|Hannu HARKOLA||Finland||1st Vice-President|
|Kjell WIDLERT||Sweden||2nd Vice-President|
|Bernd ELLINGHOVEN||Germany||3rd Vice-President|
|Agchin MASIMOV||Azerbaijan (new member)||Delegate|
|Edward STOFFELEN||Belgium||Deputy for Ignaas Vandemeulebroucke|
|Michel CAILLAUD||France||Deputy for Jacques Rotenberg|
|John RICE||Great Britain||Delegate|
|Harry FOUGIAXIS||Greece||Deputy for Byron Zappas|
|Gabor CSEH||Hungary||Deputy for Tibor Szabó|
|Henk le GRAND||The Netherlands||Delegate|
|Wladislaw ROSOLAK||Poland||Deputy for Jan Rusinek|
|Mircea MANOLESCU||Romania||Deputy for Virgil Nestorescu|
|Klaus WENDA||Austria||Honorary President|
|Attila BENEDEK||Hungary||Honorary Member|
|Victor CHEPIZHNY||Russia||Honorary Member|
|Giorgio MIRRI||Italia||Honorary Member|
Initially 24 of the 34 member countries were represented. After the
late arrival of some delegates and acceptance of the new membership application
by Azerbaijan (see § 3) 28 of the 35 member countries were represented.
The following persons were excused:
No delegates were nominated by Brazil, Bulgaria, Estonia and Latvia.
Active visitors fulfilling tasks as members of subcommittees, tourney
directors, assistant directors, etc., were: Kenneth SOLJA (Finland), Denis
BLONDEL (France), Hemmo AXT, Hans GRUBER (both Germany), Brian STEPHENSON,
Colin SYDENHAM (both Great Britain), Yochanan AFEK, Noam ELKIES (both Israel),
Marco BONAVOGLIA (Italy), Igor VERESHCHAGIN, Andrei 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 is the second time that the Commission meets in Pula, and he reminded
the Commission that Nenad Petrovic was one of the very active Croatian
representants of that time and one of the founders of the PCCC. 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.
A minute of mourning and remembrance was held for:
Frank Visbeen (2.3.37-12.8.96), Wladimir Suchodolski (18.11.08-15.08.96),
Mario Camorani (15.08.12-08.07.96), Karlheinz Ahlheim (13.06.33-15.10.96),
Robert McWilliam (12.07.19-12.02.97), Nikos Siotis (25.09.29-?.01.97),
Pascal di Scala (31.03.07-29.11.96), Visvaldis Veders (24.01.21-11.05.97),
Imants Draiska (09.09.26-01.10.96), Lev M. Tamkov (02.08.37-31.03.97),
Walter Korn (22.05.08-10.07.97), Jüri Randviir (28.05.27-08.08.96),
Dmitri Banny (18.10.32-10.08.97) and Revaz Tavariani.
§2 Verification of Attendance and Voting Rights
Initially, 24 member countries out of 34 were represented. The meeting
was declared legal.
§3 Application of new Members
Azerbaijan applied for new membership and had nominated as its delegate
Agchin Masimov who is the vice-president of the Azerbaijan chess composition
federation. A problem arose because the written application for membership
from the Azerbaijan chess federation was not available. Agchin Masimov
explained that such a letter had been sent several years ago to Klaus Wenda.
David Gurgenidze confirmed that chess composition is well developed in
Azerbaijan and that the chess organisation is active. Andrei Selivanov,
Vice President of FIDE, informed the Commission that he had personally
spoken with the President of the chess federation of Azerbaijan and he
could confirm that Agchin Masimov should represent Azerbaijan. Klaus Wenda
explained that the only missing feature was the official paper from the
chess federation but he remarked that trusting what David Gurgenidze and
Andrei Selivanov said, then the application can be accepted.
In a vote, the 25 delegates present unanimously accepted the application
by Azerbaijan for membership in the Commission.
