьёзнее и глубже: можно ли судье нарушать действующие правила если он с ними не согласен ? С. Юшкевич, А. Качюшка, С. Жилявичус, В. Беляускас считают, что нельзя. Я тоже до начала соревнования считал: закон есть закон и это важнее всего. Если неправильный закон - надо менять в установленном порядке, но нельзя нарушать.

Но жизнь оказалась богаче. Появились позиции с этими финалами и я просто не смог дать им нулевую оценку. Я долго думал, прежде чем принять решение. В конце концов решил, что наиболее честное решение такое: если я считаю, что моё мнение правильное, то оно важнее закона.

Я специально выделил цветом эту легендарную фразу, чтобы легче было цитировать всем желающим.

Спорность и неоднозначность этих финалов очевидна: по ним уже не раз возникали прения. По моему этот вопрос рассматривался CPI в 2006 году и тогда решение было в пользу Правил.

А вот ты мог бы нарушить закон, Зорик ? Р. Шаяхметов, В. Ворушило, А. Уваров и Ваш покорный слуга смогли и даже не понесли наказания не считая лёгкой порции помоев

[rusms]

Well, I always believed that main West principle is: a law.
Honest people do put a law first of all.
Dishonest people do put themselves first of all.

I just quoted most important part of Mr. Yushkevich post. We've got it to the point.

1) I think principles and values are more important than laws and honest people should follow the principles.
2) Laws are written by people and can be wrong, values come from morality.
3) Again - for me freedom and principles are more important than laws. For Mr. Yushkevich written word is more important than meaning and values ... so be it ! And this is his portrait now.

And finally .... I can address you to Germany 1934, when we had elections and hitler was elected. It was perfectly lawful event and we know what happened. Later he made criminal orders and laws - should people follow it ? Were ordinary German people (not Nazi) who just follow the law honest ... if they understand that law is criminal ?

If 9 people have one opinion and 1 person has another - this person can be right and all other - wrong. And even if all 10 people have the same opinion - they all can be wrong as well.

If I believe that law is incorrect, inaccurate, wrong. immoral etc - I don't have to follow it. I follow my heart, my principles, my morality. Period.

This is not West or East morality, this is human morality. It looks like me and Mr. Yushkevich have different moral principles. I always try to live in comfort with my heart. This is not an easy thing to do. It is much easy to live in comfort with law because you don't have to think, just follow the law.

Respectfully,

A. Moiseyev
Columbus, OH, USA

[ildjarn]

Why we should eliminate all these and many, many other beautiful problems with these finals ???

They shouldn't be eliminated, but they have no place in a competition under the current CPI rules either. There are other means to publish things like this, e.g. websites or magazines.

[rusms]

they have no place in a competition under the current CPI rules

This is also not 100% accurate. Current CPI President Nr. V. Shulga who voted to score these questionable positions mentioned that interpretation of these confusing rules can be vary - depends on preferences. You can read his letter, not only Mr. Yushkevich letter.

In this situation indeed my preferences are with Mr. Shulga - recognize and legalize these finals. In my personal opinion rules must be minimum and shall not occupy more than 1 page. Anything else - instruction for judges. Instead, today we have 12-15 pages of restrictions, restrictions, restrictions.

And main restriction for problems - combination is main and must part with sacrifices of white pieces ... no forcing, no contra play, treats and other maneurs. Forcing is almost prohibited (not entirely) under current rules. Hundreds and thousand problems threw away under these rules.

These rules tell me WHAT and HOW I should compose. This is unacceptable.

Finals are small and miserable part of problem and we shouldn't have such crazy barriers.

I still strongly and proudly believe that my decision as judge in this competition (PWCP-V) was correct and honest and precedent was created - my main goal. People continue attack this questionable rule for decade and now we have some progress.

Respectfully,

A. Moiseyev
Columbus, OH, USA

[Klaas van der Laan]

Something else: What I do not understand is why problemists do make so many rules for themselves, but as game-players want to do a little modernization (eg "Killer" rule), then problemists are upset because many of their problems will not match anymore with that.

[sy]

I was mistaken, when I wrote at this topic above: “…this text' fragment (“…the most honest decision is: if I do think that my opinion is correct, then my opinion is more important than a law.”) is perfect “finishing touch” to A.Moiseyev’ portrait.

Because A.Moiseyev did add at this topic 25.12.2013 one more bright color to his portrait, when he did compare (let even by non-direct text) people, who wrote rules for problemism, with Hitler, I quote by Italic: “I can address you to Germany 1934, when we had elections and hitler was elected. It was perfectly lawful event and we know what happened. Later he made criminal orders and laws - should people follow it?”.

And, probably, specially for Russian-language people who do not speak English, at SHASHKI V ROSSII website 26.12.2013 A.Moiseyev did confirm the parallel, which he made above, probably with the aim that nobody would have a doubt as regards to his opinion. That time A.Moiseyev was even more sincere in his feelings towards authors of present international rules for problemism, I quote by Italic his text from topic “дискуссии о композиции” (“discussions over composition”):

“Думаю какие-то элементы садистско-нацисткого толка у авторов этих Правил были.”

In English it sounds so (in my translation, by Italic):

“I think authors of these rules had some elements of sadism-nazism’ character”.

Well, it’s really “a pearl” of “citizen of the World"!

“Authors of these rules” – those are Steef de Bruijn, the Netherlands (regrettable gone in 2004), Alain Tavernier, France and me, Serge Yushkevitch, representative of former USSR problemists, now Ukraine. We worked together for International rules of problemism (RI), which are based on Dutch, French and former USSR rules, and which are, in some way, a synthesis of various problemism’ schools.

