Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
15:48 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General FIDE albums, quality and titles |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (21) Posted by [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 11:22]; edited by [10-10-10] |
If the problem is that too many problems are sent in, the solution is
simple: limit the number of problems to 10 per year.
Submissions with more compositions will either be refused, or, perhaps
better, 10 problems will be selected randomly from the submission,
and the rest discarded.
(No, I don't think that the number 10 should be negotiable, unless the
argument is based on statistics from previous judging. The opinions of
composers probably don't enter into the question at all -- this is not
a service to composers we are talking about)
It may be necessary to modify judging or title points also, but that
must be done *after* the volume of the work has been brought to a
reasonable size.
I don't see that this in any way affects the quality of the Albums.
The problems selected will still need to pass the same selection
criteria as before. There may be fewer of them in the final Album,
but that is not a problem with quality, only with quantity.
The only side effect I can see is that it will mean that getting
a title may perhaps require consistently high-quality sumbissions
over a sonewhat longer period than may be required now. I don't
see that this is either positive or negative.
It's a bit like taking on a consulting job -- if the job has no
limits, it is impossible to plan for it, or to cost-estimate it.
Either it's limited in work (in this case, judge no more than 500
problems, say), or it's limited in time (judge until YYYY-12-31,
say, and then stop.) Anything else is likely to become a
problem for everyone involved.
Consulting jobs that cannot be planned properly, or that change
in process, I refuse to take on, or go on with, unless there
are sound reasons for doing so.
For that reason, I would also suggest that any voting on changes should
not be limited to 'do you think this approach would be better?', but
'vote for one of these X alternatives for future Album work'. If the congress
doesn't decide on one, no new Album should be taken on. I assume that going on
as before is not an option that can be sustained for much longer.
| | | (22) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 11:41] |
@Dan
After some thinking, I am still against any penalty, mainly because there is really nothing to penalize the author for.
@Vlaicu, Jacques
It is interesting that I was also thinking about suggesting 2-years Album, though for other reason.
The idea was to stabilize schedule of events. With 2-years Album it will be possible to have a fixed 4-years schedule which includes elections, albums and WCCT. (This is not a finished suggestion, but a matter for thought.)
| | | (23) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 16:51] |
Anders: "If the problem is that too many problems are sent in, the solution is
simple: limit the number of problems to 10 per year."
Well that certainly solves the 'workload' problem. Unfortunately, it penalizes prolific, high-quality composers by limiting them to just 10 entries.
George: "After some thinking, I am still against any penalty, mainly because there is really nothing to penalize the author for."
I disagree. The penalty is for submission of sub-par work. It forces ALL composers to be more selective, and therefore reduces the workload on administrators and judges.
Regarding workload (and a bit off-topic): I think all entries should be submitted by email ONLY. PDB provides an excellent FEN+ output format that would work beautifully for this purpose. Problems could be imported into PDB by the administrators. Use the play-through feature to verify the solutions. Judges could note scores in their own copies of PDB. And we save a few trees in the process.
However, I won't hold my breath on that one. :-)
| | | (24) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 18:01] |
@Dan
We ought not to request the author to evaluate his own work (even on the level "trash" - "not exactly trash" - "may be selected if I get lucky").
| | | (25) Posted by [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 18:33]; edited by [10-10-10] |
Dan Mainking said
>Well that certainly solves the 'workload' problem. Unfortunately, it penalizes prolific,
>high-quality composers by limiting them to just 10 entries.
Does it? Is there a charter, then, that says that FIDE Albums must contain *all*
high-quality problems that have been submitted? By high-quality I mean passing the basic
scoring method used by judges.
If there isn't, the objection carries no weight ... definitely no weight that
should take precedence to complaints of the judges.
There's a kind of nebulous assumption that the Albums contain 'the best chess compositions
from three year periods'. That, as I believe everyone here knows, is nonsense. It may
have been an early goal, but once the selection was based on submissions from composers
only, it cannot be maintained that that objective is being met.