§4 Approval of the Tel Aviv minutes 1996
The minutes of the XXXIXth Meeting in Tel Aviv (1996) were approved
with the following corrections:
§5.5: Last name should read "Wenda" instead of "Garai".
§9.I.d: Nationality of Jean Morice is France.
§5 Checking of the Standing Subcommittees
G. BÜSING Spokesman
H. AXT Spokesman
Last year’s member J. Rotenberg was not present.
U. AVNER Spokesman
H. AXT (Director 6th WCCT, observer)
Last year’s member B. Zappas was not present. The deputy was H. Fougiaxis.
K. WIDLERT Spokesman
I. VANDEMEULEBROUCKE Spokesman
The regular spokesman I. Vandemeulebroucke was not present. He was replaced
as spokesman for this year by H. Harkola. V. Nestorescu was also not present
and was replaced by M. Manolescu. L. Jelinek joined the subcommittee as
a new member.
6. Computer Matters:
H. le GRAND Spokesman
Last year’s member J. Rotenberg was not present.
J. ROYCROFT Spokesman
Last year’s members V. Gorbunov and V. Nestorescu were not present. Noam
Elkies joined the subcommittee as a new member.
J. RICE Spokesman
Last year’s member J. Rotenberg was not present. M. Dragoun joined the
subcommittee as a new member.
§6 Proposals by Members
6.I Proposal by Russia and Georgia
The proposal for establishing the title of World Champion for Composers
that had already been discussed and rejected in Tel Aviv was renewed during
the meeting and discussed again during the last session of the Commission.
The President provided an introduction to the matter and said that after
discussion with several experts he was of the opinion that, contrary to
last year’s decision, the title might indeed be needed. He suggested starting
the discussion with the general question of whether the title should be
introduced. The method of determining the titles should only be discussed
after a decision on this question of principle. The proposal by Russia
and Georgia reads as follows (wording by John Beasley):
"1. The PCCC should organize a world championship for problem and
study composition based on the FIDE-albums.
2. World champions should be determined in accordance with album points.
If a problem has two or more authors, the points should be divided.
3. The Qualifications subcommittee should announce the first ten composers
according to the 1986-88 and 1989-91 albums.
4. The winner of each album section should be declared the World Champions,
and should be awarded a gold medal. The second should be awarded a silver
medal, the third a bronze."
In a modification, Bernd Ellinghoven and John Rice proposed to modify
the first sentence of point 2 by
"2. World champions should be determined according to album points
as awarded by the judges (8-12)."
They further proposed for consideration of the WCCT subcommittee in
"to discontinue the WCCT after the 6th and to replace it by a tourney
for individual composers in which the result, taken in conjunction with
points gained in the album, would lead to the award of the title of World
Bo Lindgren started the discussion by saying that to look for a champion
is to look for the best. He then made a comparison to athletics and observed
that an athlete with a lot of very good results, but not the best ones,
would never get a title of world champion because this is reserved for
the best performance in a contest. Regarding the FIDE album, he said that
an ambitious composer may get many problems into the album but may possibly
not be a real artist. Other composers may achieve real masterworks but
get fewer problems into the album. According to the proposal, they would
not have a chance to obtain the title. He said that he is strictly against
the introduction of the title of world champion (as he was against the
introduction of the other composing titles).
Jakov Vladimirov reminded the Commission that the PCCC is a permanent
commission of FIDE and observed that the question of whether the champion
should really be the best is not even clear in FIDE (the situation Karpov/Kasparov:
one is the champion, the other is possibly the better player). Andrei Selivanov
made a comparison with a chess tournament and said that the winner may
perhaps not have played the best games, it is the overall result that counts.
Similarly, no point scores in the album should be counted but only the
number of selected problems.
Uri Avner said that he has supported for a long time the opinion expressed
by Bo Lindgren. The album was originally not meant as a tournament, and
the idea of awarding a title in accordance with quantity instead of quality
is not convincing to him, nor is the statement that we "need"
the title. He further asked why it is considered to be so urgent to introduce
the title now and suggested to discuss the matter in a subcommittee. Both
Uri Avner and Thomas Maeder suggested that the Commission should, in the
first part of the discussion, disregard the words "based on the FIDE-albums"
so as to discuss whether the title is needed before discussing how it is
to be given.
