Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:12 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 | | (1) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 16:25]; edited by Juraj Lörinc [13-01-07] | WCCI problems assessed as 8+ straight to FIDE Album
As my arguments included in the discussion on limit on number of entries for FIDE Album - http://matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1357571672&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=1133 - related to WCCI were largely unreflected, I'd like to open the discussion on this issue too. Recently also the discussion on this topic started in the Russian language forum the discussion - http://ru-chess-art.livejournal.com/204559.html - with some strong words against the rule as well.
Shortly speaking, WFCC has decided to automatically include in FIDE Album problems participating in WCCI awarded with at least 8 points (edit: originally there was wrongly written "more than 8 points"). This decision is in my opinion very unfortunate and I wonder if there is any possibility to remedy it - but first what is a general public opinion on the new rule.
My reasons:
1. As a consequence, many of the best problems (those automatically qualified via WCCI) would not be judged by FIDE Album judges, stripping them of some delight they might get from studying such problems. Remember that overall, judging task is paid mostly by delight from provided problems, otherwise any other benefits are minor compared to hours spent. Thus, the exclusion of some tens very good problems will probably make the FIDE Album judging task not so much easier, but surely more boring and less interesting.
2. Judging process for WCCI and FIDE Album is different! WCCI has now 5 judges with marks discarding in each section, FIDE Album 3 judges. Also, personally, I would award more 4s in WCCI than in FIDE Album simply because in WCCI it would be possible to use fully whole scale 4-0 for the sake of ordering of compositions, while in FIDE Album selection marks have their specific meaning – 4 = composition must be in Album, 3 = should be in Album, 2 = can be in Album, 1 = should not be in Album.
3. Compositions sent to WCCI with less than 8 points will have "second chance" in FIDE Album selection, again with unwelcome consequences regarding level playing field for compositions. This might motivate some composers to send their problems to WCCI only to have two tries on FIDE Album entrance, not to seriously compete for WCCI place (even I am strongly considering that in two sections, though not fairies, where I will compete regularly, of course). Also joint compositions can be sent only to FIDE Album selection.
By chance, not knowing that the rule joining WCCI and FIDE Album would be introduced in Kobe, I have agreed to judge WCCI 2010-2012 in fairy section, prior to Kobe meeting. Now I will have to apply my FIDE Album judging approach even for WCCI, thus I will have to consider suitability of the problems for FIDE Album. And I am not comfortable with this situation.
| | | (2) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 19:10] |
This is perhaps one more reason to change completely the way of selecting problems for the albums.
I repete what I wrote elsewhere :
1) the selection should be done on all published problems and not on submissions only
This is technically possible due to the help of databases.
2) the selection should be done all over the 3 years.
For example : for years 2013-2015 the work should begin now.
I don't want here to study this proposal with more details.
But, of course, it can be done, and then, it should be done.
| | | (3) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 19:47] |
" in FIDE Album selection marks have their specific meaning –
4 = composition must be in Album,
3 = should be in Album,
2 = can be in Album,
1 = should not be in Album. "
This is indeed very clear, so can somebody tell me what the half points are about?
3.5 = ?
2.5 = ?
1.5 = ?
0.5 = ?
| | | (4) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 20:59]; edited by Frank Richter [13-01-07] |
0.5 = composition should not have been published ...
| | | (5) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 22:30] |
comment should not have been posted ...
| | | (6) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 00:52] |
In order to be able to assess better the pros and cons, I need to have answers to the following questions:
1. How many problems receiving 8+ in the WCCI have been actually NOT selected in the album?
2. How many problems selected in the album received less than 8 points in the WCCI?
3. Once a chess composition is viewed by 5 experts (i.e. international judges) as worth 8+ points in WCCI, is there any good reason to reject its automatic publication in the FIDE Album based solely on the composition merits?
The only cons I read was related to FIDE Album judges satisfaction, which - with all my respect for the immense work they provide! - is quite a secondary [selfish] motivation.
It makes no sense to repeat the same selection process for an entry that already qualified once.
For me there is actually no issue if there would be even MORE competitions providing automatic inclusion in the FIDE Album!
As a FIDE Album judge I would prefer to have less problems to consider: the fewer, the better! So, in my opinion, this measure has definitely positive points.
One might argue that the main purpose of WCCI is now severely disturbed by the automatic inclusion in the FIDE Album rule. But the same happened with the FIDE Album itself: from documenting purpose to granting international titles.
| | | (7) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 00:56] |
Juraj:
Reply to Point 1.
