BACK TO THE PWCP2 COMMENTS

[sy]

By S. Yushkevitch

BACK TO THE PWCP2 COMMENTS

Two publications, which were concerned with the Personal World Championship for Problems -2 (PWCP2), made me write this article.
Those were:
“The facts about the irregular publication of the name of the author of D3”, signed by all the CPI members: Mrs J. Bus, V. Matus and V. Shulga, and “Comments on the Final Result of the PWCP II by the CPI President”, signed by Mr J. Bus.
They were published at the official FMJD site (14.11.2008) and at the site of Mr E. van Dusseldorp.

I do not like a cheating of facts.
I do not like a mixture of real facts and insinuations.
Therefore I back to those the PWCP2 comments.

Two items I put in the center of the attention.

1. The blaming in the address of Mr A. Tavernier.

I quote (by Italic) in the order of appearance the blaming in the address of Mr A. Tavernier which were advertised to the all over the world in those two articles mentioned above.
[The remark of S.Y.: further it is meaning as TURBO not only the well-known computer’s program TURBO itself, made by Mr K. Bor, but that well-known TURBO, made by Mr K. Bor, which contains as well the problem’s database with more than 100.000 compositions.]

Via the Internet site of M.Lepsic where a large number of remarks concerning the PWCP II were collected, the jury was informed by A.Tavernier, referring to Turbo Dambase that the author of the composition of D3 was A.Kuyken.

That is not true.
Mr A. Tavernier could not know: who is the author of D3; because author’s names were not advertised in the time when Mr A. Tavernier sent his remarks. Any participant (i.e., either Mr
V. Matus, or Mr A. Moiseyev – etc.) could send D3 to PWCP2, and Mr A. Tavernier did not state that the author of D3 is namely Mr A. Kuijken.
Mr A. Tavernier did present in his remarks everything he found in his archives, including TURBO, and his remarks were as the good help for the difficult work of the jury.

Later the jury found that Turbo Dambase clearly indicates that the composition was not published.. The important thing is that A.Tavernier has seen in his Turbo Dambase that the composition was never published. It cannot be overlooked, because it is the only information available

That is not true.
TURBO does not indicate: was a position published or was not. If a source of a publication is absent, then TURBO does indicate in its column, which is concerned with the information about a publication: “Unknown” (“Onbekend”).
Those are not equal defintions: “Unpublished” and “Unknown”. For instance, many problems of mine, S. Yushkevitch, are present in TURBO, and for several from those problems TURBO indicates in its column, which is concerned with the information about a publication: “Unknown”, while all of them were published. Thus, Mr A. Tavernier could not state that D3 was not published and he did not state it.

It was decided by the KvD and published in DP that the contents of this part of Turbo Dambase are not publicly available and should not be used for other purposes than for articles by the DP Staff. For this case of D3 it means that the composition was not published and the contents of Turbo Dambase were misused by A.Tavernier.

That is partially true and partially that is not true.
I do not put under a doubt the fact that discussion as regards to TURBO did happen in the KVD.
I also do not put under a doubt a decision taken by the KVD as the result of that discussion.
I only put under the doubt this one part of the text quoted above: “…and published in DP…”
Becase there was no publication in the DP (“De Problemist” – it is official edition of the KVD –S.Y.) in this respect.
How Mr A. Tavernier (or anybody else) could know about that decision taken by the KVD?
No how.

Were the contents of TURBO misused by Mr A. Tavernier?
Let us to see at facts.
In the DP the conditions to obtain TURBO were placed twice: in August and in October 2006.
Later TURBO disappeared from the free access to be obtained. Those were reasons standing exceptionally within of the KVD. I do respect the KVD very much, I do regret very much about of that missunderstaning inside of the KVD and I hope that misunderstanding will be successfully overcame.
But, in fact, some time TURBO was in the free access to be obtained.
Mr A. Tavernier did obtain it in legal way.
And in absence of an information concerned with TURBO (in which way it should and in which way it should not use TURBO) – how Mr A. Tavernier could suppose something about those the KVD decisions, never published after TURBO dissappered from the free access?
No how.
That what no warning in this respect was published – that is lesser problem of Mr A. Tavernier than the KVD.