Mircea Manolescu agreed that the title should be given to the best composer
(from a quality viewpoint). He proposed an alternative for point 2: from
each composer a maximum number of problems in the album, e.g. 5, should
be considered and the total of points awarded by the judges for these compositions
should decide. Andrei Selivanov did not agree and did not want to mix points
of the proposal.
Milan Velimirovic stressed that the album is not a tournament and therefore
not suitable as a basis for the title. He mainly agreed with Bo Lindgren.
Although he did not agree with the introduction of the title, he conceded
that its introduction might be useful for the PCCC. Yochanan Afek also
appreciated Bo Lindgren’s point of view but observed a great and increasing
need for the competitive aspects of chess. With regard to the game, he
remarked that the number of games published in, e.g., the Chess Informant,
could never be the basis for giving a title; this must always be a tournament.
Helmut Zajic suggested the deletion of the FIDE-Album basis from point
1 of the proposal and to vote on the introduction of the title separately.
Uri Avner disagreed because he did not want to vote on a title without
at the same time knowing how to grant it. He added that the album is not
suitable as a championship tournament.
Klaus Wenda saw no need in principle for the title, but in case that
the majority feels that advantages connected thereto are more important
than the disadvantages, then a special tournament should be organised.
David Gurgenidze disagreed because he fears that a separate tournament
might be won by chance. He deems the results of the album as more reliable
and mentioned that only the best composers deserve the title. Henk le Grand
asked whether there is a danger that a composer who has a brillant idea
only once may get the title. He suggested that album points might be used
as a kind of qualification for a title tournament.
Yochanan Afek observed that the title is apparently vital for some people.
He said that the acceptance of the proposal would result in the situation
that somebody becomes world champion in a tournament that has already been
finished before its announcement. David Gurgenidze agrees that this is
not good in principle but saw a special situation here. Jakov Vladimirov
added that the titles of grandmaster and international master were also
Uri Avner proposed again to give the matter to a subcommittee for further
discussion and not to decide under such time pressure.
Mircea Manolescu agreed with Avner and Afek and had a further idea:
each country could select its best problems for taking part in a world
championship, perhaps instead of the WCCT.
Kjell Widlert summarised some arguments: against the introduction of
the title is that chess composition deals with a kind of art and that several
(western) composers will presumably not take part in further albums if
the title is connected thereto; an argument in favour of the title would
be the increased prestige for some countries. As he considered this a rather
unclear argument, he wanted to get more information thereon.
Marko Klasinc thought that the title should be introduced and he asked
for a decision during this meeting. The titles for 1989-91 could be given
next year based on the album, perhaps other methods of determining the
world champion could be found in future. Jiri Jelinek added that the Commission
should support the problemists in the former soviet republics by accepting
the proposal now.
Harry Fougiaxis asked whether the certificates that have been prepared
for the most successful composers according to last year’s decision in
Tel Aviv are sufficient. Bedrich Formánek answered that for some
composers the title is more important than certificates. Andrei Selivanov
added that the title is necessary for all composers in the world. He asked
for an immediate decision and cannot see the pressure that Uri Avner talked
about. Bedrich Formánek referred to the importance of good connections
to FIDE, and that the PCCC should follow the general line of FIDE. As chess
may soon become olympic, much propaganda would be possible for compositional
chess through the national chess federations if the PCCC could refer to
titles. Milan Velimirovic disagreed and could not see a connection between
the olympic movement and the title under discussion.
In a personal declaration, Fadil Abdurahmanovic expressed his thanks
for the help that he got from problemists during the war in Bosnia. In
analogy thereto, he asked why the PCCC cannot help other composers who
need help by awarding a title of world champion. He added that it seems
to be difficult to find a better system than one based on the FIDE album.
In the following vote, a majority of 16 was in favour of the creation
of the title of individual world champion, with 6 against and 4 abstentions.
