﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

4:49 UTC
 ISC 2020

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Oct-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Endgame studies Darko Hlebec, HvdH 50 JT, special prize

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(21) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Nov 11, 2011 03:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-11-11]

Per,

>"The Hlebec study in the award is after the four prizes and higher than the honorable mentions."

You mean this problem appears after... in the geometry of the award's presentation -- right?
And, from this geometry, you are assuming that you can infer the relative ranking of the special ordinal?
Wow -- this constitutes a startling assumption!

First, if you can apply such an assumption in this case, what prevents you from applying this ranking system to every award presentation's geometry?

Such placement of special ordinals is a common practice; but, it is not universal.
If the presentation constituted a definitive indication of the judge's comparative ranking, obviously, databases would need to retain this geometric information.
But, according to you, an overall ranking can not always be balanced without special ordinals -- you said fair balance is the very purpose of special ordinals.
Thus, by your reasoning, the geometric ranking (which you infer) must be out of balance -- yet, here you are arguing that it is fairly balanced!

If the judge had intended the geometry of presentation to indicate a ranking, why does he go out of his way to avoid the standard (numeric) ordinal?

>"To me this seems to be the right place, I personally rank it higher than the honorable mentions."

Obviously, a problem which earns a prize has a higher ranking than one which earns an honorable mentions (prize > honorable mention > commendation).
The award ordinals (e.g., 1st, 2nd, ... nth, special) -- which prefix the three award sets (Prize, HM, Commend) -- serve only to rank the problems within these three sets.

You have claimed that there are situations in which a judge can not produce a balanced award without relying upon a special ordinal.
If a judge requires special ordinals (to balance the division within each set), why don't they similarly require a special set (to balance the larger division)?

If a judge can not produce a balanced hierarchy of problems within one of the three sets, how can you possibly expect them to produce a balanced hierarchy into the three sets?
According to your special balancing hypothesis, the judge would require not only a "Special" ordinal, but also a "Special" set of award types.

>"Would all this discussion have been avoided if the Hlebec study had got the 5th Prize?"

This specific problem has nothing to do with the current discussion -- indeed, I had raised this matter in another thread, before I knew anything about this award.
I simply could not avoid raising this issue again here, after Siegfried claimed that the special ordinal was a correct decision.
[hehe, I think maybe he baited me into this discussion!]
The special ordinal is never a correct decision -- it is an indication of an incomplete award (and a dereliction of the judge's duty).

>"As composers have artistic freedom, the judge has a freedom in his task to rank problems."

The judge accepted a clear task -- to provide a complete ranking for a given set of problems, according to some fair, universal criteria.
They have plenty freedom to develop their own fair, universal criteria.

>"As long as there is balance in the judgment, I don't see much room for criticism; the judge has expressed his opinion, he has ranked the problems, he has done his task."

Unless we can always rely upon your geometric ranking hypothesis -- which rests upon a wildly unsupportable assumption -- this ranking (and the judge's task) is incomplete.
The award is left unbalanced (read: not completely balanced) -- by special awards... according to you, this avoids an imbalance (read: unfair ranking).
You have yet to demonstrate that such imbalances are unavoidable.
So far, I see no evidence that other competitive art forms which apply complete rankings (no special gimmicks) are inherently more imbalanced.
In my experience, problem awards are less balanced, less objective, and less fair -- no wonder internal critiques produce such a vigorous defensive reaction. :)

Finally, it is important to note that "Special" ordinals seem to be applied to Prizes far more frequently than Honorable Mentions and Commendations.
They apply to Honorable Mentions far more often than to Commendations.
This is exactly contrary to what you would expect, if you intended to demonstrate that special problems are a tangible, valid, and natural occurrence.

In fact, we might reasonably conclude this evidence suggests an applied favoritism is inherent in the application of special ordinals.

@Kevin: This point I cannot accept:

"The judge accepted a clear task -- to provide a complete ranking for a given set of problems, according to some fair, universal criteria."