So, according to A.Moiseyev, Steef, Alain and me had “some elements of sadism-nazism’ character”. But we, first of all, tried took to attention experience which was accumulated by various generation in various countries, to keep principles written in rules already existed (and these our intentions are written in the text of the RI). Accordingly, “a pearl” of “citizen of the World” leads to conclusion that not only we three (Steef, Alain and me) but also authors of rules, which entered in present RI, had “some elements of sadism-nazism’ character”, I remind those authors of rules already existed: G.L.Gortmans, W.B.Monsma, J.Viergever, J.Bus, P.van der Kwartel (all the Netherlands), G.Avid (France), B.Shkitkin, A.Fedoruk (USSR).
Not bad company, by the way, and, certainly, it’s much better to be in the company of these “sadist’s-nazist’s”, than to have something similar with “citizen of the World"!

Well, now I already am not sure A.Moiseyev did put finishing touch to his portrait. It may not be excluded, next time at this draughts forum we will see how “citizen of the World” will present himself as “a fighter for human rights”, or “a fighter against apartheid” and so on. Too, it should not be excluded that “Moiseyev’ list”, which does include people who have “some elements of sadism-nazism’ character”, will be continued.

A really “Pulp Fiction” alive from “citizen of the World”!

[ildjarn]

These rules tell me WHAT and HOW I should compose.

The rules tell you WHAT and HOW you should compose if you want to participate in that particular competition.

By accepting the job as a judge for a competition, you accept the rules which apply for the compositions entered for that competition. If you don't like the rules, you shouldn't have accepted the judging job.

[Alain Tavernier]

Ce que je viens de lire m’incite à réagir, à la fois comme problèmiste mais aussi parce que je suis à l’origine de l’écriture et la mise au point des Règles Internationales du Problèmisme.
Une règle (ou une loi) est selon moi une ligne de conduite à tenir et chacun doit s’y soumettre, elle peut être propre à une technique, une discipline ou même dans notre cas un jeu. Ne pas la respecter revient à se mettre hors jeu et à prendre le risque d’être sanctionné. Ne doit on pas en faire de même pour le code de la route ou même nos impôts sans quoi ce serait l’anarchie la plus complète ? Je suppose que celui qui écrit ne pas vouloir respecter les RI parce qu’il est en désaccord avec elles ne respecte pas non plus son code de la route sous prétexte que l’être humain fait des erreurs.
Maintenant si chacun de nous estime pouvoir enfreindre les lois parce qu’elles ne lui plaisent pas et sans devoir en être sanctionné où allons nous. Cela revient avant tout et surtout à pénaliser ceux qui ont respecté les règles.
Dans notre discipline il existe un organisme, la Commission du Problèmisme International (CPI), celle-ci est chargée de gérer tout ce qui se rapporte aux concours internationaux qu’elle agrée, ses membres ont donc le devoir de décision sur toute violation se rapportant aux RI en consultant celles ci. Libre à elle ensuite de modifier ces règles s’il y a lieu mais en aucun cas on ne change la règle d’un jeu en cours de match. En participant à un concours un concurrent accepte automatiquement de le faire sous les RI, il sait donc à quoi il s’engage !
Les divers changements effectués ces dernières années tant dans les RI que dans les statuts de la CPI n’incitent plus les français à participer aux concours. Trop d’infractions constatées les désintéressent même du problèmisme.
La CPI est elle nécessaire encore plus longtemps avec ce genre de comportements ? La question se pose en effet ! Elle n’a d’internationale que le nom dés lors où ses représentants ne sont issus que des pays de l’Est. Il en est de même pour les concours qui ne voient pratiquement plus de représentants de l’Ouest y participer.
Alain Tavernier

[Arjen]

Dear Arjen,
Who problemists of the Netherlands, France agree to work in CPI FMJD? We do ask / invite / wait for 4 years.
Best regards,
Algimantas

Dear Algimantas,

Of course that is a justified question. However, you first have to ask yourself why they don't want to work in CPI. When all the other problems I've described persist, you can almost be sure that nobody in the Netherlands or France will accept a CPI-job. Please tell me why these problems continue, even to the extent that the RI are violated during an official CPI world championship!

Thanks in advance and kind regards,
Arjen

[Arjen]

I've readed also the discussion on Shashki.com, using Google Translation (Russian to English). I would like to give some comments.

1. Why does the chairman of CPI, mister Shulga, only discuss in Russian on a Russian forum? Why not in English on the forum of FMJD? This is totally invisible for almost all readers of De Problemist. And, again, it is something that is very bad for international co-operation of (Western and Eastern European) composers in CPI.
2. I read the post of 'Fenix' (October 30, 2013, 03:10 AM, translation with Google): But the terrible conservatism and reluctance to change anything in the Rules, only because the Dutch and the French school of composition frozen in their development, and do not want to make contact with post new school track - it is very, very bad Syndrome! I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous and demonstrates a lack of information about the Dutch situation.
3. I think it's good to discuss about the position of Alex Moiseev, 'that we've to allow for example the final 16,25/D48'. It's possible that I agree with him. But, and that's the main objection of Dutch composers, rules cannot be changed during an offical CPI championship. (And in my opinion, this has nothing to do with 'interpretation of RI', because the RI are obvious in this case.)

[Algimantas]

Dear Arjen,
Who problemists of the Netherlands, France agree to work in CPI FMJD? We do ask / invite / wait for 4 years.
Best regards,
Algimantas

Dear Algimantas,
(..............................)
Please tell me why these problems continue, even to the extent that the RI are violated during an official CPI world championship!
Thanks in advance and kind regards,
Arjen

Dear Arjen,
Please - read again my first text on the subject of the Forum, "the poor quality of the text" (unpublished so in DP).
Do you still have questions TO ME?
Best regards,
Algimantas