So ... is there a formal (and non-nonsensical) statement as to the purpose of the Albums?
Should there be?
The only remaining purpose seems to be that Albums are published for title points.
(Title points are even mentioned in the Statutes -- so the conclusion that FIDE Albums
are published for title points is almost inescapable.)
And as I said earlier, I see no reason to think that title regulations are in any way
sacrosanct. If their application creates an overload on judges, they should be modified
appropriately. My proposal means that it might take longer time to get a title, but would
not in any other way change the value of a title before or after the change was implemented.
(Added: And it also restricts the effects any temporary fads or fashions may have on the
judging.)
I have an alternative suggestion that won't penalize any composer or judge, and still limit
individual judge overload: Once an Album judge has served for one publishing period, he/she
will not be allowed to serve as an Album judge, regardless of section, for the next three
publishing period.
(Added: I can't believe that the 'The FIDE Albums: Duties of Directors and Judges' starts
with the statement: "The purpose of the FIDE Albums is well known and does not need to be
repeated here.". If the purpose should be documented anywhere, this is surely the place for it.)
| | | (26) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 18:55] |
George: "We ought not to request the author to evaluate his own work ..."
Should we simply allow composers to send in EVERY problem, hoping weaker ones get through? No, that is the problem we are trying to solve! Even a beginner composer must know some composers who are NOT beginners, and who can help in selection. There's no excuse not to use good judgment.
We either must (a) limit entries for ALL composers, or (b) penalize those who submit mediocre material. Option (a) penalizes GOOD composers for no reason. Option (b) penalizes composers who have not used good judgment. And doing nothing penalizes adminstrators and judges.
I vote for (b), in some form.
| | | (27) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 19:18] |
QUOTE
Should we simply allow composers to send in EVERY problem, hoping weaker ones get through?
This is exactly the current situation, moreover: sending in every problem _raises the chance_ that the weaker ones get through.
My opinion: we should change the rules so that there is at least _no sense_ in sending in weak problems. This may be done without setting up suspicious penalties and artificial limits.
| | | (28) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 20:54] |
As already mentioned, hard limitations would exclude some quality problems from top composers: Andrey Selivanov got 66(!) problems in AF2004-06, Valentin Rudenko got 53 once. I am sure there are more examples.
I am surprised that nobody suggested a 'market' approach: introduce a charge, say $5, for each entry and make the first 10-15 free(in each section). This way it does not prohibit one from sending any amount of entries but would make you think twice sending hundreds. It will hit directly (and only those) who sends huge quantities(we could even provide a refund for all problems included into the album). The only serious issue is money administration.
Another solution - introduce a tax, say $10, on top of the album price. Even with 500 copies sold it would generate some revenue to pay section judges for their work. It's far easier to administer but everybody should pay for it equally.
| | | (29) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Monday, Oct 11, 2010 09:28]; edited by Georgy Evseev [10-10-11] |
@Vladimir
1. I do not think that cash penalty is better than points penalty - it still remains a penalty, which may hit composers who produce many good works.
2. The Album tax is much better idea, especially in the current situation. For example, I would very much like to know the real cost of Album production, how the price is selected now and why the published Albums do not belong to PCCC.
| | | (30) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Monday, Oct 11, 2010 15:40] |
Talking about money isn’t the right direction in this topic. Hundreds of hours will be required for judging even a limited number of album entries, and there’s no chance for their adequate payment.
Georgy wrote: “we should change the rules so that there is at least no sense in sending in weak problems. This may be done without setting up suspicious penalties and artificial limits.”
I agree: first of all, it must remain the authors’ job to be selective.
The key for restriction will be the composers’ vanity: a top quality ranking is a matter of prestige. With submission of mediocre material, even if selected, it will be impossible to become an upper class member.
| | | (31) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 11, 2010 21:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-10-11] |
@Andres:
>"I can't believe that the 'The FIDE Albums: Duties of Directors and Judges' starts
with the statement: "The purpose of the FIDE Albums is well known and does not need to be
repeated here.". If the purpose should be documented anywhere, this is surely the place for it."