This is your interpretation of judge's role, especially, if you understand the word "complete" in some relation to linear order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_order

But this approach is almost never required from the judge (rare exceptions exist: e.g. old WCCTs with one judge per section ordering all problems). Usually in the informal and even most formal tourney the judge's role is to evaluate the quality of problems and award appropriate honours to deserving problems. Special awards are just a specific type of honours, there are already quite a few different types of honours in existence (extraordinary honour, anti-commendation, very special honourable mention etc.) created by creative judges.

I see no problem in that.

@Juraj: What? It wasn't me who invented the anti-commendation?
Woe to the lateborn :-)

Hauke

@Hauke: It seems so... I mistily remember seeing it above some problem by Ján Valuška, but only magazines and HDD at home know exactly, I might research them later.

You are the judge in an informal competition with the best problem ever in problem chess history. It is the famous Forsberg helpmate (PDB 1 - P0501066), the content of which a composer has managed to double. There is none whatsoever doubt, it is perfection, there can not be a more appealing chess problem, there is total consensus in the chess problem community. The issue is not is it by 'N.N.' or by 'N.N. after Forsberg', the issue is how to recognize this superior achievement.

The judge has several possibilities:

1) First prize; the objection will be 'anticipated'
2) Special Prize; condemned by some members of MatPlus Forum
3) Special First Prize; has there ever been?
4) Superprize; does not sound worthy nor appropriate
5) No distinction at all; sounds as a lousy fate for the best problem ever
6) Sixth Prize taking into account the anticipation
7) Some other

You are the judge, the world is waiting.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From the Codex:

3 Functions of the Judge

Subject to special conditions or restrictions applicable to the tournament, the normal functions of the judge are as follows:

(a) to satisfy himself that he knows the final form of every eligible composition (i.e. the form incorporating any alteration or correction made by the composer before the closing date);
(b) to eliminate all compositions which do not conform to any set theme or other requirements of the tournament;
(c) to consider all eligible compositions in their final form;
(d) to decide which of the eligible compositons are in his judgment of sufficient aesthetic merit to be honoured;
(e) to satisfy himself, as far as he can, that no composition which he wishes to honour is anticipated, and to take account of any partial anticipation known to him;
(f) to prepare an award ranking the honoured compositions in order of merit according to his judgment, and normally dividing them into grades as prizewinners, honorable mentions and commendations (placing as many in each grade as he thinks fit), and adding such comments as he considers appropriate;
(g) to submit his award to the director within a reasonable time;
(h) to consider any objections to his award transmitted to him by the director, and to notify the director promptly of his adjudication of them, including any consequential adjustment of his award.

@Juraj,
The judge is tasked to judge all problems in the context of a single set -- not to separate problems into "special" sets (however they see fit).
The composers did not ask for their problem to be judged in the context of a smaller (typically more favorable) problem set.

Must composers who expect fairness now include a note insisting that their problems be judged within the complete set?
"I ask no special consideration, please" -- is this what a judge requires, in every instance, to be fair?
This sentiment should be implied -- if a problem is "special," and can not be judged in a balanced fashion (in comparison to all other problems in a tourney), why did the composer send it to this tourney (without a note insisting upon special consideration)?
The composer has implicitly agreed to an honest judgement within the context of the full set (read: no special consideration).
If they don't like it, let them send their problem elsewhere.

The special ordinal results in a distorted system, which commonly tends toward favoritism.
It is not necessary in other (more objective) competitive art forms, which produce more balanced awards.

Nor is it necessary to insist upon a solo judge, in order to avoid "special" awards -- it is absurd for you to suggest otherwise.
A complete judgement means all problems are compared in the context of one problem set -- it does not preclude ties (e.g., "=1st/2nd Prize" is perfectly acceptable).

@Per,
Obviously, if this is the best problem in history, the world should expect this problem to win 1st Prize (not matter what set it is judged within).
In the context of this full problem set, that is the highest distinction possible.
In you want to evaluate this in the context of "Best Problems of the Century," then that is beyond the jurisdiction of the tournament judge.
The judge has no authority to separate the set, not to make a judgement beyond the context of the set.

