Minutes Portoroz 2002

Minutes Portoroz 2002



45th Meeting in Portoroz, Slovenia 31.08. – 7.09.2002


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
Kenan VELIHANOV, Azerbaijan, Delegate
Aliaksander MIKHOLAP, Belarus, Delegate
Ignaas VANDEMEULEBROUCKE, Belgium, Delegate
Fadil ABDURAHMANOVIC, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Delegate
Slavko PELEH, Croatia, Deputy for Josip VARGA
Michal DRAGOUN, Czechia, Delegate
Bjorn ENEMARK, Denmark, 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
László LINDNER, Hungary, Delegate and Honorary Member
Uri AVNER, Israel, Delegate
Francesco SIMONI, Italy, Delegate
Tadashi WAKASHIMA, Japan, Delegate
Zivko JANEVSKI, Macedonia, Delegate
Henk le GRAND, The Netherlands, Delegate
Wladyslaw ROSOLAK, Poland, Delegate
Mircea MANOLESCU, Romania, Delegate
Marko KLASINC, Slovenia, Delegate
Thomas MAEDER, Switzerland, Delegate
Evgeny REITZEN, Ukraine, Delegate
Newman GUTTMAN, U.S.A., Delegate
Attila BENEDEK, Hungary, Honorary Member
Giorgio MIRRI, Italy, Honorary Member

The list reflects the status of the members at the beginning of the meeting.
During the meeting, a letter was received from the Russian Chess Federation
wherein it was indicated that Andrey Selivanov replaced Jakov Vladimirov as
Russian delegate.

Initially 25 countries were represented. After the late arrival of some delegates
29 of the 38 member countries were represented.

No delegates were nominated by Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Moldova and

Active visitors fulfilling tasks as members of subcommittees, tourney directors,
assistant directors, etc., were: Edward STOFFELEN (Belgium), Kenneth SOLJA (Finland),
Hans GRUBER (Germany), John ROYCROFT, Colin SYDENHAM, Paul VALOIS (all Great
Britain), Andrey SELIVANOV, Igor VERESHCHAGIN, Nikolai KRALIN (all Russia),
Marek KOLCÁK (Slovakia), Zvonimir HERNITZ (Croatia), Marco BONAVOGLIA
(Italy) and Gady COSTEFF (Israel).
Also several participants from Slovenia, in particular Vika Klasinc, Boris and
Jernej Ostruh, Mitja Ukmar, Ljubomir Ugren, Janko Furman, and Klemen Sivic,
worked very effectively in the background.

§1 Opening address, tribute to deceased problemists

After words of welcome President Bedrich Formánek expressed his thanks
for the organisation of the meeting to Marko Klasinc and his assistants, and
then declared the meeting open.

Then the President announced with regret the death of several prominent problemists.
The Commission paid tribute to the deceased composers:

Henryk Zuk (Poland, 25.5.1915-8.10.2001)
Alexander Pituk (Slovakia. 26.10.1904-30.4.2002)
Irwin Stein (USA, 16.8.1911-3.8.2001)
Jean Zeller (France, 27.7.1909-3.1.2002)
Austris Desmitnieks (Latvia, 1940-2001)
Frits van Meyenfeldt (Netherlands, 14.7.1922-2.5.2002)
Nikolai Kondratjuk (Ukraine, 4.6.1948-)
Gábor Cseh (HU) (21.11.1974-3.8.2001)
Viktor Kolpakov (Russia)
Pierre Monréal (France, 8.6.1916-2002)
Ryszard Kapica (Poland, 17.10.1941-)
J. Rudziewicz (Poland)
Milos Tomaševic (Yugoslavia, 30.8.1928-23.1.2002)
Vukota Nikoletic (Yugoslavia, 18.8.1944-11.8.2001)

§2 Verification of Attendance and Voting Rights

Initially, 25 member countries out of 38 were represented. The meeting was
declared legal.

§3 Approval of the Wageningen minutes 2001

The minutes of the 44th Meeting in Wageningen (2001) were approved with the
following corrections:
1. Annex 7, line 6 of point 6: John Rice observed that the wording of the sentence
"Afterwards there can be a discussion" as introduced during the last
session of the 2001 meeting did not correctly state was actually intended. In
correct English, it should read "This may be followed by a discussion."
As this modification implies a correction, i.e. an amendment, of the Statutes,
the Commission voted on this amendment. The result was unanimous acceptance
of the wording as now proposed (25 in favour).
2. Annex 4: Uri Avner pointed out that the list was not final and that some
modifications had been made later. Therefore, the word "Provisional"
should precede "Allocation".

