MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

18:42 UTC
ISC 2020
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Apr-2020

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Sugar for the kings
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Friday, Oct 12, 2007 14:31]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [07-10-13]

Sugar for the kings


How? Certificates? Cups? What'd be a good reward for prizewinners?

I think, people should get something even from informal tourneys to make it more attractive. Something that reminds them of that tourney, like a certificate. Additionally one may think about giving cups to the prizewinners.

Yes, it costs some money but it also helps developing chess not only as art but also as competition.

What do you think?


EDIT: Should not be "from even" but "even from"
 
(Read Only)pid=1543
(2) Posted by Steven Dowd [Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 14:25]

I believe this was a practice in years past. I remember seeing some really nice looking certificates for - I think it was the Schwalbe, signed by Speckmann? I certainly would be happy to win something like that, even if it was just the 3. honorable mention or some small prize.

It does seem odd that you can win a competition and get... nothing.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1544
(3) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 14:42]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [07-10-13]

Yes, it's bothering me, and I've seen such a certificate online recently. I found this nice (with diagram).

http://arves.org/vignet/Marwitz/Zagreb1960.jpg
http://arves.org/vignet/Marwitz/Nederland1966.jpg


Not so nice is even the olympiad certificate.

http://arves.org/vignet/Marwitz/TelAviv1964.jpg


I'd love to introduce this again. I think, however, only prizewinners should get a certificate.


EDIT: typo, "eith" is "with", not "eighth"
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1545
(4) Posted by Steven Dowd [Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 17:39]

I suppose if you mean a full-fledged certificate only for winners, of course. However, some form of recognition for others - even just a nice form letter from say, the Schwalbe president, would be good. We don't want it to be like scholastic chess in the US, where you seem to win a trophy simply for showing up and getting mated. :)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1546
(5) Posted by Steven Dowd [Saturday, Oct 13, 2007 17:40]

Yes , a beautiful certificate with the position on it... very nice.

What is odd is that in this day and age it probably would be relatively inexpensive to do ,so why don't we?
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1547
(6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Oct 14, 2007 15:49]

<QUOTE DOWD>
It does seem odd that you can win a competition and get... nothing.
</QUOTE>

Haven't played the Hamburg qualification lately, eh? :-)
The winner gets nothing. 'Xept the qualification for the IHEM,
of course, an alimentation for indigent grandmasters. (So now you
know why the winner gets nothing, all money is already spent ;-)

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1550
(7) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Sunday, Oct 14, 2007 15:58]

If we'd do this here, we could spend 250 Euro to Roycroft just to make him send in one study...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1551
(8) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Oct 15, 2007 21:33]

It is interesting what you find by coincidence. I was fixing up my bookmarks on my computer, trying to get more organized (doesn't happen)and in the general chess section, I found Mark Ginsburg's blog, and the following:

http://nezhmet.wordpress.com/2007/10/02/weird-and-strangeness-in-the-1970s/

In which he notes that "in the old days" people received actual written congratulatory letters for even the most trivial success. As I have noted in this thread, I suppose SH's idea that only winners get the fancy certificates, but as I noted, even just a small letter from the editor regarding an honors would be nice - or am I hopelessly stuck in the past?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1561
(9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Oct 19, 2007 09:26]

Hi All,

Pardon me for asking, but what does a chess problem composer want with a certificate?

I tend to think of problems as artwork.
I strain to imagine an artist taking a painting down to display a framed certificate.
Is not the painting it's own reward?
"Ars gratis Ars."

Please, tell me this is not another thread with a composer needing a proper certificate of genius.
Remember that movie, where young Josh Waitzkin refuses to make the opening move until he knows how many "master class points" it is worth, and Bruce Pandolfini tells him:

"You want the certificate? You have to have the certificate? Fine, you win. Here's your certificate... It doesn't mean anything. It's just a piece of paper. It's a xerox of a piece of paper. Do you want another one? Do you want 10? ... 20? ...30? I've got a whole briefcase full of them. They don't mean anything."


Just imagine your disappointment when you receive what will soon be a form-letter anyway:

Dear Kim Poser Jr.,
Hearty congratulations on winning 13th Honorable Mention in the Kim Poser Sr. 90th Jubilee Tourney! Your 3x2 cyclic blah blah blah showing the ever popular n-fold yadah yadah yadah was, 'admirable' -- if I may borrow the word from Ricky Roma. I spent half an hour trying to solve it myself, but the bus terminal in Lodi was noisy. Oh well, like I always say, "it is a problem for Kim Puter, not Kim Poser!" You are a certified genius! Hope to see you again for the 100th J.T. (maybe you will earn another copy of this same certificate!).
Sincerely,
Kim Poser Sr.