If I were judge, I would probably meet the world's expectations, by awarding this problem: 1st Prize (assuming it conforms to all constraints placed upon the tourney).
I can not say this is absolutely, of course, because there are other factors (the weight of the anticipation, and aesthetics of this hypothetical realization must be guessed).

I can say, with certainty, I would not award any "Special" or "Super" ordinals.
As judge, I have no jurisdiction to create "special" sub-sets -- my task is to award all problems in comparison to the complete set.

>"3) Special First Prize; has there ever been?"

There has been -- yes -- I would have thought you knew this...
The Special Ordinal often results in a need for secondary ordinals -- creating quite a sloppy mess (all under the guise of what you consider, "artistic freedom").
Judges typically do not consider a problem beyond comparison with all others -- as you suggest.
More often, they simply use "special" ordinal to forge a separate sub-set, which they judge independently from the rest (this often requires a secondary ordinal, such as 1st Sp. Prize, 2nd Sp. Prize, etc).
Remarkably, the judges are commonly allowed to claim a balanced sub-set is produced (a fully compared set of special problems, with 2 ordinals), whereas, you claim a complete balance must have been impossible.

>"4) Superprize; does not sound worthy nor appropriate"

The "Super" ordinal is a complete travesty of justice -- it is akin to awarding, "Greatest Problem Ever."
A judge's jurisdiction is limited to the specific tourney -- they have no authority to exceed this jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, chess problem judges often do exceed their jurisdiction: by applying "Super" ordinals, they frame their awards beyond the context of the specific tourney.

>"5) No distinction at all; sounds as a lousy fate for the best problem ever"

I see no reason to assume that a doubled-Forsberg should be considered fully anticipated -- thus, I find it difficult to imagine such a fate.

>"6) Sixth Prize taking into account the anticipation"

This is certainly possible -- if there are 5 problems of higher holistic value, within the set.
However, it is difficult to imagine that this problem's originality would play a decisive factor.

>"7) Some other"

An fair & honest judge would never invent a new set of awards, nor would they resort to a new ordinal.
Only a biased judge would resort to claims of "artistic freedom," to justify such blatant favoritism.

@Per,

Let me give you a better hypothetical:

Suppose the governing body of the Boston Marathon makes you the presiding judge.
Imagine two circus performers enter -- one runs the race (start to finish) while juggling 4 apples, the other juggles 3 watermelons.

Would you presume the governing body has granted you the authority (artistic freedom) to declare a new category for circus performing runners?
This is not your race to preside over -- you only preside over the outcome of a single instance -- shouldn't the governing body decide upon special categorization?
After all, the creation of your "Special Circus Category" may dramatically change the nature of their contest (interfering with entrants who take the race seriously).

Yet, according to your "special balancing hypothesis," it is not possible to produce a balanced award!?
So, what will you do?

1) Award two separate Special Prizes?
2) Award 1st Special Prize and 2nd Special Prize, based upon their completion times?
3) Award 1st Special Prize and 2nd Special Prize, based upon their factored completion times (multiplied by the degree of difficulty in each of their juggling feats)?
4) Award entirely based upon the criteria given to you by the Governing Body (objective finish time, within established sub-categories: male/female/etc), despite your inability to produce a balanced judgement?
5) Award everyone a Special 1st Prize, for running in their own way?

I submit to you, the jugglers are responsible for any imbalance in your award.
If they wanted special consideration, they should have petitioned the governing body (and this decision should have been announced, long before the starting gun).
Otherwise, the jugglers should have entered a Special Clown Marathon (or, if necessary, they should have created their own).

You can not presume that these jugglers expect special consideration (a fair judge must objectively apply a universal criteria, to all entrants).
Nor can you presume the authority to bestow special favors upon them.
What they deserve for their performances is simply beyond your capacity to judge (read: outside the bounds of your jurisdiction).

