Minutes Pula 2000

Minutes Pula 2000


XLIII. Meeting in Pula, Croatia 2. – 9.9.2000

Official Participants

 Bedrich FORMÁNEK, Slovakia, President
 Jakov VLADIMIROV, Russia, 1st Vice-President
 Kjell WIDLERT, Sweden, 2nd Vice-President
 Milan VELIMIROVIC, Yugoslavia, 3rd Vice-President
 Günter BÜSING, Germany, Secretary
 Helmut ZAJIC, Austria, Delegate
 Ignaas VANDEMEULEBROUCKE,  Belgium, Delegate
 Fadil ABDURAHMANOVIC, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Delegate
 Josip VARGA, Croatia, Delegate
 Jaroslav BRADA, Czechia, Delegate
 Hannu HARKOLA, Finland, Delegate
 Michel CAILLAUD, France, Delegate
 David GURGENIDZE, Georgia, Delegate
 Bernd ELLINGHOVEN, Germany, Delegate
 John RICE, Great Britain, Delegate
 Byron ZAPPAS, Greece, Delegate
 Gábor CSEH, Hungary, Delegate
 Uri AVNER, Israel, Delegate
 Francesco SIMONI, Italy, Delegate
 Živko JANEVSKI, Macedonia, Delegate
 Henk le GRAND, The Netherlands, Delegate
 Wladislaw ROSOLAK, Poland, Delegate
 Mircea MANOLESCU, Romania, Deputy for Virgil Nestorescu
 Marko KLASINC, Slovenia, Delegate
 Thomas MAEDER, Switzerland, Delegate
 Jewgeni REITZEN, Ukraine, Delegate
 Newman GUTTMANN, USA, Delegate
 Attila BENEDEK, Hungary, Honorary Member

Initially 23 of the 38 member countries were represented. After the
late arrival of some delegates 26 of the 38 member countries were represented.

Zvonimir Hernitz participated in the final session as deputy for J.

Active visitors fulfilling tasks as members of subcommittees, tourney
directors, assistant directors, etc., were: Edward STOFFELEN (Belgium),
Kenneth SOLJA (Finland), Hans GRUBER (Germany), Brian STEPHENSON, Colin
SYDENHAM (both Great Britain), Yochanan AFEK, (Israel), Marco BONAVOGLIA
(Italy), Igor VERESHCHAGIN, Andrey SELIVANOV, Anatoli SLESARENKO (all Russia).
Also several Croatian assistants worked very effectively in the background.

§1 Opening address, remembrance for deceased problemists

After words of welcome President Bedrich Formánek noted that
this was the third time that the Commission met in Pula. He expressed his
thanks for the organization of the meeting to Josip Varga and to the Croatian
Chess Federation, and then declared the meeting open.

Thereafter the President regretted the death of several prominent problemists.
The Commission paid tribute to the deceased composers Antonio Argüelles
(Spain, 27.10.1901-31.1.2000), Anatoli Kuznezov (Russia, 27.3.1902-23.7.2000),
Aki Niemelä (Finland, 24.5.1909-21.1.2000), Wallace Ellison (Great
Britain, 8.1.1911-7.10.1999), Béla Bakay (Hungary, 7.2.1913-??),
Vaclav Hebelt (Belarus, 10.12.1913-16.10.1999), Alphonse Grunenwald (France,
29.1.1916-18.05.2000), Hans-Heinrich Schmitz (Germany, 12.2.1916-4.2.2000),
Heinz Winterberg (Germany, 24.9.1920-15.10.1999), Radu Dragoescu (14.6.1921-??),
Alfreds Dombrovskis (Latvia, 19.4.1923-18.3.2000), Francisco Salazar (Spain,
28.2.1924-7.6.2000), Günter Glass (Germany, 21.5.1925-26.8.2000),
Bengt Ingre (Sweden, 5.8.1934-25.5.2000), Wladimir Erochin (Russia, 27.4.1937-15.4.2000),
Paul Joitsa (Romania, 9.11.1937-29.5.2000), Jozef Taraba (Slovakia, 26.11.1947-27.1.2000),
Yehuda Gringard (Israel, 1912-2000), Stanko Milenkovic (Yugoslavia), Tadeusz
Wronski (Poland), Waldemar Mazul (Poland, 18.10.1953-15.8.2000).