K. Wenda observed that this was not a two-thirds majority and asked
whether this result is now the acceptance or refusal of a new title. Bedrich
Formánek said that a two-thirds majority was not necessary because
the title of world champion is only a temporary title, different from other
titles for composition like grandmaster which are granted for lifetime.
In a subsequent vote on the proposal: "The only basis for determining
the winner of the World Championship of FIDE-PCCC is the FIDE-Album",
a majority of 15 was in favour, with 7 against and 4 abstentions.
In the following deliberations on point 2 of the proposal, it was discussed
a) normal album points,
b) the points awarded by the judges, or
c) only a specific maximum number of compositions
should be taken into account for the determination of the world champion.
David Gurgenidze said that it would be very strange to evaluate the
title differently from the determination of grandmasters, international
masters and FIDE masters. He proposed to start with method a) and, if future
experience should show that corrections are necessary, this could be done
after some years.
Milan Velimirovic protested against the manner in which a decision was
sought without proper preparation. He declared that from now on he would
vote against each proposal and left the session.
Helmut Zajic expressed his sympathy with method c) although he was not
sure whether the result thereof would be different from method a). Kjell
Widlert pointed out that methods b) and c) both have the advantage that
high quality problems have more weight than in a).
Hans Gruber remarked that he was very confused that a judge (as he was
himself) should now be used as a tool for determining the world champion.
He considered this an abuse of the judges because they could not have known
that when they made their judgement.
Bedrich Formánek argued that the simplest system appears to be
the best for the time being. He said that for practical reasons the simplest
system, i.e. method a), should be adopted for the Album 1989-91.
In the vote on the question whether the "normal album points should
be taken for the album 1989-91", 16 were in favour, with 3 against
and 5 abstentions (without counting the absent Milan Velimirovic).
With regard to point 4 of the proposal, the question was discussed for
which period the title of world champion should be given. Reference to
the album period seemed strange because that was too long ago. John Roycroft
suggested simply to count the world champions, now starting with the first
one. Jakov Vladimirov proposed the use of the year of publication of the
Andrei Selivanov promised that Russia will offer the medals and present
them during the meeting in St. Petersburg.
Michel Caillaud said that composers should be allowed to refuse the
In a vote, 17 were in favour of point 4 of the proposal, with
no-one against and 8 abstentions.
It is observed that no discussion and no vote took place on point 3
of the proposal.
After the decision, a subcommittee, consisting of Kjell Widlert, Francesco
Simoni and David Gurgenidze, was formed for counting the album points in
order to announce the first world champions during the final banquet.
6.II Further proposals
Further proposals were discussed in various subcommittees and are referred
to under other paragraphs of these minutes (§8 FIDE Album, §9
Qualifications, §10 Codex).
7.I 21st World Chess Solving Championship
Brian Stephenson selected the problems for the 21th WCSC. He and Kenneth
Solja, assisted by Marco Bonavoglia, directed the WCSC.
The final results of the 21th WCSC were as follows:
1. Israel 163.25 points, 617 min. 2. Germany 158.00, 670 3. Great Britain
158.00, 686 4. Yugoslavia 152.25, 580 5. Russia 148.00, 612 6. Finland
135.00, 693 7. Switzerland 131.75, 640 8. Netherlands 122.00, 690 9. Ukraine
120.50, 719 10. Czech Republic 113.00, 690 11. Slovenia 112.00, 675 12.
Poland 111.00, 635 13. Slovakia 106.75, 652 14. Belgium 102.00, 634 15.
