![](img/logo2.gif) Website founded by Milan Velimirović in 2006
11:43 UTC
![59th WCCC](img/logo3.png)
![Donate MatPlus](img/donate_PNG13.png)
| |
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Poorly run tourney |
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | (1) Posted by Michael McDowell [Sunday, Sep 29, 2013 22:02] | Poorly run tourney M.McDowell
1st-2nd Prize e.a. Ukraine 2012-13 Tourney
(= 5+2 )
Mate in 3
Set 1…Kd7 2.Se7 Ke6 3.Bf5; 2…Ke8 3.Bc6
1.Sc3 Kd7 2.Sa4 Ke6 3.Sc5; 2…Kc8 3.Sb6; 2…Ke8 3.Bc6
Mutate. Ideal mates with reciprocal exchange of function between B and S.
I composed this problem shortly before the WCCC at Kobe. As it was suitable for a “Ukraine 2012” tourney announced for the congress I decided to enter it, thinking that if it didn’t make the award I could quickly resubmit it somewhere. The announcement of the tourney can be seen here (http://wccc2012kobe.com/images/UKRAINE2012.pdf). After the closing date a notice appeared saying that due to the number of entries the award would not be made at Kobe. There was no information about when or where the award would be published.
Six months after the congress there was still no news. I made various attempts to find out what was happening, through emails and this Forum, but my enquiries went unanswered. I was not prepared to risk losing a good miniature, so I submitted it to The Problemist, explaining the background to the sub-editor. At the ECSC in Vilnius Paul Valois enquired about the tourney on my behalf and was told that “the judge hasn’t felt able to make an award”, and that “it might appear sometime”. All very casual, and in view of that “might” I felt justified in having sent my problem elsewhere. It was duly published in the May Problemist.
Out of the blue the award of a tourney “Ukraine 2012-2013” featured at the prizegiving at Batumi. The bulletin shows that the terms of the tourney had altered considerably. Now there were two sections. Section one (“for 56th WCCC Kobe”) for directmate #2 problems with no more than 10 pieces and section two (“for 57th WCCC Batumi”) for directmate #3 and #n problems showing “Zest” ideas (clearly expressed ideas). This section was not mentioned on the noticeboard at Batumi, so presumably all the problems had been submitted at or before Kobe. There was no mention of a restriction to directmates in the original announcement. The Batumi bulletin says that there were 587 entries from 300 composers. I doubt they were all directmates.
I would suggest that this is no way to run a tourney or to treat composers. | | (2) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Sep 30, 2013 04:21] | I agree Michael. I enjoyed your miniature very much when I solved it in the May 2013 issue of "The Problemist". There aren't very many #3 miniature mutates! Will you withdraw it from the BCPS tourney? | | (3) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Monday, Sep 30, 2013 04:55] | The pity, and the irony is that today we have much better communication possibilities. This sort of thing should never have happened in the first place. An email is a pretty easy thing...VERY pretty mutate. | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 30, 2013 22:45] | Just imagine waiting years, and years, and years.
I thought "poorly run" was the norm. | | (5) Posted by Steven Dowd [Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 21:00] | It can be worse....
You can spend hours and days working on a matrix, happily send it to a tourney that is "well run" at least in appearance, and then have your problem appear somewhere in the back forty of the award, dismissed with a "Well, with computers and Gustav this kind of problem is easy to build (just ask my superior intellect, I know!), but this one is kind of OK, it shows a few batteries." | | (6) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Tuesday, Oct 1, 2013 23:03] | @Steven:
This is especially true if one of those computer generated longmovers catches the first prize as it often happens recently... | | (7) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 00:40]; edited by Steven Dowd [13-10-02] | I had typed up a long reply to Sven Hendrik's comment, but the server threw me off. So the lucky readers get the short version.
I have no trouble with the computer generated longmovers. If that is the best problem, it deserves first place. The wheat has to be separated from the chaff, and that takes skill. But in the same report to make out like I am a monkey who happens onto a nice stalk of bananas just because I use Gustav, that is a bit too much for me. It shows a lack of respect, not only to me, but to other composers, and that is simply uncalled for. | | (8) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 03:10] | This is not a "poorly run tourney". The whole thing seems to be a weird joke, including numbers of sent problems (587) and awarded ones (6), without any proof for the first number, or the list of participants.
The way I understood the joke, the judge of the tourney was the winner himself. At least the pseudonym of the secret judge (Alenik Lomaveli), presented as a "famous scientist and a lover of art", looks as a kind of anagram related to the name of the winner.
Anyway, this joke hurts at least one of the participants, and his rights are to be defended in a serious way. There is an official problem chess association in Ukraine, and they could tell who was the "organizing body" named as "Association of chess composers of Ukraine". | | (9) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 09:01] | Just to give an example: Although I am quite confused why the judges are so fond of his selfmates I also respect the work of Torsten Linß which is in my opinion more scientific than expressing an art.
I just spun out your example, Steve. | | (10) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 09:03] | @Steven: I understand your disappointment, but this post is quite unfair.