§2 Verification of Attendance and Voting Rights

Initially, 23 member countries out of 38 were represented. The meeting
was declared legal.

§3 Approval of the Netanya minutes 1999

The minutes of the 42nd Meeting in Netanya (1999) were approved with
the following correction/observation:
With regard to section 6.V.3 (FIDE-Album 1992-94) of the minutes, it
was noted that judgement of the last section was only finished on 15.6.2000.

§4 Checking of the Standing Subcommittees

1. WCCT:
JANEVSKI, E. REITSEN, J. RICE. Regular member J. Jelínek was not

2. WCCI:

3. WCSC:
KOVACEVIC (new member), M. KOLCÁK (new member). Former spokesman
Hemmo Axt was not present

4. FIDE-album:

5. Qualifications:
The regular members J. Jelínek, V. Nestorescu and K. Wenda were
not present. They were replaced for this year by M. Bonavoglia and M. Manolescu.

6. Computer Matters:

7. Studies:
A. HILDEBRAND. Last year’s member O. Comay was not present.

8. Terminology (Dormant):

9. Codex:

10. Presidium Election Procedure:
J. RICE, T. MAEDER. The Spokesman K. Wenda was not present this year.

11. Judging:

§5 Proposals by Members

5.I Proposal by M. Kovacevic (WCSC):
Marjan Kovacevic‘s proposal to allow a female and a junior solver (under
20) to compete in the WCSC in addition to the present 4-solver-rule was
supported by the subcommittee. A discussion on practical consequences of
such an amendment ensued. Although such a broadening of the WCSC would
cause extra organisational effort which should not be institutionalised,
Hannu Harkola considered it a good idea provided the organizer feels he
can deal with the extra work. No formal decision was taken by the Commission.

5.II Proposal by Great Britain (solver norms):
Following Great Britain’s proposal to establish a system for gaining solving
norms in other tourneys than the WCSC, as submitted in 1995, the subcommittee
presented to the Commission a set of proposals identified as „Criteria
for gaining norms
“,  „Criteria for gaining titles“,
„Criteria for adequateness of the tournaments at which ratings can be gained“
and „Solvers rating“ (see annex). It was pointed out that
the conditions for obtaining norms or titles are intentionally drafted such
that it is really difficult to fulfil them. The Commission should nevertheless
strictly observe the tournaments in order to avoid any possible abuse.
In the ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that there are at least two rating
systems available (Kolcák and RELO) and the question arose which system
should be used. No decision could be taken during this meeting because the mathematical
details of the systems were not available. (A paper „Rules
for rating calculation
“ by Marek Kolcák is annexed to these minutes.)
A working group consisting of Marko Klasinc, Harri Hurme, Marek Kolcák
and Henk le Grand should further consider the systems and make a proposal until
next year’s meeting.
Although a formal decision could not be taken, the Commission had a
strong tendency to accept the proposal provided a suitable rating system,
which should then be officially approved by the Commission, is available.

5.III Further proposals
Further proposals were discussed in various subcommittees and are referred
to under other paragraphs of these minutes (§6 Competitions, §7
FIDE-Album, §8 Qualifications).