Judges will NOT be deprived from studying WCCI problems – these problems will be sent to the Album anyway.
Reply to Point 2.
Yes, the processes will be different, but how important is the harm? If we agree that more judges make better award, isn’t it good to have a better award at least for THE BEST problems?
Reply to Point 3.
Yes, there will be a "second chance" for some compositions, but these are THE BEST problems by each author. Better give best problems a second chance, than miss some of them.
Yes, the new system is far from fulfilling all our wishes. Besides, our wishes and priorities seem to be different, too. I checked the critics on the RuChessArt site that you mention, and saw them in a different light. Till some minutes ago, there have been one voice against the new system, and two voices against another rule – to send PDF files…
For instance, my personal wish is to see a radical change of the WCCI system to a yearly competition with only one original composition per author/per group. This way, the winner of the WCCI would be a composition, not a larger opus of the author.
However, other composers think differently, and till we keep the same concept of the WCCI, some improvements should be tried. There are some obvious drawbacks of the new system, such as no second chance for the joint problems. However, these drawbacks seem to me less important then the advantages you haven’t mentioned. And, I believe there are more advantages than I named here.
| | | (8) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 01:25] |
I know few problems with 8+ in WCCI which were not selected for FA. Also there are cases like 2x8+/WCCI but 8 problems/FA and 3x8+/WCCI but 12 problems/FA. Small sample for statistics but still shows something.
| | | (9) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 02:29] |
Marjan, I am slightly confused by your statement that FIDE Album judges should get and judge problems scoring 8+ in WCCI. I thought one of expected consequences of the new rule was to decrease workload of FIDE Album judges, in line with thesis "why judge them again if they were already deemed good enough, qualified". Why are they sent to FIDE Album judges? I do not believe it is done just to satisfy my wish that FIDE Album judges get as much delight as possible from enormous task.
Of course, I do not agree that more judges make better award. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Mediocrity becomes merit. Coordination is more difficult. Naturally, on the other hand too few judges bear the risk of bias, so I think three judges is much better than 1 or 2, but the right number is difficult to set.
And no, the WCCI problems need not be the best problems of each author. The joint compositions are excluded, as everybody agrees. The importance of this issue depends on many things, but generally speaking, people collaborating more are hurt more.
But well, if the public is generally ok with the WFCC decision, I can live with it even if I do not like it at all.
| | | (10) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 08:57] |
QUOTE
Marjan, I am slightly confused by your statement that FIDE Album judges should get and judge problems scoring 8+ in WCCI.
The closing date for the submission to the album will be June 1, 2013. By that date, the results of the WCCI will not be known. So, composers should anyway submit their entries to WCCI also to the album. The WCCI results will be known by the middle of September; the WCCI director will inform the album section directors which compositions got at least 8 points. The album judges will not have to give points to these compositions; this does not mean that they cannot study (and enjoy) these problems for their own pleasure.
QUOTE
But well, if the public is generally ok with the WFCC decision, I can live with it even if I do not like it at all.
I cannot know about the public for sure, but the opinions of the WFCC delegates are anyway divided about this subject. Check the minutes of the Kobe meeting: 11 persons were in favor, 9 were against and there were 4 abstentions. A marginal majority, but still a majority.
@ Jacques: I should be interested to get (at least a draft, but specific) proposal of what you suggest.
PS. I agree with Marjan; the term "strong words against the decision" that Juraj used for the posts in the Russian blog is misleading.
| | | (11) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 16:42]; edited by Marcel Tribowski [13-01-09] |
Concerning point 3 of the introductory post, I share Juraj's opinion: The last WFCC decision „might motivate some composers to send their problems to WCCI only to have two tries on FIDE Album entrance, not to seriously compete for WCCI place.“
From now on, each WCCI will give the opportunity for 'tactical' submissions of uncertain Album candidates. Looking at http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/wcci5ent.htm, at least submissions of less than four problems to a WCCI section obviously weren't made to take part in a competition. Particularly in these cases, Marjan's statement „these are THE BEST problems by each author“ seems unproved.
Many times WCCI judges were more generous in giving points for the same problem than the Album's. Therefore the automatism „8 points WCCI => Album“ will decrease the Album level: any selection which takes up „almost everything“, finally will lose its relevance.
| | | (12) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 18:53] |
As the issue of strong language against decision was reiterated by Harry, I'd like to defend myself. I have said in the opening post:
"Recently also the discussion on this topic started in the Russian language forum the discussion - http://ru-chess-art.livejournal.com/204559.html - with some strong words against the rule as well."