Anyway, sorry if I don't share the enthusiasm, but c'mon, you don't need a certificate to tell you if your problem is good.

Best Regards,
Kevin Begley.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1584
(10) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Friday, Oct 19, 2007 10:13]

It's more about making tourneys more attractive, it wouldn't bear anymore beyond that. There are already prizes, honoring mentions etc. :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1585
(11) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Oct 22, 2007 19:07]

If there would be three men I instantly could grant a title of a chess composition, it would be the following ones:

GM Peter Hoffmann, Babson task pioneer
IM Leonid Yarosh, for showing the first Babson
Honorary Master Fernando Saavedra (+), for being the man with the most-reprinted chess composition ever

Oh, and I admire them more than I do with most title holders (except, of course Norman Macleod, Milan Vukcevich etc who were all great geniuses and it's a real pity Vukcevich didn't get the nobel prize for chemistry then. It would've been a great promotion for chess.)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1598
(12) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Oct 22, 2007 23:02]

Oh, I really like expressions of kind "... admire them more than I do with most title holders (except, of course Norman Macleod, Milan Vukcevich ETC who were all great geniuses ..."

More than most title holders? Which of GM title holders you really do not admire? As far as I can judge every GM on the (not so long) list has shown both qualitative as well as quantitative abilities. They have composed hundreds of good and tens of excellent problems in their times.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1599
(13) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Oct 22, 2007 23:06]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [07-10-22]

It's both admirable work, but not at the same level admirable. It's something else to compose 100 brillant problems that don't show any new task or to compose something that dozens of composers tried for more than 50 years (regarding Yarosh and Hoffmann, who still compose other brillant problems but maybe just doesn't send it to the FIDE album). Or to be the most reprinted problemist ever (as Saavedra is). ;)

Also, I admire Macleod, Vukcevich, Kasparyan, Korolkov, Pogosyants (of course), Dr. Rehm (he's a very friendly person), etc.

The IM and GM list needs much more older people to come near any worth. Why is for example not included:
Walther Freiherr von Holzhausen
Adolf Kraemer
Erich Zepler

Just because they didn't live long enough? That's unfair, and you know that!

Look at IMs 1959, Chéron got the title, and it's good he got it!



As they are now, the titles mean nothing to me! Time will tell who's really important / influential / masterly. Titles won't. Peter Hoffmann has no single title but he composes very well and if he'd send his problems to the FIDE albums I'm sure he'd be GM.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1600
(14) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Oct 22, 2007 23:56]

Well, my point is that GM title holders are all excellent composers. Any newcomer or outsider may well use this designation as a satisfactory rule of thumb that "yes, these composers are really good and their works are (usually) worth studying". I have not judged the quality of others.

Of course, I could list a few names of my favourite non-GM composers that would deserve the title in my opinion as well. And lack of GM title before their name does not mean GM title is worth nothing. But I prefer to have less GMs and to have GM as a mark of quality than to have more GMs and potential mis-awarding the title to unworthy composer.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1601
(15) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 13:20]

Worse. I hereby accuse Siegfried of the "Fermats Last Theorem" fallacy :-)

He evidently is very fond of the Babson theme. I don't, in the sense
that "Babson" is just the theme with extreme popularity. There are
many others that might deserve the same fame. What has
Andrew Wiles' proof of FLT *as such* done for math? Nothing! The new
ideas he had to invent *for* proving it, *they* were what should get
him the deserved fame.
OK, and now to Yarosh. He had some brilliant ideas to execute a
murderously complicated theme. And what did he for problemistics
*lately*? ;-)
No, I have other heroes, GM or not. They might be not that shiny
in terms of publicity, but their influence will *last*.

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1603
(16) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Oct 25, 2007 11:20]

I disagree about Wiles proof.
Nobody knows what might or might not come of his new math (unless you know some other use for it).

What we do know is that the proof will verify a multitude of conjectures which all rested on FLT.
It is easy to see what this does for mathematics today, and one can reasonably expect that this will continue into the future.

And, let's not forget, it is highly unlikely that Fermat used this same method. I wouldn't bet that this new math doesn't prove only a very long route when somebody streamlines the proof into a mathematics that can be understood by a h.s. algebra student. :)

Best Regards,
-Kevin.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1614
(17) Posted by Steven Dowd [Friday, Oct 26, 2007 03:49]

One can bash titles as easily as certificates, but "real" artists do have competitions ... ever hear of an art show? Yes, first place and so on are awarded....

As to titles, I agree that GM should be incredibly difficult to receive. Someone like me should have absolutely no chance at it; I lack both the talent and the work ethic. But it seems to me that there should be an easier road to a "master" title - although you can argue that perhaps a master title is more appropriately awarded by a national body in recognition of one's work.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1615

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General Sugar for the kings