France 99.00, 689 16. Austria 96.00, 681 17. Croatia 67.50, 645 18. Hungary
63.50, 662 19. Bosnia-Hercegovina 63.50, 684
1. Jonathan Mestel (Great Britain) 80.00 points 336 min. (World Champion)
2. Michael Pfannkuche (Germany) 79.00, 354 3. Noam Elkies (Israel) 78.25,
309 4. Graham Lee (Great Britain) 76.25, 351 5. Sergej Rumyantsev (Russia)
76.00, 282 6. Roland Baier (Switzerland)) 75.25, 292 7. Ram Soffer (Israel)
75.00, 309 8. Michel Caillaud (France) 75.00, 354 9. Boris Gusev (Russia)
73.25, 287 10. Mark Erenburg (Israel) 72.75, 358 11. Arno Zude (Germany)
70.00, 314 12. Tadashi Wakashima (Japan) 70.00, 350 and 58 further participants.
Hemmo Axt, as spokesman of the WCSC subcommittee, informed the Commission
that some changes are necessary in the wording of the WCSC rules. In particular,
a reference to the nationality of the solvers should be incorporated into
Rule 5 which refers to the names of the participating solvers. A modified
Rule 5, subdivided into sections 5.1 to 5.4, was presented and discussed.
It includes rules for the eligibility of solvers. With regard to the nomination
of the participating solvers, John Rice proposed to add the following sentence
to section 5.3: " Other teams and/or solvers may be admitted at a
later time at the discretion of the Presidium of the PCCC."
In a vote, the amendments including the above sentence were accepted
(26 in favour, 1 abstention).
7.II 5th WCCT
The booklet with the final results of the 5th WCCT was available from
the tournament director Jiri Jelinek.
7.III 6th WCCT
The tournament director Hemmo Axt reported that 35 countries are taking
part in the competition (preliminary number). A first circular letter has
been sent to the team captains, and a second one is under preparation.
Uri Avner, as spokesman of the WCCT subcommittee, regretted that some judges
of the WCCT had not replied to participant’s questions. Therefore, the
WCCT-subcommittee had to answer those by itself. The tournament director
was invited to contact the subcommittee in future if replies are not supplied
in due time.
7.IV Future WCCTs
Uri Avner mentioned a proposal by Victor Sysonenko that was received
during the meeting and referred to the enlargement of the scope of the
WCCT and to make it open for individuals. Uri Avner indicated that this
proposal will be discussed next year.
Some ideas concerning the judging in future WCCTs were discussed in
the subcommittee. These included:
a) preservation of the current system, with the attempt to improve it.
This implies basically the problem of finding the most competent judges;
b) to give all participating countries the possibility to have influence
on the judging; e.g. by ranking the top 20 or so problems. This would be
the most democratic approach but also has some drawbacks;
c) to increase the number of judges, e.g. to three. No recommendation has
so far been made by the subcommittee. As the discussion will go on, Uri
Avner invites anyone to submit further proposals to him.
§8 FIDE-Album, Report by the Subcommittee
8.I FIDE Album 1989-91
The spokesman Kjell Widlert thanked all the (about 40) persons involved
in the production of the just-published Album 1989-91, which he considered
a wonderful book. He specially mentioned Wieland Bruch who did an excellent
job as substitute judge in the twomover-section in almost no time at all.
Kjell Widlert observed that one problem is missing in the album, viz the
1st place in the 4th WCCT by Ludovit Lacny. This problem, which automatically
qualified for the album, will be included into the next album.
8.II FIDE Album 1992-94
The spokesman mentioned that his – very optimistic – time table ends
with publication of the album in 1999 but he admits that this may not be
realistic and that publication in 2000 is more likely. He informed the
Commission that one section is completed (three-movers) and that the judges
are working in the other sections.
A change in the administrative organization was noted: all entries for
the album competition will be entered into a database and be tested by
computer, as far as possible. After completion of the judgements, the album
can then be produced faster than before.
8.III FIDE Album 1995-97
The announcement for the next album for the period 1995-97 will be
made next year. All delegates are invited to make proposals for judges
and send them to Kjell Widlert, or to make such proposals at latest in
Kjell Widlert indicated that there is a need for more judges in order
to avoid using the same names too frequently. The subcommittee therefore
proposed to change the rule that all 3 judges must hold the title of an
international judge and would like to be entitled to appoint one non-title-holder
(in addition to two international judges) per section. This would in particular
allow the appointment of known experts who have not applied for the title.