This is true in every aspect. The Russian language forum discussion on topic was started, with opening as well as title related to joining two: WCCI and Album FIDE. Also, some strong words against the decision were included already in the second reply by Valery Kirillov: "А вот смешивать личный Чемпионат мира и Альбом ФИДЕ - большая глупость !" My understanding of these words is: "To mix World Championship and Album FIDE, it is a big stupidity!" Google Translator uses "lunacy" instead of "big stupidity".
I did not claim strong words against the decision are a majority view and indeed it was not my intention at all.
| | | (13) Posted by Michel Caillaud [Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 00:37] |
I generally share Juraj's views.
I too was appointed judge before the rules were changed. My description in one word of my feelings about the change : unpleasant.
I was already WCCI judge on two occasions (if I remember well) and in both occasions, there was no coordination between the judges (as I understood, there was urge to deliver the titles at the following congress...). This was a difference comparing to my experiences of judge for the FIDE Album.
In this competition, apart from the best composers, participate others who are interested to compare to the best. My notation towards weaker problems was rather loose. No need to be too unpleasant, as this would not change the main issue. This was also a difference comparing to the criteria I used for FIDE Album selection.
My new criteria for WCCI notation following the changes of the rules will be :
0 : cooked or anticipated
0.5 : shoudln't go in the FIDE Album (unless the FIDE Album judges decide otherwise)
2.5, 3.0 , 3.5 , 4.0 : for ranking the best problems
there will be no 1.0, 1.5, 2.0
As Marjan writes, this will change nothing for the bests.
But we are a community, and what is the future of a community who cares only for the bests?
| | | (14) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 09:20]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [13-01-09] |
It’s disgusting to see how some composers are crazy about the Album. Please, don’t spoil the main competition which is the WCCI because of your cherished love for the Album points! If the only way out is to separate these competitions, then do it. One line on the WFCC site and everybody is happy!
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?
| | | (15) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 12:23] |
QUOTE
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?
You should simply send an email to the respective album section director that you do not want to have your 8+ WCCI compositions included in the album and your wish will be of course respected.
I grab the opportunity to present here another case that happened in the 2007-09 album. A joint composition (originally published with the names of composers A and B) was submitted to the album by composer A and was selected. Composer B did not want to have his name shown in the album, so he wrote to the section director. The composition will be included in the album with the heading "Composer A + NN". Only composer A will get half a point.
| | | (16) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 20:48]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-01-09] |
@Michel :
"But we are a community, and what is the future of a community who cares only for the bests?"
Wonderful words! I would say :
- even if we are not a community
- even if we have no future
should we care only for the bests ?
@Harry :
'@ Jacques: I should be interested to get (at least a draft, but specific) proposal of what you suggest.'
I think I'll send you within a week or so a note.
'...You should simply send an email to the respective album section director that you do not want to have your 8+ WCCI compositions included in the album and your wish will be of course respected....'
This sounds to me most strange.
Common use is to reproduce problems freely - without asking the authors - you want to break that ?
Moreover, the first objective of the albums is said to show the best problems of the period, not to give points to problemists for titles, that should stay a side effect. Whatever was the way do decide which problems are "the best", as far as it has been chosen, why would you deprive the public to see it ?
'...The composition will be included in the album with the heading "Composer A + NN"....'
This sounds even much worse !! A complete non sense, I would say !
Next time perhaps you'll publish also a problem with partial diagram ??
'...Only composer A will get half a point...'
this also breaks the common use and the common sense !
Points are, till now, just a passive count, and objective establishment. Even titles are attributed in such a way. Why do you want to change this ?? And how ??
Please keep simple mind !
| | | (17) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 22:53] |
QUOTE
'...You should simply send an email to the respective album section director that you do not want to have your 8+ WCCI compositions included in the album and your wish will be of course respected....'
This sounds to me most strange.
Common use is to reproduce problems freely - without asking the authors - you want to break that ?
The reproduction of a composition in the albums had always required the composer's agreement. See, for instance, the announcement of the 2007-09 album at http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/fa0709.htm
The PCCC makes the following recommendations:
...
(2) Anyone entering compositions by another composer should, where possible, obtain the agreement of that composer beforehand.
...
Another example: in the 1989-91 album, the director of a certain section submitted to the section we was directing compositions of a composer without asking his permission first. A number of these problems were selected. The composer, who had never sent his works to the album, complained to the PCCC that his problems were reproduced without his consent.