@Kevin: All right, obviously our views are irreconcilable. No so big surprise, as we are not talking about cold facts, but rather about the role of judge and expected form of judgment, that is not defined in detail anywhere. Thus I can just state that:
- the existence and relatively high frequency of various kind of special awards (usually with word special) is an evidence of non-negligible amount of judges sharing my rather than your view,
- if you really demand your problems not to be awarded special awards, you better not submit them to tourneys judged by me, because there is always possibility I could sin.

As I wrote above, I'm not worried about the 'Special' designation provided that it really is a special problem.
However it does seem to me that the 'ex aequo' award really is a cop-out.
I've even see awards were there's been three problems given 'ex aequo' prizes!
Can anybody provide a rational to justify these awards?

I have nothing to add to the ridiculous "special" debate.

NT: "However it does seem to me that the 'ex aequo' award really is a cop-out."

I tend to employ 'ex aequo' sparingly, but to make a blanket statement that it's a "cop-out" is absurd. I can cite the perfect example.

In the Good Zug Tourney (for help-CapZug in 2½ to n moves) we received two entries featuring the Babsontask. One was achieved in a single-setting, with the "constructional flaws" that one would expect. The other was achieved in Meredith, without said "flaws", but with the use of twinning. See page 48 here:

http://www.chessfed.gr/wccc2010/files/wccc_2010_bulletin_final.pdf

As judge, I awarded them =1st/2nd Prize. Are you really suggesting that I must be forced to rank one over the other?? Even now, a year later, I don't know which one I would chooose.

Short comment about special distinctions: as said earlier, the award starting this thread has four prizes, one special prize, six honorable mentions, one special honorable mention, eight commendations and two special commendations. The Hlebec study in the award is after the four prizes, but higher than the honorable mentions. Correspondingly the Special Hon. Ment. is higher than the commendations. This goes for the order of the studies as printed in the award and is repeated in the summary on the last page of the award. Compare this with the award of FIDE Olympic Tourney 2010, endgame study section, which can be found in last issue of EG (186 Oct. 2011). Here we have four prizes (out of which the three first ones got gold, silver and bronze medal), five honorable mentions and five commendations; after this we have as last two studies in the award a special prize and a special honorable mention. I interpret this to mean that in some awards a special prize is lower ranked than the last commendation, in some others it is not.

It is either the judge doesn't trust his own judgement or he is too busy with 5-6 awards at the same time or all three composers are his good friends and he wouldn't like to let any of them down...

@Neal (and Yochanan),

I happen to agree with Dan -- it is not necessarily a "cop out" for a judge to admit that an absolute ranking can not always be discerned.
In fact, it takes a good judge to admit that their perceived value difference is lesser than their resolving power -- we should appreciate such honesty!

We might agree that some judges may not struggle enough with resolving these matters (read: this might, potentially, serve to enable a lazy judge).
However, it would be unreasonable to compel a thoughtful judge to resort to "coin flipped" rankings -- as, I trust, Dan's example makes clear.

In fact, it turns out that ties yield an unexpected benefit: they provide a unique opportunity for judicial review.
Just ask a number of independent judges to completely rank (no ties) all problems which tied in the award (note: regardless whether they've seen the published award).
If you can demonstrate that the outcome of this review produces a dramatically lop-sided distribution (given a measurable statistical error), you might have a case to argue that some specific judge exhibits either an unusually low resolving power, or an excessive complacency.

You might make a reasonable case using these statistics to grade a specific judge.
The case might even appear dramatic, if this grading technique is applied to select awards, or select judges -- especially those with a high tendency to resort to larger quantities of shared awards (e.g., =1st thru 6th).
But, I would wager that your general statistical findings would probably suggest a high competence was applied, when deciding to settle upon some shared outcome.

And, remember: a single case of strong statistical support (for the validity of a tie), is enough to demonstrate that ties may be a necessity (rather than a "cop out").
[unlike "special" awards, where there is no justification by statistical analysis.]