After a short discussion, a vote on the proposal resulted in its acceptance
(23 in favour, 3 against and 3 abstentions).
8.IV Entering Compositions to the Album
A question of general interest is whether someone may enter compositions
by other composers for the album. This has occasionally been done in the
past and the subcommittee recommended that this should also be possible
However, the situation arose that a composer did not want his composition
to appear in the album, and the subcommittee felt that this should be respected
In this respect, the Commission took note of Christopher J. Feather’s
declaration who wished it to be known to the Commission that he did not
enter problems to the Album 1989-91 and he did not wish to have them in
The President regretted that Mr. Feather does not want to have his problems
in the album because something is really missing therein without them.
Nevertheless, the Commission respects his wish and recognises the author’s
right to determine whether his compositions are published in the album.
In order to avoid similar situations in future, the subcommittee recommended
that the announcement of albums should from now on include a passage asking
those who enter compositions of others to contact the composers, if at
all possible. Kjell Widlert, on behalf of the subcommittee, proposed also
the following procedure: Every composer who wishes not to be represented
in the albums, except possibly with joint compositions, can announce this
to the speaker of the Album subcommittee. He will then inform the directors
of this fact.
Denis Blondel announced that for organisational reasons a deadline of
31.12.1998 is set for objections by composers against publication of their
compositions in the running Album 1992-94.
8.V Procedure of granting titles for composition
The proposal submitted by Bernd Ellinghoven and Denis Blondel to award
album points for titles only after publication of the respective album
was discussed. Denis Blondel pointed out that the proposal returns to the
situation before 1989. The reason for the proposal is that the "final
selection" of the section directors on which the present procedure
is based is not really a final selection. Cooks or anticipations that are
found afterwards during the preparation of the album result in exclusion
of these problems from the album, after contact with the director concerned.
Denis Blondel indicated that about 40 points were affected by such late
findings in the recent album.
Hannu Harkola corrected the submissions as far as they concerned the
award of album points. He explained that presently the composers do not
really get the album points (which are counted after publication) but just
In the ensuing discussion, different opinions were expressed. Kjell
Widlert said that the proposal is supported by the album subcommittee although
a short delay of about one year in granting of titles may be the consequence
– which is better than giving a title to a composer who finally may not
reach the necessary album points. Klaus Wenda remarked that the reason
for the change in 1989 was, at that time, the long delay in the publication
of the album, which is presently not the case. Hannu Harkola, as spokesman
of the qualification subcommittee, informed the Commission that there has
been some trouble with the present system because he had not received the
necessary data from all directors in time. He would therefore prefer to
use the album as a basis for granting titles. The President observed that
the two subcommittees involved were in favour of the proposal and deemed
this a strong argument for accepting it.
In the following vote, the proposal was accepted (14 in favour, 8 against
and 5 abstentions).
Granting of titles, proposals and report by the Qualification Subcommittee:
Hannu Harkola gave a report on the work of the subcommittee.
9.I International Judges
There were six applications for the title and one for extension of
the title. Three applications were rejected because of insufficient qualifications.
The subcommittee recommended to award the title of international judge
Vladislav Bunka, Czech Republic, for selfmates, helpmates and studies;
Vladimir Kozhakin, Russia, for threemovers;
Mikhail Marandyuk, Ukraine, for three- and moremovers.
The subcommittee further recommended to extend the title of
Hartmut Laue, Germany, to three- and moremovers.
9.II Titles for solvers
Based on the results of the open solving tourneys and WCSCs in Tel
Aviv and in Pula, the award of the following titles was recommended: FIDE
Master in solving for
Aleksandr Feoktistov, Russia
Boris Gusev, Russia
Piotr Murdzia, Poland
Vladimir Pogorelov, Ukraine (1996)
Boris Tummes, Germany
Mitja Ukmar, Slovenia
Tadashi Wakashima, Japan (1996).