So, I do not want to break anything.
QUOTE
Moreover, the first objective of the albums is said to show the best problems of the period, not to give points to problemists for titles, that should stay a side effect. Whatever was the way do decide which problems are "the best", as far as it has been chosen, why would you deprive the public to see it ?
I do not want to deprive the public of anything. You should address the question to the composer, not to me.
QUOTE
'...The composition will be included in the album with the heading "Composer A + NN"....'
This sounds even much worse !! A complete non sense, I would say !
Next time perhaps you'll publish also a problem with partial diagram ??
The composer has asked twice and in written that he does not want his name shown in the album. What would you suggest?
QUOTE
'...Only composer A will get half a point...'
this also breaks the common use and the common sense !
Points are, till now, just a passive count, and objective establishment. Even titles are attributed in such a way. Why do you want to change this ?? And how ??
I do not want to change anything. The section director and myself discussed with the composers and we all agreed on the heading above the diagram and that only the composer who submitted the entry should get half a point.
| | | (18) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Wednesday, Jan 9, 2013 23:44] |
The whole discussion makes me in a way sad.
I always thought that the judges will measure the value of a composition by judging certain criteria like economy, form, theme and mating position and not by the mere thought if a composition should be in a book or not.
@Marcel Tribowski:
If somebody really choses his problems for the WCCI with this motivation then let him do so and trust the judges to do their work properly. I guess that there will be a few compositions in the album that wouldn't be there if not for the WCCI but then they are in the album because five (usually highly qualified) judges rated them like that.
By the way, there is another reason to send less than four compositions in a section: In the last WCCI there was also a table "Points per composer in all categories". Maybe somebody is motivated to be the best through all sections.
@Michel Caillaud:
Is this really an 0/1-decision?
I think you want to increase your own influence on the combined rating of all judges. Why do you have so little confidence in the opinion of the other judges?
If you just want to be somewhat more severe then it would certainly enough to deduct half a point compared to your prior judging.
Why not giving this idea to combine judging for WCCI and Album a fair chance? Those who decided to do so surely had good purposes in mind to decide like that. Afterwards we will know if it was to the communities best.
| | | (19) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Jan 10, 2013 00:14]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-01-10] |
Dear Harry,
I think you understand that the ‘you’ I use with you is not strictly personal. You are in charge as President and then this 'you' is for the whole WFCC. It is also personal in that you agree with these decisions.
“... (2) Anyone entering compositions by another composer should, where possible, obtain the agreement of that composer beforehand...."
"should" does not mean "must" it is easy to understand that the commission wants to avoid conflicts and complaints, mainly when it seems avoidable. So the "should" is perfect.
"...Another example: in the 1989-91 album, the director of a certain section submitted to the section we was directing compositions of a composer without asking his permission first. A number of these problems were selected. The composer, who had never sent his works to the album, complained to the PCCC that his problems were reproduced without his consent...."
So what ? His complaint has to be rejected, because the reproduction of a problem is free. This rule is very important to accept, all the life of the magazines, and of the forums like this one, and of the chess problem books is bound to that. It seems an evident common sense not to change this.
Now if you want explanations about the complaint, I guess (I don't know), that because the system of submissions, the author did not want that people will think he submitted when he did not! Now this is in order because the list and name of senders is public ! (See http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/fa0406rec.htm)
"...So, I do not want to break anything...."
But you do! - Please don't take this personal.
"...The composer has asked twice and in written that he does not want his name shown in the album. What would you suggest?..."
To send him twice a nice letter where you explain all compassion you can feel, but the problems being selected, they will be published.
"...I do not want to change anything. The section director and myself discussed with the composers and we all agreed on the heading above the diagram...."
However it is a very bad decision. It is funny that you seem not to understand that. And then how will that be reproduced (or shown)? If picked up from the album, with N.N., if picked up from another place without N.N.?
Moreover this joke does not come from a private editor (that can explain any strange behaviour), but from the central representative organization of the problemists!
"...and that only the composer who submitted the entry should get half a point..."
This also is a completely new behaviour as I explained it before, and also very strange. So now the count of the points becomes also a matter of negotiation?
| | | (20) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jan 10, 2013 00:53] |
So composers who use a computer now get only 0.25 points if they rely too heavily on it? Can I haz missing points? :-)
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General WCCI problems assessed as 8+ straight to FIDE Album |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