Amen.
But, the refusal to provide a mission statement helps perpetuate the myth surrounding what is contained in the album.
It is not in their interest to clarify that this is not a collection of the period's best problems -- even if we may all be well aware of that fact.
This is a great pity, because it prevents us from organizing such a collection, internationally.
| | | (32) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Tuesday, May 31, 2011 13:12] |
Finally, the FIDE Album 2001-03 has been published - time to update the list of judgement point averages for current GM and IM composers, who are represented with 12 evaluated album compositions at least. Like before, problems’ and studies’ judgements are considered as equivalent, and points given for joint compositions have been divided by numbers of authors.
An establishment of quality ranking is essential part of the introductory proposal for a restriction of album entries “without setting up suspicious penalties and artificial limits” [27], but simply appealing to contributor’s self-respect.
According to last year’s WFCC minutes (and not really unexpected), no changes at all concerning this topic seem to be necessary. Therefore the following table will remain unofficial - but hopefully not uninteresting! However, it may supplement the new “FIDE Album points” lists at http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/hcc5.pdf.
FIDE Albums 1980-2003:
judgement points :judgements = Ø
Rehm.........GM....................1254,42:133,86=9,37
Benkö................................170,75:18,5=9,23
Loustau......GM....................801:87,67=9,14
Persson...........................132,5:14,5=9,14
Krikheli......GM....................219:24=9,12
Abdurahmanovic.GM........1029,96:113,08=9,11
Maslar................................267,78:29,42=9,10
Vukcevic.......GM....................1091:120=9,09
Aschwanden...GM.................515,83:57,08=9,04
Gandev.............................319,42:35,33=9,04
Lobusov........GM....................601,42:66,58=9,03
Caillaud.........GM....................2188,58:242,92=9,01
Frolkin...............................216,25:24=9,01
Valuska...........................171:19=9.00
Sphicas...........................289,17:32,17=8,99
Laue................................166,25:18,5=8,99
Smotrov...........................233,5:26=8,98
Kislyak.............................363,25:40,5=8,97
Lörinc...............................220,42:24,67=8,93
Hoch................................125:14=8,93
Pervakov....GM....................453,17:50,83=8,92
Gurov....................................377,33:42,33=8,91
Mladenovic...GM....................652,75:73,33=8,90
Petkov.........GM.....................2464,87:277,25=8,89
Haymann...........................315,5:35,5=8,89
Davidenko...........................226,75:25,5=8,89
Kovacevic...GM....................753,42:84,83=8,88
Ryabinin...............................287:32,33=8,88
Kuzovkov....GM....................1002,42:113,17=8,86
Shankar Ram........................385,5:43,5=8,86
Heinonen....GM....................903:102=8,85
Afek.....................................190:21,5=8,84
Tribowski...GM....................565,42:64=8,83
Vladimirov...GM....................1113,25:126,25=8,82
Schauer...............................110,25:12,5=8,82
Avner.......GM........................565,08:64,17=8,81
Keller........GM........................677,96:77,17=8,79
Ellinghoven...........................298,58:33,95=8,79
Rusinek.....GM....................315,75:36=8,77
Zappas......GM....................385:44=8,75
Cheylan.....GM....................573,67:65,67=8,74
Moutecidis...........................228,83:26,17=8,74
Nestorescu...GM....................227,25:26=8,74
Marandyuk....GM....................967,92:110,83=8,73
Lindgren.......GM....................380,25:43,58=8,73
Johandl...............................288:33=8,73
Soroka................................245,75:28,17=8,72
Bakke.................................174,5:20=8,72
Rudenko......GM....................712,45:81,75=8,71
Costeff...............................146,67:16,83=8,71
Dobrescu.....GM....................352,5:40,5=8,70