§6 Competitions

6.I 24th World Chess Solving Championship

Brian Stephenson selected the problems for the 24th WCSC. He and Edward
Stoffelen, assisted by Marco Bonavoglia, directed the WCSC.
The final results of the 24th WCSC were as follows:

a) Teams:
 1.  Germany 167.00 points (575 min.)
 2. Yugoslavia 156.00 (522)
 3.  Slovakia 152.00 (560)
 4.  Israel 148.50 (647)
 5.  Netherlands 146.50 (637)
 6.  Finland 155.50 (645)
 7.  Russia 144.50 (514)
 8.  Poland 143.50 (596)
 9.  Ukraine 138.50 (695)
 10. Great Britain 137.50 (594)
 11. Switzerland 130.00 (607)
 12. Czechia 130.00 (651)
 13. Romania 129.50 (685)
 14. Slovenia 129.00 (665)
 15. Croatia 115.00 (673)
 16. Macedonia 105.00 (657)
 17. Belgium 76.00 (649)

b) Individuals:
 1. Michel Caillaud (France)  82.00 points (300 min.) (World
 2. Boris Tummes (Germany) 82.00 (308)
 3. Alexandr Azhusin (Russia) 81.50 (293)
 4. Marjan Kova?evi? (Yugoslavia) 78.50 (267)
 5. Ladislav Salai jr. (Slovakia) 78.00 (217)
 6. Michael Pfannkuche (Germany) 77.50 (334)
 7. Milan Velimirovic (Yugoslavia) 76.50 (255)
 8. Arno Zude (Germany) 75.00 (277)
 9. Valery Kopyl (Ukraine) 74.50 (344)
 10. Piotr Murdzia (Poland) 74.00 (255)
 11. Marek Kol?ák (Slovakia) 74.00 (332)
 12. Mark Erenburg (Israel) 73.50 (325)
  and 51 further participants.

6.II 6th WCCT
On behalf of the tournament director Hemmo Axt (not present), Günter
Büsing informed the Commission about the state of the tournament.
Although it was originally expected to present the final results during
this meeting, the results in three sections were still missing. Two of
the judges, who were present, confirmed to be almost ready and to present
the award very soon. One award was said to have been mailed two months
ago but had not arrived. The delegate of the corresponding country was
asked to remind the judge to resend the award.

6.III  Future WCCTs
The 7th WCCT, which will be the first to be organized under the new
judging system, will presumably be announced in 2001. Macedonia suggested
to organize it and Zivko Janevski was generally accepted by the Commission
as the tournament director.
Themes for each section are needed and must be fixed during next year’s
meeting. Uri Avner informed the Commission that the subcommittee intends
to invite specialized persons to make proposals but in addition thereto
everyone was invited to submit theme proposals directly to him. Guidelines
for what is considered a good theme were presented by John Rice. Accordingly,
a good theme should not be too easy but also not so difficult that less
talented composers are discouraged. It should further allow the composer
to introduce strategic play, and it should not be closely associated to
a preferred style of a specific country or composer.
After discussion with the delegates of the prospective countries, a
preliminary list of candidates for judging countries, with a maximum of
three sections to judge for any individual country, was established. Each
judging country needs a contact person who is responsible for the contact
between the country and the Commission. It was agreed that this contact
person should be the delegate of that country unless the country appoints
an other person.
A proposal by Marko Klasinc to organize the WCCT on a regular 3-year
basis was postponed for the time being because some experience with the
new system should be made before such a decision is taken. Jakov Vladimirov
pointed out that more judges are involved in the new system and that a
strict time table should be followed in order to assure that the tournament
will be finished within a reasonable period of time. He suggested that
the director of a section might judge in place of a country which does
not present its judgement in time. This question was given to the subcommittee
for further consideration.
The judging method was discussed, the alternatives being a) each judging
country establishes a ranking order of the competing compositions, or b)
points are given to each composition. Both systems have some advantages
and disadvantages and after consideration the subcommittee suggested to
adopt the point system. Some minor questions, e.g. whether the points given
by the individual countries, or the total point score, or only the final
ranking should be published in the award, still have to be considered.
No formal decision on the specific judging method was taken by the Commission.

Subcommittee spokesman Marko Klasinc presented to the Commission a draft for
general rules for organizing the World Championship in Composing for Individuals. The draft (see annex) is based on the decisions taken
during the 1999 meeting and was accepted by the Commisison in a vote (20 in
favour, 3 abstentions, 0 against).
The announcement of the WCCI for the period 1998 – 2000 has been prepared
with the exception of some judges who have not yet been found. Marko Klasinc
will act as tournament director and the presidium will approve the list
of judges once it is finished.
The announcement for the WCCI 2001-2003 is also under preparation.

