Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:37 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General WCCI problems assessed as 8+ straight to FIDE Album |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Jan 14, 2013 08:45] |
QUOTE
Sorry for misunderstanding. I speak of the Albums, you don't ?
As I wrote, I am replying to the question
QUOTE
I started the topic of WCCI and Album on the Russian site because I don’t want to have my studies with 8+ in WCCI published in the FIDE Album. As far as I understand there’s no such risk if I don’t send these studies to the Album judges. Am I right?
raised by Sergiy Didukh in post (14) of this thread.
| | | (42) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 04:37] |
Just to answer some questions / issues raised to the proposal (i.e. composers must apply in order to get an international title):
1. Why I did not consider the possibility of opting out? (Neal & Kevin)
The main reason is to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy for the Qualification Subcommittee.
The current system, based on counting the points, remains basically unchanged.
The only thing that will change is the request to formally apply for the title from the composer.
This is actually the same approach for granting the International Judge title: the judge must submit an application form to the QS.
2. What happens if the composer passes away before being able to apply officially for a title? (Kevin)
That's a delicate situation, because the composer can no longer opt for receiving the title or not.
My proposal would be to leave the possibility to claim the title to the composer's country chess federation.
In this case, posthumous titles can be granted for composers, even if they did not care at all for these titles during their lives.
However, this option must be activated ONLY AFTER the composer's death.
This debatable point should be considered separately from the previous one, as it is difficult to assess the pros and cons.
3. Then what's the main difference to the current automatic system?
There are the following differences:
- Composers' choice is respected during their lifetime.
- Federations may also apply for the recognition of their countrymen based on the FIDE Album points they gathered, but only posthumous
- Earning a title requires an additional action from the composer / federation (i.e. an application must be sent to the WFCC QS)
Now, back to the main topic, there is still an issue for WCCI problems assessed with 8+, but receiving a lower mark in the FIDE Album selection process: the FIDE Album judges might not be satisfied their assessment is bypassed by other independent judges (i.e. WCCI judges assessment is given priority over FIDE Album). It is true they have also the same option in case they decide to promote WCCI problems assessed as 8- in the FIDE Album.
Some people might refuse in the future to accept being judges in the FIDE Album, just because the final result of the selection process will not reflect their convinctions, as some entries have already qualified without their approval. All what can I say is that WCCT winners also get automatically selected in the FIDE Album.
Of course, as WCCT system is now also changed, one might ask "Why WCCT problems assessed as 8+ do not get straight in the FIDE Album as well?"
In my opinion, that would be the logical and consistent approach after the similar decision taken for WCCI.
| | | (43) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 04:54] |
It might help if problems from the WCCI with 8+ points making it into the FIDE Album are specifically identified as WCCI 'winners', as distinct from those problems submitted only to the Album?
| | | (44) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Tuesday, Jan 15, 2013 08:58]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [13-01-15] |
QUOTE
Vlaicu wrote: Now, back to the main topic, there is still an issue for WCCI problems assessed with 8+, but receiving a lower mark in the FIDE Album selection process: the FIDE Album judges might not be satisfied their assessment is bypassed by other independent judges (i.e. WCCI judges assessment is given priority over FIDE Album).
As I already explained, when the results of the WCCI are known (around mid of September) the WCCI director will inform each album section director which compositions received 8 points or higher in the WCCI. The album section directors will inform the album judges accordingly. The album judges will NOT have to grade these compositions. For their own pleasure, they may study and enjoy them if they wish.
QUOTE
Ian wrote: It might help if problems from the WCCI with 8+ points making it into the FIDE Album are specifically identified as WCCI 'winners', as distinct from those problems submitted only to the Album?
Of course, this is what we have planned.
| | | (45) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Saturday, Feb 2, 2013 22:31] |
By the way: Do the originals of Die Schwalbe Oct and Dec 2012 count for the WCCI 2010-2012 and the FIDE Album 2010-2012?
| | | (46) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Feb 3, 2013 23:34] |
I have my name in one of the FIDE albums. If I knew it was possible to complain and get my name removed, I would've done so. It was not a joint composition, but one that was found independently from 2 other composers. At least one of the other two composers apparently thought it should be in the FIDE album, but sent it with my name but without my consent.
| | | (47) Posted by Frank Richter [Tuesday, Feb 19, 2013 18:38] |
@Sven-Hendrik: Looking at the already closed WCCI these problems should compete in 2013-15 period.
| | | (48) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 04:56] |
@Frank. According to the WCCI rules, that is incorrect! The entries' validity is based on the date printed on the magazine, not its actual date of publication. (I entered a pair of two-movers, one from the October 2012 "Die Schwalbe", the other from that journal's December issue - so I read the fine print!)
| | | (49) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 06:03] |
@Ian
Exactly opposite is true.