Selivanov......GM....................452,67:52,08=8,69
Chepizhny....GM....................847,17:97,83=8,66
le Gleuher...........................186,25:21,5=8,66
Gvozdjak...........................397,03:45,92=8,65
Gockel................................374,5:43,33=8,64
Seider................................169,17:19,58=8,64
Pachl..........GM.........................906,29:105=8,63
Pilchenko...........................467,33:54,17=8,63
Dyachuk........GM....................597,92:69,37=8,62
Wenda..........GM.......................377,25:43,75=8,62
Müller D..............................296,70:34,5=8,60
Kozdon...............................223,5:26=8,60
Goldschmeding..GM.................180,5:21=8,60
Brabec..............................126,35:14,7=8,60
Velimirovic......GM....................324,75:37,83=8,58
Rittirsch.............................280,25:32,67=8,58
Lukyanov............................133:15,5=8,58
Lacny...............................107,25:12,5=8,58
Slesarenko......GM....................684,5:79,83=8,57
Janevski........GM....................1433,25:167,5=8,56
Gurgenidze...GM....................550,58:64,33=8,56
Trommler...........................194,08:22,67=8,56
Alaikov........GM....................773,5:90,5=8,55
Macleod........GM....................410,25:48=8,55
Chlubna.............................158,25:18,5=8,55
Grin............GM.......................136,75:16=8,55
Linß.................................308,17:36,08=8,54
Sushkov...............................162,25:19=8,54
Tkachenko S N........................217,5:25,5=8,53
Degener......GM....................651,5:76,5=8,52
Shanshin.....GM....................630,42:74=8,52
Azhusin...........................225,67:26,5=8,52
Widlert...........................364,17:42,77=8,51
Zirkwitz...........................216,92:25,5=8,51
Postnikov...........................194,33:22,83=8,51
Kapros...........................223,67:26,33=8,49
Fougiaxis...........................277,08:32,67=8,48
Kotesovec...........................220,5:26=8,48
Papack...........................202:23,83=8,48
Dittrich...........................197,67:23,33=8,47
Goumondy.....GM.................161:19=8,47
Kralin.............GM....................327;17:38,67=8,46
Gordian...........................274,83:32,5=8,46
Kwiatkowski.......................173,5:20,5=8,46
Garai...........GM....................727:86=8,45
Bakcsi..........GM....................362,75:43=8,44
Sochniev...........................152:18=8,44
Bruch...........GM....................552,17:65,5=8,43
Lois................................217,67:25,83=8,43
Bogdanov...........................503,92:59,83=8,42
Labai...........................195,87:23,25=8,42
Shedey...........................117,92:14=8,42
Jones..............................315,5:37,5=8,41
Molnar...........................218,75:26=8,41
Feoktistov...GM..................350,87:41,75=8,40
Sovik.................................252:30=8,40
Gamnitzer....GM.................533:63,5=8,39
Csak...............................344:41=8,39
Ahues........GM....................310:37=8,38
Prins..............................314,5:37,67=8,35
Retter...........................187,75:22,5=8,34
Parrinello...........................350:42=8,33
Bakharev...........................270,5:32,5=8,32
Erokhin...........................128,75:15,5=8,31
Simoni...........................166:20=8,30
Tura............GM.......................521,5:63=8,28
Sizonenko...........................333,67:40,33=8,27
Sydenham...........................227,5:27,5=8,27
Melnichenko.........................202:24,5=8,24
Rice................................146,92:17,83=8,24
Gavrilovski...........................209,25:25,5=8,21
Shavyrin.....GM....................668,5:81,5=8,20
Kopaev.............................237,83:29,17=8,15
Styopochkin.........................260,25:32=8,13
Jonsson...........................188,42:23,17=8,13
Dragoun...........................250,5:31=8,08
Marker..............................146,08:18,08=8,08
Szwedowski........................145,5:18=8,08
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE albums, quality and titles |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