@Juraj,

>"All right, obviously our views are irreconcilable.
>"[No surprise], as we are not talking about cold facts, but rather about the role of judge and expected form of judgment, that is not defined in detail anywhere."

I'd be happy to amicably agree that you do not share my philosophy -- providing you will stipulate to having offered no alternative philosophy...
I have clearly laid out my philosophy (which I have taken entirely from what I believe is used in the overwhelming majority of international artistic competitions).

Beyond that, I would only say that I am prepared to provide evidence against any claim of a universally adopted philosophy, specific to problem chess judgement.
We already agree that problem chess, which awards titles to judges, does not define the judge's role (anywhere, in any detail).
So, if you intend to claim that your standard (whatever it may be) is broadly accepted, I may want to produce a number of exceptions.

Lastly, it is worth noting...
I have read many awards where the judge begins by laying out their own personal balancing manifesto (which often read as an extensively wasteful afterthought).
Funny that I can't remember encountering a single explanation as to their application of special ordinals!
You would think people who award these special ordinals would be capable of giving a clear statement as to the value (comparative and otherwise) of their award.

From my perspective, it's rather sad how problem chess strains to formally answer the most trivial questions -- even when it comes to its own viability as a competition in other venues.
There's always somebody who doesn't like the answers, and there's never anybody with the authority to provide a lifeline.

>"...the existence and relatively high frequency of various kind of special awards (usually with word special) is an evidence of non-negligible amount of judges sharing my rather than your view,"

Fancy that -- they share the view you failed to state!!
If you ever get around to defining that view, I'll be glad to provide you numerous examples of how wrong your assumption is...

>"...if you really demand your problems not to be awarded special awards, you better not submit them to tourneys judged by me, because there is always possibility I could sin."

I don't align myself towards awards -- generally, I send my problems to admired editors -- I pay little attention to who is judge.
If you award me a special whatever, I'll simply ask you to define what the hell that means (otherwise, please reconsider your entire award scheme)... that's all.

ps:
Last I checked, the FIDE Album agrees with my view (no special ordinals)... maybe you should try "sinning" in that forum, and see what the director says.

If Per's theory is correct (special problems must be awarded a special ordinal, for fairness & balance), the FIDE Album (which contains many non-designated special problems) must be unfair and imbalanced.

@Kevin:
Perhaps you might want to check post No. 22 in this debate to find my view:
http://matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1321284145&app=forum&act=posts&fid=xshowe&tid=986&pid=7607#n7607

But this approach is almost never required from the judge (rare exceptions exist: e.g. old WCCTs with one judge per section ordering all problems). Usually in the informal and even most formal tourney the judge's role is to evaluate the quality of problems and award appropriate honours to deserving problems. Special awards are just a specific type of honours, there are already quite a few different types of honours in existence (extraordinary honour, anti-commendation, very special honourable mention etc.) created by creative judges.

I see no problem in that.

Bolded words refute your FIDE Album try. Simply FIDE Album judging has a written guideline stating quite precisely what is expected from judges. Something such is quite unusual in chess composition competitions, moreover given the FIDE Album selection process, the role of its judge is very different from that of usual tourney. No honours, just points, no comments, partial reconciliation with other judges.

@Juraj,

>"Perhaps you might want to check post No. 22 in this debate to find my view:"

You state that you do not believe that a judge is responsible to produce an award with linear order; and, you imply that even partial order is not required.
But this is not a reason, this is not a why... it's a long way from providing us your judgement philosophy.
It calls for disorder, and runs contrary to virtually all forms of competitive art (yes -- this does go against the FIDE Album point system, all WCCCs, all World Cups, the Wenigsteiner Award, etc etc) -- but for what purpose?
This is not a philosophy.

Your philosophy of disorder (by reliance upon non-ordered ordinals) is a means to do...what?
Are you suggesting, as Per has, that some non-quantifiable "balance" will always elude the ordered set?
Is the disordered set an end, unto itself?
Why would you favor providing the "usual" judge with both greater opportunities for favoritism, and a built-in excuse?
Is it a legitimate role for judges to form opinions based upon their (so called) "artistic freedoms"?
Doesn't the expectation of fairness supercede this concocted privilege?