§4 Checking of the Standing Subcommittees

1. WCCT:

2. WCCI:

3. WCSC:

4. FIDE-Album:

5. Qualifications:
KRALIN (temporary member). Regular member K. Wenda was not present.

6. Computer Matters:

7. Studies:
J. ROYCROFT Spokesman, D. GURGENIDZE, N. KRALIN, G. COSTEFF. Last year’s members
Y. Afek and A. Hildebrand were not present and were replaced by G. Costeff.

8. Terminology: (Dormant)

9. Codex:

10. Presidium Election Procedure:
K. WENDA Spokesman, J. RICE, T. MAEDER
The Spokesman was not present this year. Although no work had to be done this
year, the subcommittee was maintained for future review of
the amended election procedure.

11. Judging:

§5 Notification of Proposals

Discussion of the proposals submitted to the Commission were allocated to
the subcommittees as follows:
4a) Vandemeulebroucke (International Titles for Solvers): Qualifications
4b) Avner (6th WCCT and the 1998-2000 Album): WCCT and Album
4c) i) Klasinc (Compositions allowed for WCCI): WCCI
4c) ii) Klasinc (Internet publications): Codex and computer matters
4e) Lörinc (Comments in 7th WCCT award): WCCT
4f) Feather (Joint Compositions in WCCI): WCCI

§6 Competitions

6.I   26th World Chess Solving Championship

Marko Klasinc selected the problems for the 26th WCSC. Edward Stoffelen, Kenneth
Solja and Jernej Ostruh helped in the organisation of the competition.

The final results of the 26th WCSC were as follows:

a) Teams:

1. Germany 160 points (653 min)
2. Finland 156.5 (686)
3. Israel 148,2 (662)
4. Russia 147,2 (665)
5. Yugoslavia 143 (662)
6. Great Britain 138,5 (643)
7. Poland 136,2 (665)
8. The Netherlands 131,5 (708)
9. Romania 116,5 (708)
10. Switzerland 112 (720)
11. Ukraine 110 (707)
12. Croatia 108,5 (720)
13. Greece 107 (620)
14. Japan 105,2 (650)
15. Slovakia 105 (713)
16. Belgium 100 (717)
17. France 99,5 (717)
18. Georgia 93 (689)
19. Slovenia 81,5 (702)
20. Macedonia 76,7 (709)

b) Individuals:

1. Piotr Murdzia POL 85 points (305 min)
2. Arno Zude GER 83 (313)
3. Jonathan Mestel GBR 75,5 (329)
4. Ram Soffer ISR 73,5 (339)
5. Dolf Wissmann NED 72,5 (349)
6. Marjan Kovacevic YUG 72 (339)
7. Aleksandr Azhusin RUS 72 (349)
8. Sergey Rumjantsev RUS 71,5 (338)
9. Jorma Paavilainen FIN 69 (351)
10. Ofer Comay ISR 68,2 (323)
11. Boris Tummes GER 67 (347)
12. Milan Velimirovic YUG 65 (323)
13. Michael Pfannkuche GER 64,5 (353)
14. Kari Karhunen FIN 64,5 (360)
15. Harry Hurme FIN 63 (335)
16. Michel Caillaud FRA 62 (357)
and 60 further participants.

6.II   7th WCCT

Uri Avner reported to the Commission about progress in the current 7th WCCT
and presented a timetable according to which the tournament may be finished
by mid 2004 if everyone follows the rather narrow time-limits set therein. He
asked the judging countries to indicate as soon as possible to tournament director
Zivko Janevski the name of the contact person to whom information (circular
letters etc) should be sent in the respective countries. Uri Avner encouraged
the judging countries to write comments on the problems and he announced that
such comments would be included in the final award.
Thomas Maeder mentioned that an error concerning single box problems was recently
discovered in the Popeye solving program. The program will be corrected as soon
as possible.


