Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:08 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Most busy composer |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Jul 29, 2022 09:14] | Most busy composer
Problem chess has a serious documentation problem, even in the computer age:
- Not each unpublished problem gets documented by the author, and even yes,
the data might be lost after death (or even loss of interest :-)
- Not each published problem gets into the databases.
That said, can you name me, just as a completeness test, the most busy
author in various databases?
Or maybe, for teh luz, people who composed just 1 problem? :-)
(Not so) Random Example: Herbert Ahues, titan of 2#, has about 3000 problems
listed in the Albrecht, and his legacy alone may provide stocking stuffer
for years to come.
P.S. Undersampling estimator. If you have two databases, you can easily
estimate the number of statistically missing entries. (Which says nothing
about systematical misses, e.g. here: very old problems)
| | | (2) Posted by Joost de Heer [Friday, Jul 29, 2022 14:56] |
Winchloe has 10713 compositions by Christian Poisson.
Top 5:
Christian Poisson - 10713
? - 9407
Erich Bartel - 7896
Alexandre Pankratiev - 5390
Christer Jonsson - 4364
[..]
Hauke Reddmann - 236
| | | (3) Posted by Rosie Fay [Friday, Jul 29, 2022 16:52] |
PDB has 11696 problems by Erich Bartel, way ahead of second-placed Theodor Steudel with 4029.
Problemists who are high on PDB's list: Werner Speckmann, Thomas Dawson and Chris Feather.
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Jul 29, 2022 16:59] |
Is there a deeper aim concealed in this thread?
We may discover who are the least busy composers by inviting them to make time volunteering their commentary on who are the most busy composers.
This hidden intent might have escaped me, had I been more busy.
Nothing personal. It's strictly busy-ness. ;)
| | | (5) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Jul 29, 2022 20:26] |
@Kevin: I must confess there *is* a deeper reason -
some poor fellow asked essentially this question on ChessStackExchange
and got shot down for being too vague.
@everybody: 236 is somewhat undersampled, even my 2# aren't
completely in the Albrecht :-)
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jul 30, 2022 14:42] |
Prolific, productive, and busy are three different things.
Busy is the player who twice measures the dimensions of the bathroom window in the tournament hall.
Productive is the player who takes an honest measure of himself.
Prolific is the problem composer willing to risk getting stuck.
| | | (7) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Sunday, Jul 31, 2022 06:36] |
I construe the repeated downvoting of this hapless newcomer to be a violation of the code of conduct. I have posted in the chess meta here:
https://chess.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/1104/how-to-curb-toxic-behaviour-in-downvoting
Please respond Hauke (and anyone else who is in chess.stackexchange).
Thanks,
Andrew
| | | (8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 31, 2022 10:15] |
Curbing people's ability to freely express themselves is not decency -- it's the opposite.
If you can't abide downvoting, end that practice entirely.
First, remove that option for yourself, before you attempt to deny that for anyone who dares disagree with you.
If you have the right to downvote comments, then you have the obligation to accept that others have that same right.
Members of a democracy have the responsibility to accept that their favored positions will not always prevail in a democratic process (even when certain those positions constitute pure virtuousness from on high).
That said, I would not have downvoted a question -- I presume even the stupidest question (this was not it) has an answer that will benefit somebody.
I am wiser for having asked many stupid questions.
Not everybody agrees with me.
Not everybody need agree with me.
If you don't agree with the way others have used their downvotes, if you don't like the result of a democratic vote, then make the case (persuade them -- as I just attempted to do in the preceding paragraph).
Don't try to suppress the voice and votes of anyone who dares disagree with you (and presume you have authority to divine their intent must be intentional cruelty, so you may smear them for it).
These downvoters have legal standing to seek damages against you for levying such false statements against them!
Do not undermine your opponent's capacity to freely express themselves -- that's a toxic practice that no beneficiary of liberalism should abide.
Furthermore, it constitutes a real moral failing to suggest a malign intent on the part of anyone who dared vote against your pure virtuousness.
If that's not against your code of conduct, you have no code of conduct.
There is no rational basis to suggest downvoters have engaged in a conspiracy to bully a newcomer (or newcomers as a group).
Attempting to paint the newcomer as a victim (or a member of a group of victims) is a harmful infantilization.
Dear newcomers, thicken your skin, and tell these pro bono virtue champions you are not some voiceless victim who needs the help of a white knight messiah. FFS.
It is a far greater violation to presume sinister motivations for anyone who dares vote for a position you are unable to find redeemable.
Such presumptions are beyond indecent, and no democratic institution devoted to the free exchange of ideas can withstand such an attack.
If you really want to stifle questions, imagine how the policy advocated would inhibit newcomers from asking anything that fails to ratify the tyranny of a false virtue overlord!
Do you actually imagine that your infantilized newcomer (the victim you claim to represent) would feel free to ask questions that don't conform to your positions, knowing they may be slandered as conspirators intent upon victimizing the next poor group you deem hapless victims (in unending need of your unsolicited, righteous, messianic counsel)?
This is nothing less than the high road to Neoliberal (aka: illiberal) tyranny.
It doesn't help the victims it purports to save from those you've falsely labeled oppressors -- it does the opposite.
It doesn't advance a free exchange of ideas -- it does the opposite.
This policy advocated in the link will bring you nothing but ten plagues.
How about we let the people vote (up or down), Pharaoh?
They'll not stay long enslaved to the dictates of your lofty moral code, anyway.
Provide people an incentive to do the right thing (persuade them to join you), and have faith.
| | | (9) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Sunday, Jul 31, 2022 11:33] |
-1 Kevin :)
| | | (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jul 31, 2022 11:48] |
I identify as a born again newcomer.
Thou shalt not downvote me. :)
If I haven't convinced you yet, Andrew, let me run it by you another way.
Let's imagine you get your way... and I'll simply describe the first two of the ten plagues you'll suffer:
Plague #1) Users will feel incentivized by this policy to obtain a new account every time they want to ask a question.
Why wouldn't they avoid downvotes?
If your claim is legitimate, these frail victims -- who suffer terribly from downvotes -- would naturally seek to avoid this cruelty in perpetuity.
Newcomers will descend thicker than locusts in an alphabetical themed two mover -- rendering you completely unable to downvote any of their posts (whether you reserve for yourself the right to downvote, or not).
You'll only have yourself to downvote.
Plague #2) Users may feel incentivized to ask terribly stupid questions.
Why wouldn't they feel liberated to ask questions which are not relevant to the subject at hand?
Nobody but a cruel bully can challenge them, and those cruel bullies will be removed (for noncompliance with a stupid policy).
You would have handed the locusts power to drive out the legitimate members -- a utopian sanctuary city on a hill for internet trolls!!!
Lord have mercy.
If you don't think there's such a thing as a stupid question, I have two intelligent questions for you:
1) Have you never met a troll? and
2) Why ever would you need reserve -- for yourself! -- the right to downvote comments, if there's no capacity for a stupid question?
I can go on naming more plagues, but then I'd be held directly responsible for the plagues that befall the group (I would prefer to avoid that, as I am only the messenger of prescient visions heretofore left unstated -- trust me: the creativity of trolls far exceeds my descriptive capacity).
Put it this way... if this policy is enacted, I will pray for that site which elected to make itself the helpless victim of a smiting which may well feel like the wrath of the old testament God.
If you have any care for the future of that site, don't encourage that censorious policy.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Most busy composer |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