>"Special awards are just a specific type of honours, there are already quite a few different types of honours in existence (extraordinary honour, anti-commendation, very special honourable mention etc.) created by creative judges."

More like: judges with a favoritism concocted a favorable set of disordered ordinals (e.g., Special, Super, Anti)...

Anti-Commendation is not a (new) type: "Commendation" is the (well known) type, whereas "Anti-" is simply a non-ordered ordinal (which leads to a disordered award).
Furthermore, even as types of honors, your list has no order -- neither partially, nor linearly (unlike: Prizes > HMs > Comms).
This is why Per is reduced to weak inferences of order, based upon the geometrical presentation of the award -- because nobody can provide him a rational philosophy to account for a judgement system based upon false-currency (which should not be tendered).

>"Bolded words refute your FIDE Album try. Simply FIDE Album judging has a written guideline stating quite precisely what is expected from judges."

As I said, last I checked, the FIDE Album (and every sub-album) produces an award which purposefully conforms to a linearly ordered set.
Judges are expected to comply with my view (numeric reduction to a linearly ordered set) -- not yours! -- and, to my knowledge, they have never successfully "sinned" against this expectation.
The director has the means to prevent any corruption of these guidelines -- these judges are not afforded the autonomy to disregard/defile their own proper function.
And, that proper function (the legitimate role of a judge) is to respect the guidelines which demand an ordered set.
The privileges they illegitimately usurp -- to fancy some creative award types (for the amusement of their own "artistic freedom") -- in some lesser tourneys, should not be conflated with the proper role of a judge.

>"...moreover given the FIDE Album selection process, the role of its judge is very different from that of usual tourney. No honours, just points, no comments, partial reconciliation with other judges."

Right, based upon a philosophy which takes seriously the judge's role, the albums allow none of your special types of honors -- just a linearly ordered point system.
This avoids the inherent folly of "special" awards -- which unfortunately occur in roughly %1 of your "usual" tourneys (hardly the broad consensus you suggest!).
Even that support should erode, when people begin to realize that advocates of the "special" system can provide no philosophy for allowing judges to run off the rails.

We can agree to disagree... but, I'd much prefer to understand why you continue supporting awards without any set order.

YA: "..the judge doesn't trust his own judgement..."

I trust my assessment that both aforementioned Babsontasks are of equal merit.

However, I cannot speak to the hypotheticals alluded to by Neal or Yochanan. If you're unhappy with a specific award, start a separate discussion. But when you question the integrity of a judge, be prepared to offer something more than fluff rationale to explain away his divergence from your pre-conceived notions.

BTW -- Nice problem, Siegfried!

@Dan,

>"But when you question the integrity of a judge, be prepared to offer something more than fluff rationale to explain away his divergence from your pre-conceived notions."

I don't believe anyone has questioned the integrity of any specific judge.
I do question the philosophy of any judgement which applies non-ordered ordinals (such as "Special") and/or transcendent ordinals (such as "Super") to the award set.
Neal and Yochanan seem to be questioning the philosophy of equivalence.

Nor is it fair to suggest that a philosophy which insists upon a mandatory tiebreak is somehow their own "pre-conceived notion."
There are events which deem ties unacceptable (such as matches in FIDE KO Tourneys), and there are events which allow shared results (such as chess games, and even many Olympic events).

Obviously, the ideal outcome would be to completely avoid ties (whenever possible).
But, I can not urge a judge to adopt a strict no-tie policy, without providing them some mechanism (beyond holistic evaluation) to facilitate tiebreaks.
Since any non-holistic evaluation would jeopardize the integrity of their judgement (which must trump any desire for an ideal outcome), I would prefer to reserve tiebreaks for "Armeggedon Scenarios."
That is, ties are generally the correct resolution for our non-ideal world (assuming the judge has made an honest attempt at resolution).
I, for one, take you at your word: if you believe, strongly, that a holistic resolution was not possible, you definitely made the right call.