Marko Klasinc informed the Commission that the first WCCI organised according
to the new rules had just been finished, and he presented a booklet with the
results of that competition. He considered the event in which 206 composers
from 32 countries took part a great success. In particular he expressed his
thanks to the judges who all worked very fast so that it was possible to finish
this competition within one year. The President thanked Marko Klasinc for his
extremely good and rapid work. John Rice underlined how much the Commission
owes Marko for his achievement. Although he himself was still not convinced
about the need for World Champions he was very much impressed by the perfect
organisation of the event.
Following a proposal of the subcommittee, the Commission generally agreed to
declare the results official.
Marko Klasinc announced that diplomas and medals would be given to the most
successful participants during the final banquet. Andrey Selivanov, who finished
in second place in the selfmate section and who had to leave the meeting before
the banquet, immediately received a medal and diploma.

6.IV   Future WCCIs

The subcommittee discusssed some points related to the organisation of the
a) If a composition which is in the award but is cooked after the results have
become official, the subcommittee’s opinion was that this cannot affect the
result of the WCCI. This situation is similar to the granting of album points
which are also not withdrawn for compositions in the album which at a later
stage turn out to be incorrect.
b) The eligibility of compositions which were sent to a formal tournament with
a closing date within the WCCI period but with publication of the award afterwards
and prior to the closing date of the WCCI was discussed. The subcommittee proposed
that such compositions should be admitted to the WCCI.
c) The proposal to accept joint compositions in future WCCIs as submitted by
Chris Feather was discussed in the subcommittee but not supported because the
concept of an "individual" consisting of two or even more persons
was deemed too artificial.
Michal Dragoun agreed with these proposals in general but observed that this
would only solve the problem within WCCI. As an acceptance would have consequences
for the album or other competitions he suggested a harmonisation of the rules
of the various competitions before a decision was taken.
As there was no need for a decision this year, this suggestion was followed
and the matter postponed until the next meeting.
The next WCCI covers the period 2001-2003. The subcommittee suggested the nomination
of a director during this year and confirmation of the appointment during next
year’s meeting. However, as no candidate was found during the meeting, the subcommittee
indicated that it would look for candidates for director and judges during the
year, who shall then be nominated during the next meeting.
Finally, Marko Klasinc reported to the Commission that the question arose whether
some titles or fulfilment of norm for titles could be obtained for the winners
of WCCI. There was no proposal by the subcommittee as it had no uniform opinion
on this point.

§7 FIDE-Album, Report by the Subcommittee

7.I   Album 1998-2000:
Kjell Widlert informed the Commission about the situation in the current FIDE-album
1998-2000. The entries are still coming in to the directors. Judges should have
8 months for finishing their work. If after a period of 12 months no result
is obtained, the question of replacement arises. One judge had to withdraw and
was replaced by a new judge. The Commission generally approved that Gady Costeff
should take over endgame judging from Virgil Nestorescu.
The Commission decided to adopt the proposal of Israel to admit the problems
awarded in the 6th WCCT to participate as candidates for the 1998-2000 Album
. All problems published in the award will be submitted to the album judges,
without need of any action by the composers unless they do not wish to participate
in the Album; in such case, they should inform the respective section director(s).
A question arose with regard to problems which have a retro-content which, however,
is not dominant. The subcommittee’s proposal that such compositions should be
sent to the section relevant to the problem’s non-retro content was accepted.

7.II   Album 1995-1997:
The Spokesman informed the delegates that three sections are completed (judging
and layout by the editors), that two more sections are judged, that one judgement
is missing in each of two other sections and that the situation is unclear in
the remaining section. It is not clear whether the album will be ready by next
year’s meeting, but possibly by the end of 2003. He also mentioned that the
album editors have agreed on a new system of presentation which results in fewer
pages in the book, although three languages are retained.

§8 Granting of titles, proposals and report by the
Qualifications Subcommittee

8.I Proposals
The spokesman Ignaas Vandemeulebroucke informed the Commission that the subcommittee
recommended acceptance of the proposal by Belgium to adapt the rules for gaining
titles by deleting the passages defining a specific period of time in which
the norms have to be fulfilled (i.e. the 10-year and 5-year periods in §X.5,
e) and f) in Annex III of the Statutes.
The Commission in a vote (25 in favour, 1 against, 2 abstentions) agreed
to follow the practice of FIDE to cancel the time-limits.