§7 FIDE-Album, Report by the Subcommittee

7.I FIDE Album 1986-1988
The spokesman Kjell Widlert informed the Commission that the reprint
in three languages will presumably be available by the end of 2000. Copies
of the album 1989-1991 are still available.

7.II FIDE Album 1992-1994
Last results arrived with the editors in June 2000. It is hoped that
the album will be published in 2001.

7.III FIDE Album 1995-1997
Work on the album is running and there is some hope that it might be
ready until 2005. John Roycroft indicated that the final number of entries
in the study section is 640 instead of the previously announced 586. He
regretted that there were many very late entries.

7.IV FIDE-Album 1998-2000
Judges and directors for this album period were selected during the
meeting. Subject to approval by the non-present candidates, the album will
presumably be announced in early 2001, with a possible closing date before
the end of 2001.

7.V Proposals
A proposal to divide the helpmate section into two sub-sections was
discussed in the subcommittee. For the time being it was not deemed necessary
to divide the section because the judges nominated for the next album period
are willing to judge the whole section.
A revision of the guidelines for album judges is in preparation and
will be distributed to the directors and judges of the album 1998-2000.

§8 Qualifications

Granting of titles, proposals and report by the Qualification Subcommittee:

Ignaas Vandemeulebroucke gave a report on the work of the subcommittee.

8.I Honorary Master of Problem Chess
The subcommittee proposed to grant the title of Honorary Master of
Problem Chess to

Rui Nascimento, Portugal.

8.II International Judges
There were six applications for the title and two for extension of
the title. The subcommittee recommended to award the title of international
judge to:

Neculai Chivu, Romania, for selfmates and helpmates;
Udo Degener, Germany, for twomovers;
Ryszard Kapica, Poland, for selfmates;
Juraj Lörinc, Slovakia, for fairies;
Andrey Selivanov, Russia, for selfmates; and
Yves Tallec, France, for selfmates and helpmates.

The subcommittee further recommended to extend the title of

Hans Gruber, Germany, to studies; and of
Zvonimir Hernitz, Croatia, to twomovers and helpmates.

8.III Titles for solvers

Grandmaster in solving for

Boris Tummes, Germany

International Master in solving for

Valery Kopyl, Ukraine

FIDE Master in solving for

Peter Gvozdják, Slovakia;
Peter van den Heuvel, Netherlands;
Kari Karhunen, Finland;
Ladislav Salai jr., Slovakia;
Valeriy Semenenko, Ukraine;
Axel Steinbrinck, Germany;
Hans Uitenbroek, Netherlands;
Mitja Ukmar, Slovenia.

All the above proposals by the qualification subcommittee were accepted
by the Commission in a series of votes with a clear majority.

Norms for solvers:
Based on the results of the open solving tourneys and WCSC, norms as
follows were additionally fulfilled:

Grandmaster norms in solving for

 A. Azhusin, Russia (1st norm);
 M. Caillaud, France (2nd norm);
 V. Kopyl, Ukraine (2nd norm);
 P. Murdzia, Poland (1st norm);
 L. Salai jr., Slovakia (1st norm);

International Master norms in solving for

 K. Karhunen, Finland;
 M. Kolcák, Slovakia;
 L. Salai jr., Slovakia.

FIDE Master norms in solving for

J. de Boer, Netherlands;
V. Blokhine, Russia;
G. Cseh, Hungary;
D. Gurgenidze, Georgia;
M. Klasinc, Slovenia;
J. Kupper, Switzerland;
W. Neef, Germany;
L. Palmans, Belgium;
S. Radovic, Yugoslavia;
Y. Stepac, Israel;
M. Svrcek, Slovakia;
Z. Szczep, Poland.