International Master in solving for
Tadashi Wakashima, Japan
Grandmaster for Solving for
Jonathan Mestel, Great Brita
in Sergei Rumyantsev, Russia
The following solvers fulfilled one norm for the title of FIDE Master
Eddy van Beers (Belgium), Michal Dragoun (Czechia), Borislav Gadjanski
(Yugoslavia), Hannu Harkola (Finland), Emil Klemancic (Slovakia), Marek
Kolcak (Slovakia), Valeri Kopyl (Ukraine), Thomas Maeder (Switzerland),
Ayshin Masimov (Azerbaijan), Oleg Pervakov (Russia), Ronald Schäfer
(germany), Valeri Semenenko (Ukraine), Lubomir Siran (Slovakia), Axel Steinbrink
(Germany), and Hans Uitenbroek (Netherlands).
One norm for the title of International Master in solving was fulfilled
Boris Gusev (Russia) and Piotr Murdzia (Poland).
The norm for Grandmaster in solving was reached by:
Michel Caillaud, France (second norm), Noam Elkies, Israel (2nd), Mark
Erenburg, Israel (2nd), Boris Gusev, Russia (1st), Graham Lee, Great Britain
(1st), Ram Soffer, Israel (2nd).
9.III Titles for composers
Based on the results of the FIDE album 1998-91 which has just been published
(but not yet considered completely), award of the following titles is recommended
by the subcommittee:
Peter Gvozdjak, Slovakia (14,4 points)
Jacob Mintz, Israel (16,5)
Aleksandr Mochalkin, deceased (12,83)
Marjan Kovacevic, Yugoslavia (35,33)
Henk Prins, Netherlands (26,66)
Anatoli Slesarenko, Russia (26,66)
Subject to confirmation by FIDE, all the proposed titles were granted
by the unanimous decision of the 27 delegates who were present during the
In addition to the the qualifications listed above, the qualification
subcommittee confirmed during the final session that Valeri Shanshin (34.33
album points) has also fulfiled the norm for the title of international
master for composition. It was accepted by unanimous decision (25 in favour)
to grant the title also to Mr. Shanshin.
§10 Codex, Report by the Subcommittee
Spokesman Günter Büsing reported during the second session
of the Commission that after work over the year, which included several
working sessions during the Andernach meeting in May 1997, the subcommittee
had now agreed on a new Codex and proposed its acceptance by the Commission.
The text thereof has now been distributed to the delegates for voting.
Günter Büsing explained the nature of some amendments that have
been proposed in Part One as compared to the version which was already
accepted in Rotterdam 1991, and gave a short summary on the contents of
Part Two and the Annexes. A vote took place on the new Codex during the
final session and resulted in its unanimous acceptance (23 delegates present).
After the decision, Günter Büsing remarked that the decision
on the new Codex was made at a place very close to Piran where the previous
Codex had its origin in 1958. (It is interesting to add that the work on
new Codex started just in Pula 25 years ago! B.F.) He asked all delegates
to make the new Codex known as much as possible within their countries.
Publication of the official (English) text will presumably be possible
in The Problemist, it is intended to publish German, French and Russian
translations in Die Schwalbe, Phénix and Shakhmatnaya kompositsia.
§11 Computer Matters, Report by the Subcommittee
Henk le Grand reported on the activities of the subcommittee for computer
matters. The subcommittee proposed that information about the activities
of the Commission should be available on-line, and an Internet-homepage
was considered as appropriate therefore. Henk le Grand said that Kenneth
Solja had offerred to use his personal homepage for that purpose (E-mail
address: email@example.com or: http://koti.kolumbus.fi/~ksolja).
What kind of information sould be presented on a homepage was discussed.
Suggestions included the Statutes, announcements and minutes of meetings,
results of WCCTs and of the WCSCs, the codex and other information of general
Bedrich Formánek thanked Kenneth Solja for his offer. He noted
that FIDE has a web-site which may also be used by the PCCC. Although that
web-site is mainly for players, it might be used to some extent to popularise
§12 Studies subcommittee
John Roycroft reported that the studies subcommittee had selected the
"study of the year" for the years 1989 to 1991. These are the
studies D76, D67 and D86, respectively, from the recent FIDE Album 1989-91
(see Annex). John Roycroft emphasized that the purpose of the proclamation
of the study of the year is to publicise studies, not to select the really
best study of a year. He therefore asked the delegates to maximise publicity
of the studies of the year.