Ignaas Vandemeulebroucke further remarked that the subcommittee could this
year not deal with the question of the requirements that must be fulfilled for
an award on which a request for obtaining the title of international judge is
based. The question arose in connection with judging a FIDE-Album. The matter
is to be considered during next year’s meeting (also by the sub-committee for

The spokesman further informed the Commission that an updated list of active
international judges and an improved version of the forms for application for
the award of the title of international judge had been prepared.

8.II Titles
Ignaas Vandemeulebroucke announced that the qualification subcommittee recommends
the granting of the following titles:

a) The title "International Judge of the FIDE for Chess Compositions"

Zoran Gavrilovski (Macedonia) for helpmates

b) The extension of the title "International Judge of the FIDE for
Chess Compositions"

Zvonimir Hernitz (Croatia) extension for moremovers
Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia) extension for helpmates

Taking into account the time limit removal in the requirements for obtaining
titles, and in consideration of results obtained in previous years:

c) the title "International Solving Grandmaster of the FIDE"

Michel Caillaud (France)
Graham Lee (Great Britain)

d) the title "International Solving Master of the FIDE" to

Herbert Lang (Germany)
Markus Ott (Switzerland)
Ladislav Salai jr. (Slovakia)
Henry Tanner (Finland)
Eddy van Beers (Belgium)
Peter van den Heuvel (The Netherlands)

e) In view of the results of the tournaments organised during this meeting
(Open and 26th WCSC), granting of the following new titles was proposed:

f) the title "International Solving Grandmaster of the FIDE"

Piotr Murdzia (Poland)

g) the title "Solving Master of the FIDE" to

Bogusz Piliczewski (Poland)
Zbigniew Szczep (Poland)
Emil Klemanic (Slovakia)
Thomas Maeder (Switzerland)

The Spokesman indicated that one of the necessary norms fulfilled by B. Piliczewski,
Z. Szczep and E. Klemanic was obtained in a national championship and he pointed
out that this was the first occurrence of an event other than those being held
during a PCCC meeting resulting in the award of titles.

Subject to confirmation by FIDE, all these proposed titles were granted by
the unanimous decision of the 28 delegates who were present, with one abstention
in those cases where the title was granted to a delegate (Caillaud, Maeder).

§9 Codex, Report by the Subcommittee

The spokesman Günter Büsing reported to the Commission that the subcommittee
in a joint meeting with the subcommittee for computer matters had discussed
the question raised by Marko Klasinc concerning the publication date of compositions
which are published on the internet, either as originals or as part of an award
of a formal tourney. There was agreement that the principles as already laid
down in the codex are also applicable for such publications. In particular,
the definitions in Article 20 (Publication of a chess composition consists
of communicating it to the public, whether in permanent […] or transient form
(e.g. […] through an electronic medium; "communicating to the public"
means enabling an unrestricted number of people to have the opportunity of access
to a chess composition by […] showing it in transient form through a generally
accessible medium (e.g. an electronic network).)
. As this definition of
the term "publication" covers publication on the internet, there is
no need to modify the definition. The publication date is determined as usual,
and as defined in Article 19 in connection with Article 22. Consequently, the
publication date is the date on which the composition is actually available
to the public.
The subcommittee is aware that it may in practice be more difficult to determine
the date when a composition has been put on the internet than is normally the
case with publications in printed form. But the subcommittee sees no need to
deviate from this general rule. It can recommended that composers should add
the publication date directly to the publication but that cannot be enforced
– and it will not always happen because principally each individual composer
may publish a composition on his own personal website without following such
recommendations or even without knowing them.
In the discussion, John Roycroft suggested that someone should collect in printed
form compositions which are originally published on the internet. The spokesman
was doubtful whether this would be possible in practice.

The subcommission discussed two further points. The first concerned a question
on Article 18 and is related to draws on the basis of repetition of moves. The
question was recently received from a Dutch composer and arose in connection
with a specific proof game composition. In short, it was asked whether the Article
18 draw situation arises automatically as soon as an identical position occurs
for the third time or whether it is necessary to "claim" the draw,
or, to put it in other words, whether it is allowed to continue with the sequence
of moves beyond the third occurrence of the position. In the subcommittee’s
understanding of Article 18 the draw is an automatic consequence which is immediately
effective once the third repetition occurs. This was clearly the subcommittee’s
intention when Article 18 was drafted. It may be added that the situation is
basically the same in Article 17 which relates to the 50 move-rule in retro
Concerning the specific composition to which the question was related, the subcommittee
does not want to comment. The subcommittee is prepared to discuss questions
concerning the interpretation of the codex but it does not intend to give opinions
on specific compositions. The idea of the codex is to present a general framework
which should then be applied by composers, judges, editors or whoever else is
concerned – but the subcommittee is nothing like an appeal board in individual