§9 Codex, Report by the Subcommittee

Spokesman Günter Büsing reported to the Commission that the
subcommittee recommends the preliminary draft for an introduction as annexed
to last year’s minutes to be published provisionally, e.g. in the internet
or in the PCCC booklet as there is presently no need to modify the codex.
The subcommittee intends to keep the working of the codex under review
and to take account of any criticism or comments, which should preferably
be addressed directly to the spokesman.

§10 Computer Matters, Report by the Subcommittee

Thomas Maeder gave a report on the activities of the subcommittee for
computer matters which had concentrated on three points:

1. He referred to a proposal from Macedonia that the PCCC should officially
approve a database project for collecting personal information of problemists
(name, age, etc.) and of publications. In view of the subcommittee, this
project was not yet in a state to be approved officially although it was
considered as interesting. Zivko Janevski, who is the contact person for
the project, confirmed that the database will be generally accessible without
charges. However, the Subcommittee encourages problemists contacted by
the Macedonian team to contribute to their work. The question whether to
declare the collection should be considered again once the PCCC will have
been presented first results of the work.

2. With reference to the questionnaire related to problem collections,
distributed last year, discouragingly few responses have been received.
He suggested to distribute the questionnaire in further countries.

3. Thomas Maeder referred to the PCCC mailing list and offered to provide
further mailing lists, e.g. for some subcommittees, if desired.

§11 Studies subcommittee

John Roycroft reported to the Commission that the studies subcommittee
had selected the "study of the year" for the years 1995, 1996, 1997. These
are studies by G. Ya. Slepyan (Szachista 1995), O. Pervakov (1st Pr. Jub.-Ty.
B. Gusev 1996) and M. Matouš (2nd Pr. ?S. Šach 1997).
John Roycroft emphasized that the purpose of the proclamation of the
study of the year is to publicise studies. He therefore asked the delegates
to maximize publicity of the studies of the year.

§12 Future Meetings and future WCSC

Invitation 2001: The invitation by the Dutch Federation to have
the meeting in Wageningen, which had been accepted during the previous
meeting, was confirmed and a date (July 28 to August 4, 2001) and location
for the event was announced by Henk le Grand.

Further Invitations: Invitations for the 2002 meeting were presented
by the Slovenian and the Ukrainian delegates. After discussion, the Ukrainian
proposal was shifted to the year 2003. The Commission decided to accept
the proposal of Slovenia to organize the meeting 2002 in Portoroz (presumably
from 31.8.-7.9.2002) and also to accept the proposal of Ukraine to have
the meeting 2003 in Truskavets.

§13 Any other Business

13.I Yochanan Afek proposed to add 2 special prizes in all solving
tourneys: a junior prize for the best under 20 solver and a veteran prize
to the best 60+ solver.

13.II Yochanan Afek noted that many players are interested in
chess composition and therefore proposed to send results of events such
as solving competitions and the „study of the year“ selection to the two
most popular internet sites: Kasparov chess and TWIC (The week in chess).
most chess players visit those sites and the material would be warmly welcome.

13.III  John Roycroft suggested that awards in quick composing
tournaments should not be taken into account by the qualification committee
in applications for the title of an international judge. The proposal was
forwarded to the qualification subcommittee.

13.IV  Marko Klasinc suggested to organize a solving show
at chess olympics or, in view of the contacts between FIDE and the Olympic
organization, even at Olympic games.

As there was no further other business, the President finally expressed
his thanks for the good work of the delegates, the Secretary, the subcommittees
and the organizers of this meeting, and then declared the meeting closed.

Bratislava, January 2001
      München, January 2001
Dr. B. Formánek
      G. Büsing


– (Studies of the Year 1995, 1996, 1997)
World Championship in Composing for Individuals – General

Criteria for gaining norms & Criteria
for gaining titles

Solvers rating & Criteria for adequateness of the tournaments
at which ratings can be gained

Rules for rating calculation (Kolcák)
– (List of addresses)

Annex to Minutes Pula 2000

World Championship in Composing for Individuals

General Rules

1. The WCCI is organized with the authority of the PCCC – FIDE. The
championship should be announced in advance.

2. The WCCI is open to all composers from all member federations of
the FIDE.

3. The WCCI includes the following sections: a) Twomovers, b) Threemovers,
c) Moremovers, d) Endgame studies, e) Helpmates, f) Selfmates, g) Fairies
and h) Retro problems.