Please cite my comment correctly: "There were several „Fata Morganas“ among the entries, with the help of computer
and Gustav it is quite easy to compose such problems today (I know, what I’m
writing about ...). In Nr. 6 I like the diagram position without white pawns and the
interesting play with some battery buildings to sacrifice the white knight."
This is completely different to the impression given by your interpretion: I liked the problem and I awarded it and I don't wrote, that is was composed by a computer.
And - no need for posting here, you can contact me personally in case of any questions. | | (11) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 09:28]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-10-02] | I generally find the work of Torsten Linß to be amazingly clear -- I dare say it's the most human of all the problem art I see, lately.
I don't care that he uses his selfmate database to help him find these gems.
I am happy that somebody finds them.
Maybe from a solvers perspective, things are different (I seldom solve selfmates).
For the record, Torsten was demonstrating crystal clear ideas long before he had any computer helping him dive deeper into this art.
If anything, I find that his problems are lately undervalued -- which is a sad testament to a deeply flawed judging system (based not upon the art produced).
If his work threatens the ego (of composers fool enough to pretend a greater share of humanity), too damn bad.
I'll take the clarity of a quality problem over all the politics (and fear, and favoritism), anyday.
If not algorithms, what do people think human chess problem composing is based upon? Feelings? Ha!
Yes, the human imagination can play a big part, but it's rarely given a blink of consideration (for decades, awards have almost entirely been based upon construction).
And, this element of composition (the imaginative idea) is by no means absent from any of Torsten's work (quite the contrary)!
Human fumblings are no lofty art. | | (12) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 10:56] | @Frank:
I think we have both expressed our feelings on this matter. I don't have anything to add and stand by my original opinion. We both find the other to be unfair in our deportment and I don't see that changing. Good luck to you in your future endeavors.
Regarding Torsten's problems, what did someone say about databases? Like they were from God? And yes, this is the beauty, the incredible accuracy that only one thing works, sometimes in two or three variations! No superfluous pieces, ever. And as Kevin notes, he was supertalented before the computer so he knows what to pick, what is especially good. I can see why judges pick them and I have no envy for what he does, only admiration.
At some point Sven-Hendrik, we have to recognize that technical achievement is as important as any other aspect of the art. Turpentine is as important as paint. | | (13) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 13:34] | Steven, Sven, Frank and Kevin,
This topic was about the concrete tourney.
Please, open a new one in order not to cover the initial topic posted by Michael. | | (14) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Oct 2, 2013 16:40] | Yes, Marjan, this is regrettable, and I apologize for hijacking Michael's thread. | | (15) Posted by Michael McDowell [Thursday, Oct 3, 2013 08:14] | Ian,
I presume the problem is no longer eligible for the informal tourney of The Problemist, though having read Marjan's post you wonder if this "Ukraine 2012" was a genuine tourney. I'm not concerned about awards. Good original miniatures are a rarity, and I simply wanted the problem published quickly. The only reason I entered it for the formal tourney was because it was meant to be completed at Kobe. | | (16) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Saturday, Oct 5, 2013 00:40] | The topic didn't attract much attention, although there was at least one intriguing general question: is it legal to sign an award with a pseudonym (of an unknown person)? | | (17) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Oct 5, 2013 08:48] | Michael,
It seems that your problem was first published in "the Problemist". Normally, it should be disqualified from the formal tourney and participate in the BCPS tourney. However, in this case it may be difficult to fix the mess, considering the difficulties you had in the first place. My advice for the future is to avoid tourneys like that; it will limit your options, but you will have less worries. | | (18) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Oct 5, 2013 16:15] | @Marjan: All my scientific manuscripts are reviewed anonymously.
Even if I get suggested for Nobel (hey, may I dream? :-), this
would be anonymously. If I ever, say, would be in the dire situation
as a judge to love a "letter" problem so much that I want to
give it 1st prize, I rather would like to do that anonymously
- nobody shall know :-)
Hauke | | (19) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Saturday, Oct 5, 2013 21:58] | Yes, Hauke, but could it be legal if I give the Nobel Prize, or any other prize to myself and sign the award with my pseudonym, as if it was someone else? | | (20) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Oct 6, 2013 02:03] | Marjan: You ask whether is it legal to sign the award anonymously.
Legal? Probably nothing prevents it. On which ground would you like to declare the award illegal?
But one can ask - is it good manners? In most cases no, in my view. The anonymity of the judge can only be accepted in a case that the tourney organizer has very good credit and his word can be taken (perhaps with some additional conditions to be fulfilled - that the people close to organizer do not compete etc.).
Here, in this specific case, when "Association of chess composers of Ukraine" is involved, I smell a rat. This organization was established a long time ago by Nikola Veliky as alternative to the "official" organization of Ukrainian chess composers. Already multiple tourneys were organized by them with questionable circumstances. E.g. I remember when here unnamed Slovak composer was announced a judge of one of their jubilee tourneys. He made an award, but the published version of the award was different, with changes especially among prizes. One of NV problems was miraculously awarded the 1st Prize. It was not a bad problem, but it did not receive the 1st Prize in an original award... | | No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Poorly run tourney |
|
|
|