The last point discussed by the subcommittee related to an alleged inconsistency
in the current wording of the codex. This point could not be clarified during
the meeting because there was not enough information about the alleged inconsistency.
In the ensuing discussion, Jakov Vladimirov insisted on this point and he argued
that the wording of the codex would declare compositions with a short threat
to be incorrect. The subcommittee was unable to draw such a conclusion from
the official English text of the codex. It could not be clarified during the
session on which Articles this conclusion was based and whether it may have
been caused by a possibly not quite correct translation into Russian of the
official text. The matter was returned to the subcommittee for further clarification.
To provide a better basis for discussion, Paul Valois offered to provide a copy
of a translation of a Russian codex into English.

§10 Computer Matters, Report by the Subcommittee

Thomas Maeder reported to the Commission that in the second part of the meeting,
the sub-committee was informed about the current state of the project for defining
an XML based standard format for the representation of chess compositions on
the computer.

Currently, a preliminary version of such a standard format exists. To test
its validity, more than 50,000 helpmate problems have been converted into the
standard format. To test the standard format’s usefulness in integrating various
kinds of chess composition software, programs have been written that convert
to the input format and from the output format of Popeye and to the TeX text
processing system.

§11 Studies subcommittee

The Spokesman John Roycroft informed the Commission that the award in the studies
section of the 6th WCCT had been discussed. This award had been considered as
unsatisfactory in several comments that have been published. The subcommittee
decided not to consider the individual objections but to look for reasons why
the award was not satisfactory. In the subcommittee’s view, the main reason
was the poor communication between the judge and the organiser. After it was
realised that several letters were lost, the judge finally felt he was under
extreme time pressure for finishing his award after eventually having received
the necessary information.
Bernd Ellinghoven commented that the director had made every effort to contact
the judge but never received his address. Therefore, complicated routing of
information was inevitable. David Gurgenidze observed the difficulties faced
by the judge and reported that the latter had done everything possible in the
short time until he finished the award.
Uri Avner expressed his opinion that the Commission should not be indifferent
on such judgements and suggested that this one should be reconsidered by the
judge (although the WCCT results are final). David Gurgenidze replied that the
judge will not amend his award but he would not object if someone else would
wish to do so.
The Spokesman finished his report by expressing his confidence that a similar
situation would not occur again under the new system of judging.

§12 Judging

John Rice as Spokesman of the subcommittee for judging reported to the Commission
that the work was combined with the activities of the WCCT subcommittee. Guidelines
for judging in the WCCT in accordance with the new system were established.
(See ANNEX 1)

§13 Future Meetings and future WCSC

Invitation 2003: The President announced that the invitation by the
Ukrainian chess federation to organize the meeting had recently been withdrawn.
Russia presented an invitation to organise the meeting in Moscow. Jakov Vladimirov
mentioned that the hotel foreseen for the event is the same in which the meeting
in 1961 took place. Andrey Selivanov promised that the organisers of the meeting
would take care that visa problems, as occurred to several participants in the
1998 meeting in St. Petersburg, will be avoided this time. More detailed information,
including prices for accommodation and meals, will be submitted as soon as possible,
possibly by end of September 2002.
There were no further invitations for 2003. In the ensuing vote, the 28 delegates
who were present unanimously accepted the Russian invitation.

Further Invitations: For the time being, no official invitations were
submitted for the meeting in 2004. The new President invited the delegates to
consider whether they could organise a meeting and encouraged them to submit
proposals by next year.

§14 Presidium Elections

A new presidium was elected in a closed session.
President: John Rice (Great Britain) and Andrey Selivanov (Russia) were
candidates for President. In the ballot, John Rice was elected President
with 16 votes against 10 votes for Andrey Selivanov (1 abstention).
1st Vice-President: Hannu Harkola (Finland) and Uri Avner (Israel) were
candidates for 1st Vice-President. In the ballot, Hannu Harkola was elected
with 18 votes against 7 votes for Uri Avner (2 abstentions).
2nd Vice-President: Uri Avner (Israel), Kjell Widlert (Sweden) and Bernd
Ellinghoven (Germany) were candidates for 2nd Vice-President. In the ballot, Uri Avner was elected with 14 votes, Kjell Widlert receiving 11 votes
and Bernd Ellinghoven 2 votes.
3rd Vice-President: Kjell Widlert (Sweden) and Bernd Ellinghoven
were candidates for 3rd Vice-President. In the ballot, Kjell Widlert was elected
with 19 votes against 5 votes for Bernd Ellinghoven (3 abstentions).