4. Three judges in each section grade the compositions. The PCCC gives
instructions on the choice of the judges. Only competent judges, with the
title "International Judge of the FIDE for Chess Composition" will be invited
to make the awards. The final choice of the judges and the Tournament Director
lies with the PCCC. The judge cannot participate as competitor in his section,
but he is free to enter all other sections.

5. A composer may send in each section max. six compositions, published
in a defined three years period. Corrected compositions or versions may
participate in a period when they are published. Joint compositions are
not allowed. It is not allowed to send compositions for somebody else.
The best four compositions count for the final result.

6. Entries should be in five copies, stamped on uniform diagrams, with
the author’s name, publication data with eventual reward, stipulation and
full solution clearly written on the front of each diagram, and eventual
comment. The algebraic notation is to be used. Compositions should be send
to the Tournament Director. He sends them to the judges.

7. The judge gives marks to all compositions according to a 0 – 4 scale
(with the same criterion as for Album FIDE). He sends marks to the Tournament
Director. Judges may exclude incorrect or anticipated compositions from
the tourney with the agreement of the Tournament Director.

8. Tournament Director calculates the results. The final mark of the
particular composition is an average of the marks from all three judges.
The final mark is rounded on two decimals.

9. A sum of a composer’s four best compositions is calculated for his
final result. A champion in each section becomes a composer with the highest
sum of his best four compositions. In a case of equal final results the
better highest ranked composition decides. If they are still the same,
the second ranked composition decides, etc. If all compositions have the
same marks, composers share places.

10. The results of all composers are announced in the final report.
The compositions (the best four) with eventual comments should be published
for at least three best composers in each section. The three compositions
with the highest marks in a section should also be published if they not
belong to the winners. The official documents (announcement and award)
should be written in at least one of the official languages of the FIDE.
The PCCC decides about the publisher of a booklet.

11. The three best composers in each section should be awarded a Certificate
of Honour.

Annex to Minutes Pula 2000

Criteria for gaining norms

At least 5 solvers with the obligatory qualifying rating (2400 for FM,
2500 for IM, 2600 for GM) should compete at the tournament.

A norm for the International Solving Grandmaster of the FIDE: To obtain
a norm a solver must score at least 90 % of the winner’s points. With the
exception of the WCSC he must take the place within the number of solvers
with the rating at least 2600, but not lower than tenth place (i.e. at
least sixth place in case there are six solvers with rating 2600 or higher).
At the official WCSC a solver must take one of the first ten places regardless
the ratings.

A norm for International Solving Master of the FIDE: To obtain a norm
a solver must score at least 80 % of the winner’s points. With the exception
of the WCSC he must take the place within the number of solvers with the
rating at least 2500, but not lower than 15th place. At the official WCSC
a solver must take one of the first 15 places regardless the ratings.

A norm for FIDE Solving Master: To obtain a norm a solver must score
at least 75 % of the winner’s points. With the exception of the WCSC and
PCCC-Open he must take the place within the number of solvers with the
rating at least 2400, but not lower than within the top 40 % of the solvers.
At the official WCSC and PCCC-Open a solver must take one of the top 40
% places regardless the ratings.

Criteria for gaining titles

International Solving Grandmaster of the FIDE: A solver must gain a
norm 3 times (at least once at WCSC) within a period of ten years.

International Solving Master of the FIDE: A solver must gain a norm
twice (at least once at WCSC or PCCC-Open) within a period of five years;
or score once 100 % of the winner’s points and qualify within the first
15 places at the WCSC.

FIDE Solving Master: A solver must gain a norm twice, or score once
100 % of the winner’s points and qualify within top 40 % places at PCCC-Open
(or at WCSC if not within first 15 places).