Further the CPI in the whole and Mr J Bus in particular begin to teach Mr A. Tavernier: how Mr A. Tavernier had to act. That is not so interesting in light of that what I have indicated above, because the incorrect information is repeated. I place it for to mark again those facts distorted, which are stated, nevertheless, as the true facts.

1. A.Tavernier should have kept the information out of Turbo Dambase secret and should have asked the author…

Which author?
Mr A. Tavernier did not know who the author is.
There was published no warning about that a TURBO-information may not be re-placed again, in another place.

2. A.Tavernier should have informed the contact of the PWCP II before publishing a remark about D3 on Internet. Then the contact could have presented the case to the jury in such a way that the name of the author …

But the name of the D3 author Mr A. Tavernier did not indicate.

3. A. Tavernier did not contact the CPI or the KvD with the question how to handle the situation.

But why Mr A. Tavernier had to contact either with the CPI or with the KVD?
The PWCP2 positions were advertised in the public way. Anybody could give his comments anywhere.
Does exist a reason, according to which somebody has to ask a special permission from either the CPI or the KVD to place his remarks, if something was advertised in the public way, like it was done with positions of PWCP2?
No, such reason does not exist.

4. A. Tavernier did not mention to anybody and in particular not to the jury or the contact, that the composition was not published, though it is clearly indicated as such in Turbo Dambase.

That is again distorted fact. Nobody could know: was D3 published or was not, apart from the author of D3, but the name of the author of D3 was not known in time when Mr A. Tavernier sent his remarks. “Unpublished” and “Unknown” – those are different things.

Even when it was not clear for him, he could have asked many people what to do, including asking the author.

But there was nobody to ask: Mr A. Tavernier did not know who exactly sent D3 to PWCP2.

However, the CPI considers the behaviour of A. Tavernier unacceptable.

From my side, I do consider as unacceptable the blaming in the address of Mr A. Tavernier both from the CPI in the whole and from Mr J Bus in particular. That was not based on the objective facts and that was made in hard form. By that blaming Mr A. Tavernier was painted to the all over the world in black color, not being guilty.

The case of D3 is different. Here the name of the author of this unpublished composition was made public on Internet by A.Tavernier

Again that is distorted information.
There was indicated by Mr A. Tavernier neither name of the author of D3 nor the information – was that published or was not.

one of the participants, in a way that is unacceptable for the author and for the CPI. For A.Tavernier it must have been clear that the composition was unpublished and that the author was also participating.

No.
Nothing “must have been clear” for Mr A. Tavernier, if no warning was placed in public way from the KVD side, and if TURBO itself does not tell: was a problem published or was not, indicating only “Unknown” (“Onbekend”). The mention that Mr A Tavernier also did participate in PWCP2 – that has no importance at all as regards to the essence of the theme considering.

The list of the number of participants per country was published and there are not so many draughts composers in Switzerland. The CPI, supported by the FMJD Board, expects a written apology from A. Tavernier after which the case will be closed.

People, not knowing how it happened in reality, easy could believe everything written in those two articles, trusting those authoritate’s persons, who did sign those two articles; moreover the FMJD Board was mentioned. While in reality everything was not so, like it was written in those two articles.

Perhaps, having mentioned the name of the FMJD board (“…supported by the FMJD board…”), Mr J Bus did believe that his mentioning itself did intensify his statements in the address of Mr A. Tavernier in the problemists’ eyes, but I have certain doubt in this respect.
I can imagine those respected people from the FMJD board begin spend their limited time to consider everything happened in the PWCP2, instead of to consider others important and current the FMJD affairs relevant to all many-sides the FMJD activity.
However, I have certain doubt the FMJD board was informed in proper way. If the FMJD was informed in the way, like it was written in two articles, mentioned above, then it does mean the FMJD board was informed in incorrect way. Consequently, the support from the FMJD board side – that was incorrect support.