The Commission’s final session was chaired by the newly elected President.
He expressed his thanks to all members of the past presidium for the work they
had undertaken to the benefit of the Commission, and he expressly thanked Bedrich
Formanek who was in charge as President for 8 years. John Rice then proposed
that his predecessor should be honoured for his commitment to the Commission
by granting him the title of Honorary President. The Commission agreed to this
by acclamation. John Rice also thanked the Secretary Günter Büsing
for his work and then informed the delegates that Paul Valois would act as his

§15 Any other Business

15.I   John Rice reminded the Commission that the liaison
between FIDE and the PCCC is rather weak and could in future be intensified.
In this connection, he suggested considering whether the post of a "liaison
officer" should be created. This was not intended as weakening the President’s
responsibility in this respect but as something additional. The matter should
be discussed during next year’s meeting.

15.II   John Rice encouraged delegates to increase the publicity
of the work of the Commission. He noted that the minutes of the meetings are
published on the PCCC website and also in The Problemist, and he suggested that
more information be spread in and by the national federations.

15.III   Upon request by John Rice, Jakov Vladimirov agreed
that an official Russian-English interpreter would be provided during next year’s
meeting in Moscow.

15.IV   Igor Vereshchagin reminded the Commission that some
years ago there had been a discussion about a PCCC logo. He suggested the preparation
of badges showing the official FIDE logo which could be given to title holders,
and offered to prepare such badges if the Commission would so wish. Similar
badges exist in FIDE. Hannu Harkola objected that the Commission does not need
the FIDE-logo but the idea as expressed earlier was to have a PCCC logo on its
own. Further observations by Bernd Ellinghoven and by the President addressed
the problem that it was considered as impracticable to take a decision without
knowing in detail how the proposed badge would look.

15.V   Finally, the outgoing President Bedrich Formánek
addressed the Commission with a short review of important achievements and developments
during the past eight years of his presidency. He noted in particular that the
Commission had grown from 31 to 38 members, that the Statutes were amended several
times, that the "Study of the Year" award was established, that the
long work on the new codex was finished and that guidelines for organising study
tournaments were prepared. Three FIDE-Albums were published, a rating system
for solvers and the WCCI established. He mentioned a few names, standing for
many others, who had achieved a great deal during the last years: Kjell Widlert,
John Roycroft, Uri Avner, Günter Büsing, Ignaas Vandemeulebroucke,
Hannu Harkola, Marko Klasinc, Thomas Maeder, Bernd Ellinghoven, Zivko Janevski
and John Rice.

Finally, President John Rice expressed his thanks for the good work of the
delegates, the subcommittees, the organizers of this meeting, the outgoing and
the incoming presidium members and then declared the meeting closed.

Bratislava, December 2002

London, December 2003 München, December 2002
Dr. B. Formánek J. Rice G. Büsing
(Outgoing) President (Incoming) President Secretary


Annex 1 to Minutes Portoroz


Outstanding problem: an accurate and intensive rendering of
the set theme, without blemishes in any of the main lines, and showing originality
and flair. Perfect construction and economy.
As above, but some small constructive weaknesses, and perhaps
not ideally economical.
Either: a very good problem showing the theme clearly
but perhaps not intensively or very originally;
Or: a task rendering of the theme that does not reach the highest
artistic standard.In either case, good construction and economy.
As above, but constructional weakness, and/or economy less
that ideal because of intensive or task setting.
A good problem, very likely worth an honourable mention or
commendation in a reasonably strong tourney, but not a very intensive rendering
of the theme, and perhaps not very original. Adequate-to-good construction
and economy.
As above, but with some artistic weakness or constructioal
A very ordinary piece of work, typical of many average columns
but hardly up to award standard. Adequate construction and economy.
As above, but with serious constructional defects.
Non-thematic entry, or below publication standard.



Comments are closed.