Quote:
"For informal tourneys the date of publication of the issue containing the composition is decisive; for formal tourneys the date of appearance of the award is decisive (NB: not the closing date of the tourney)."
| | | (50) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 10:40] |
@Georgy. That quote could be interpreted two ways: the date printed on the magazine issue itself (its stated 'publication date'); or the date the particular issue actually appeared. In an ideal world they should be the same! But since that isn't the case in this instance, the matter needs to be resolved one way or the other by the WFCC.
| | | (51) Posted by Joaquim Crusats [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 12:32] |
Codex, footnote 27:
(27) The actual date of a journal is the date on which it is published, whatever the date on its cover.
| | | (52) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 12:42] |
@Ian
From the Codex (Article 22, Paragraph 2, Footnote 27):
"The actual date of a journal is the date on which it is published, whatever the date on its cover."
| | | (53) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 13:56]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-20] |
@Joost,
Pardon the late reply, but, I must say...
I would consider it a very bad idea to EVER ask to have your name removed from a problem which you composed (or co-composed) -- even in circumstances where you did not work directly with your co-composers.
Your involvement (in the realization of some publication) should ALWAYS be cited.
Even if an array of ruthless tyrants had managed to find successful purpose (with the FIDE Album judges) to add their names to a problem of mine, I would never ask for removal of my name.
Instead, I would insist that I have a right to include one sentence, clearly expressing that "this 'collaboration' was not direct" (and nothing more).
This *may* be taken to imply that I do not necessarily condone the actions of these individuals, beyond the chess board (in fact, I may not condone their modifications on the chess board!).
And, in fact, I think anyone who modifies such a work should be REQUIRED to state the nature of the collaboration (in cases where all parties did not necessarily agree).
Furthermore, I consider it improper etiquette for an individual to attempt to impose constraints, against any re-publication (including the FIDE Album), upon any co-author (direct collaborator, or otherwise).
I don't send problems to the Album myself, but I think every co-composer should ALWAYS have the right to seek republication elsewhere.
I have no legitimate authority to ban republication of a joint work (in the FIDE Album, or otherwise); and, the FIDE Album should not pretend that I am entitled to to refuse another's participation.
If you feel differently on this issue, I would appreciate if you could elaborate on the matter.
Specifically, why should the FIDE Album remove your name from a work published in your name?
If this is the case, do you expect the databases to comply?
I would invite you to please consider the flip-side of this coin...
Suppose a joint problem is published, which later proves to be entirely anticipated.
Under your scenario, which composers are entitled to remove their names from any (and all?) republications -- thereby leaving ONE (?) to take the blame?
How do you suppose they would formally register their protest for name removal?
If name removal is permitted (in any case), this would invite several unwelcome scenarios:
1) joint composers would have the unique ability to "undo" ANY jointly composed works, which have fallen into disfavor (including cooked problems!), and
2) solo composers need only insist that somebody else (perhaps a fictional author) should also be recognized, and viola, they may freely apply the prior tactic, to "uncompose" anything!
Except in cases where credit was improperly applied, I am not familiar with ANY individual right to "unpublish" something.
Please explain: why would you expect the FIDE Album (exclusively?!) to provide such an option?
Thanks.
| | | (54) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 14:43]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-20] |
@Georgy,
I think you know that your CODEX reference is poorly worded (in the extreme).
There is a great problemist tradition of dramatically improving the FIDE Rulebook, by a nitpicking the wording to produce humiliating prankster problems.
Unfortunately, we too seldom manage to apply this gift introspectively -- at our own CODEX.
In this case, the CODEX wording would permit retroactive anticipation of any problem -- Fred Flintstone need only stamp a false date (say, "Jan 1, 13730000000 BC") on the cover of his own publication (he might even state "before Forsberg").
| | | (55) Posted by Joaquim Crusats [Wednesday, Feb 20, 2013 14:55]; edited by Joaquim Crusats [13-02-20] |
Now I am confused:
"Whatever = no matter what", so what matters is the actual publication date, not the one stated on the cover.
| | | (56) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Feb 21, 2013 10:23] |
Are the judges and/or controller expected to know _exactly_ when every relevant issue of every relevant periodical was published? That strikes me as utterly impractical.
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General WCCI problems assessed as 8+ straight to FIDE Album |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