The subcommittee discussed the question whether a study which could
also qualify as a moremover should be sent to the first or latter section
of the album. It was suggested to enter it as a moremover rather than as
With regard to the Kasparjan memorial tournament organised in the Netherlands
and connected to the term "World Championship", John Roycroft
reported that the subcommittee felt that it would be best simply to do
nothing because any action by the Commission might be counterproductive.
He said that the organisers of that tournament know that the PCCC considers
the use of the term "World Championship" as inappropriate.
§13 Terminology Subcommittee
The spokesman John Rice reported to the Commission that the terminology
subcommittee held one meeting during the week. There was an interesting
and lengthy discussion and work made good progress. However, as it will
continue for several further years and is at a stage where it is difficult
to report on specific features, a detailed report was deferred to a later
time when such a report is appropriate.
A discussion ensued on the question whether the work could be accelerated,
for example by looking for people willing to cooperate and work on some
specific topics. John Rice said that helpers are welcome but that it might
not be wise to increase the number of the subcommittee members.
§14 Future Meetings and future WCSC
Invitation 1998: The invitation by the Russian Federation to
have the meeting in St. Petersburg, which had been accepted during the
previous meeting, was confirmed and a date (July 25th to August 1st 1998)
and location for the event was presented by Jakov Vladimirov.
Further Invitations: An invitation for the 1999 meeting was presented
by the British delegate. After discussion with prospective participants,
this invitation was withdrawn because it appeared that due to relatively
high costs too few problemists, in particular from eastern countries, would
be able to attend that meeting.
For the time being, there is no further invitation for 1999.
§15 Any other Business
15.I The President informed that he took part in the Odessa
festival of chess composition which is the second biggest event worldwide
on compositional chess. Many lectures and composition tournaments were
organised during the 7-day-meeting which was attended by problemists from
15.II He also informed that he wrote a letter to the Armenian
chess federation concerning the death of Mr. Kasparjan (see Minutes of
Tel Aviv). In a later talk with the vice president of the Armenian chess
federation he was told that Kasparjan was mentioned during the congress
at Yerewan in 1996.
15.III During the FIDE congress in Moldavia in September
1997, the President had a meeting with FIDE-President Iljumzhinov. During
the meeting, which took about 40 minutes in a very kind atmosphere, the
FIDE-President expressed his interest in chess composition and he indicated
that FIDE might in future again give some financial support to the PCCC.
Mr. Iljumzhinov will presumably be present during next year’s meeting of
the PCCC in St. Petersburg.
15.IV The President reported that he has written an article
on chess composition (2 pages DIN A4) for FIDE-FORUM (official FIDE magazine),
which was published in No 4/1997.
15.V The article published by Hans Gruber in feenschach
about the work on the Commission was discussed within the presidium. Kjell
Widlert reported on the subject and said that some non-binding recommendations
could be given for the organisers of future meetings.
In particular, the work within the Commission, and also in some subcommittees,
could be more effective if interpreters were present (especially for Russian-English).
Better understanding would also be possible if more than one microphone
was present. For better preparation of the discussions, proposals should
be presented at least 10 weeks in advance. A computer and printer as well
as a photocopying machine should be available for the preparation and copying
of proposals or other material needed for the Commission’s work. Finally,
a list of documents that are necessary for attending the sessions will
be prepared and distributed to all delegates.
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 1998
Dr. B. Formánek
|München, January 1998
– Studies of the Year 1989, 1990, 1991
– List of addresses
To all Members of the Commission, Kenneth Solja, Denis Blondel, John
Roycroft, Hemmo Axt, Hans Gruber, Paul Valois and Geurt Gijsen