It is not Mr A. Tavernier, who has to give his written apology.
It is the CPI in whole (including all of the CPI members) and Mr J. Bus in particular, who should give their written apology to Mr A. Tavernier for incorrect and unjustice blaming in his address.

2. The jury decision.

Mr A. Tavernier sent in his remarks not only the indication relevant to D3, that D3 is present in TURBO under name of Mr A. Kuijken but without a mention about a source of its publication. The analogous indications Mr A. Tavernier also sent as regards to some other positions sent to PWCP2, and in those cases his indications (the same like in the case with D3) certainly were taken by the jury to be considered (in spite of the fact all of them contained the only TURBO as a source of the publication).
The most impressive example is in the case with A40.
Let us compare it with the case of D3.

D3 is recognized by the jury as unpublished and D3 was scored by the score with 87 points.
A40 is recognized by the jury as published (see “The list of eliminatiuons”, which was present in public way) and was scored by the score with 0 points. In his remarks both to D3 and A40 Mr A. Tavernier indicated the only ##, under which both positions were registrated in TURBO.

It could be logical that the jury will score both problems with a positive score, if the jury took the decision not to consider TURBO as the source of the first publication, when a position had no indication as to another source of a publication (“Unknown”/“Onbekend”).

But what we do see in the final results?
We see that D3 (the author is Mr A. Kuijken) is scored with 87 points while A40 (the author is Mr D. de Ruiter) is scored with 0 points.
We see: the same information was given by Mr A. Tavernier towards those both positions, the cases with D3 and A40 are identic, but the different decisions were taken by the jury.

It is extremely bad situation.
Everybody from participants has right to expect the equal attitude from the jury part. Unfortunately, it did not happen so.

S. Yushkevitch,
Grandmaster International of the problemism,
Grandmaster International of the problemism Honoris Causa

[Algimantas]

Heads FMJD read this Forum or not? Interesting to heads FMJD opinion of experts or not? That Mr. J.Bus it is not pleasant OTHER OPINIONS (opinions differing it) we know, but in fact still there is also management FMJD.
Algimantas Kaciuska
Member of Executive committee of Federation of draughts of Lithuania

[frank teer]

Now and then a member of the executive board of the FMJD reads a draughts forum. But the Sjaski forum and the World Draughts forum are not the agenda of the FMJD board.
Putting a remark on this forum does not lead to a point on the agenda of the FMJD board.
The most normal way to get something on the agenda of the FMJD is that a national federation writes a letter to the board of the FMJD. Because the national federations are the members of the FMJD such letters will be put on the agenda of the FMJD board meeting.
If a person, player or whatsoever wants something being discussed by the FMJD board he should ask his federation to write a letter or e-mail to the FMJD board.
The national federations can find all contact data of members of the FMJD board on the FMJD website.
Of course a person can also write letters or e-mails to the board of the FMJD but there is no guarantee that these letters will be on the agenda of the FMJD board meeting.

Frank Teer
General Secretry FMJD

[Algimantas]

I too for that management FMJD did not interfere. But has put just that it interfered earlier and interferes now but only when it is favourable Mr. J.Bus. And in discussion of the given question just in final documents (PWCP - 2) CPI on it refers: "CPI at support FMJD expects from A.Taverni a written apology then the case will be considered settled." The Main mistake of management FMJD - not the understanding of that modern draughts composition, the processes occuring in draughts composition, it cannot operate (at that, without the right to the appeal) 1 or 2 persons. All starts with that. I about it repeatedly wrote more widely.
I to management FMJD sincerely wish to analyse experience of a chess composition.
If in draughts composition further the present situation the responsibility will lay on management FMJD also will proceed. Because, as shows also this answer Mr. F.Teer, management FMJD disappears behind a bureaucratic screen and nothing wishes to hear.
Algimantas Kaciuska