However, I see no evidence that a judge cannot achieve the ideal of a linearly ordered set (e.g., P1 >= P2 >= ... Pn > HM1 >= HM2 >= ... HMn > C1 >= C2 >= ... Cn), without jeopardizing the integrity of their holistic judgement.
Thus, I find no virtue in non-ordered ordinals (Special, Fun, Extraordinary, etc).
Similarly, I see no good argument for a judge to trespass beyond their jurisdiction, such as:
1) transcendental ordinals (e.g., Super Prizes),
2) by establishing sub-set awards (which would be the responsibility of the tournament announcement),
3) by rejecting any hits in the EGTB (responsibility of the tourney announcement and/or WFCC), or
4) awarding problems which fail to comply to the tourney constraints, etc.

Well, Kevin ... I don't agree ...

'...However, I see no evidence that a judge cannot achieve the ideal of a linearly ordered set (e.g., P1 >= P2 >= ... Pn > HM1 >= HM2 >= ... HMn > C1 >= C2 >= ... Cn), without jeopardizing the integrity of their holistic judgement...'

no there not such an ideal.

'...Thus, I find no virtue in non-ordered ordinals (Special, Fun, Extraordinary, etc)...'

'...Similarly, I see no good argument for a judge to trespass beyond their jurisdiction, such as:...'

who told you what their 'juridiction' is ??

'...1) transcendental ordinals (e.g., Super Prizes),...'

so what ?

'...2) by establishing sub-set awards (which would be the responsibility of the tournament announcement),...'

does it hurt or injure somebody ?

'...3) by rejecting any hits in the EGTB (responsibility of the tourney announcement and/or WFCC)...'

difficult to force a judge to include what he wants to reject !

'...4) awarding problems which fail to comply to the tourney constraints, etc...'

It happenned to me to do so, and it was not a mistake.

In any case, I agree with you that in order to obtain a judgement fit for what you think, better is make it yourself.

Jacques,

You are trying to agree with me on a point I never made...
On the other points, it seems clear that we disagree; but, if you can't provide any support for your denials, there's little chance for a constructive discussion.

For the record:

First, yes, there is a thing called jurisdiction -- maybe you can tell us how you think this applies to judges?
How do you personally operate under the jurisdiction granted you (by WFCC, the journal, the editor, the tourney announcement)?
With all the "artistic freedom" of a celebrity judge on reality television... or do you take the limits of a judge's authority more seriously?

Second, yes, a linear ordered set is an ideal form of judgement, and is used in virtually all serious forms of competitive art (including all genres of every FIDE Album ever, the WCCCs, the World-Cups, the FIDE Solving Ratings, every sport in every Olympics, etc etc etc).
Your difference of opinion (with virtually the rest of the world, on this issue) is noted; but, it is also notable that you have made no case for your opinion.
Can you expound, at all, on the philosophy of your contrary beliefs?
I am left to presume it is rooted in the unfortunate traditions of a ritualistic culture, which long ago mistakenly embraced awards with non-ordered ordinals.

I understand: change is difficult... but, there is little faith in these casual verdicts -- how could there be? -- the witnesses are left to devise fanatical interpretations of an award's meaning, based upon a claim of geometric revelation...
And nobody can comment on such a fantastical claim!
Nobody can agree (because this attempts to create linear order from a non-ordered set), and nobody can disagree (because, in general, for all you know, he might be right).
So, the proponents shuffle their feet, and wait on some high priest, who promises to deflect all their uncomfortable issues.

Hey, if you want to personally continue these old practices -- it is your right, and there's plenty of casual tourneys for you...
But, there are good reasons why these rites have been curtailed in serious tournaments (as in all those mentioned above).
In those venues, you'll have do better than deny the existence of jurisdiction and judging ideals... you'd have to plead a case for your objections.