Annex to Minutes Pula 2000

Solvers’ rating

Rating is a numerical value which solver gains by solving in two adequately
approved tournaments.

Rating can be gained at the WCSC, PCCC-Open, or other tournaments which
fulfil definite criteria.

The rating list is published twice a year. It is calculated on the basis
of the results of the solving tournaments completed (including the report)
until the end of June and the end of December.

PCCC authorises a person(s) or a commission responsible for calculating
the ratings according to the approved formula.

Criteria for adequateness of the tournaments at which
ratings can be gained

At the tournament at least 10 (15 for gaining norms) solvers with ratings
from at least 3 countries should compete.

The selected compositions should be originals or alternatively unknown
published compositions. The selected compositions should show a clear theme
and a good level of quality and difficulty and should represent different

For the tournaments organized according to the WCSC rules, the full
coefficient is used to calculate ratings.

For the other tournaments one half of normal coefficient is used to
calculate ratings. In those tournaments there should be at least 12 compositions
of different types to solve. Compositions for solving can be chosen out
of seven groups: twomovers, threemovers, moremovers, endgames, helpmates,
selfmates and fairy compositions. At the tournament there must be represented
at least 5 groups with at least 2 compositions. No group can be represented
with more than 3 compositions. All compositions are valued with the same
number of points. The tournament could be divided into more rounds and/or

All tournament documentation (compositions with solutions, complete
list with the results and ratings, judge’s statement on the competition
regularity and possible complaints, etc) should be sent to the responsible
PCCC representative (commission) within 30 days after the end of the competition.
The representative (commission) has the right to confirm or not the regularity
of the tournament. The final decision is approved by the PCCC.

Annex to Minutes Pula 2000

Rules for rating calculation

1. For rating calculation the results from all WCSC are included since
1986, inclusive. For the first four rated WCSC (1986-1989) the performance
rating is calculated according to the mean point gain of the best 12 solvers
that corresponds to 2600 points. The performance ratings are calculated
applying direct proportion. The rating from the first four WCSC is calculated
as a mean point gain. In case disqualified compsitions appear during the
competition the performance rating is calculated with a corresponding coefficient


              86         87       88       89
H.Axt   (843,99x0,94 + 933,89 + 733,33 + 513,32) = 754,79 + 1600 = 2354,79

2. For enrolment of the solver on the list participation in two rated competitions
is necessary. The first rating is equal to the average of two performance
ratings. In case disqualified compositions appear during the competition
the performance rating is calculated with a corresponding coefficient k.

3. At the competitions since 1990 the mean point gain and the mean rating
of the attended enlisted solvers is calculated. On this basis the expected
results of the solvers with rating is calculated by direct proportion.
The expected result cannot exceed the 100% result. The rating rise or fall
is the difference between the real and expected result multiplied by a
coefficient 4. In case disqualified compositions appear during the competition
the coefficient 4 is multiplied by a coefficient k.


             Bonn 92  mean point gain:     1665: 33 =  50,45
             mean rating:              27080,89: 33 = 820,63
             61,48......................   ......... 1000,00
             old        expected  real    change     performance  new      for
             rating     result    result  of rating  rating       rating   publishing
P.Perkonoja  1074,40    66,05     75      +35,80     1219,91      1110,20  2710
S.Rumjancev  946,02     58,16     74      +63,36     1203,64      1009,38  2610
G.Evseev     1182,41    72,69     74      + 5,24     1203,64      1187,65  2790
J. Rotenberg 817,52-HR  --        71      --         1154,85      1001,85  2600
             (817,52 x 0,83 + 1154,85): 1,83 = 1001,85)

4. After five years of non participation in rated competition the solver
is expelled from the rating list. For the further participation his original
rating (halfrating) is accepted.

5. All the calculations are made to the second decimal place. For publishing
use the rating is increased by 1600 points and rounded to the nearest 5

Marek Kolcák
Bratislava, Slovakia, June 1995


Comments are closed.