MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

10:56 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  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-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Limit on number of entries for FIDE Album
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
(1) Posted by David Knezevic [Friday, Oct 5, 2012 05:32]

Limit on number of entries for FIDE Album


Among the decisions of the WFCC Meeting in Kobe one, connected with the future FIDE Album(s), is disputable and to my opinion - bad. It reads: "30 entries/composer, or 3 times the points they achieved in the last album that they had participated, whichever is greater." Here is my explanation:

It is well known that some composers submit a huge number of compositions and that something should had to be done prevent this kind of "spamming". However, the above clause is an lame attempt to do it. A quick analysis of the AF 2004-2006 statistics (which can be still found, since information for #2, EG and fairy sections is not available any more, while for the #3 section the individual numbers have not be given at all) shows that these are only isolated cases. The number of composers who submitted more than 30 problems per section was very small:

#n: 1 of 163
h#2: 5 of at least 180 (hard to count out exactly!)
h#n: 5 of 182 (3 of which "spammed" the h#2 section too)
s#: 3 of 160
retro: 1 of 45

So, the percentage of authors who submitted more than 30 problems for the same section is as low as 2% (probably would be similar if the missing sections were counted), but not all of them can be called "spammers" - their only "delict" was that they had a prolific period of composing high-quality problems. The next period might be prolific for somebody else who for some reason wasn't too active in the previous one. Alas, he would become a collateral victim of the imposed limit.

The authors who unjustifiably submitted so many entries can easily be recognized and the action should be taken against them only! Normally, one cannot expect that more than 20-25% of his entries will be selected for the Album. And this assumption seems to be too optimistic! However, if the percentage of accepted works drops below let us say 10%, it would be a good reason for the action against the author in question.

Unfortunately, there is no desirable transparency in the work of the WFCC and the public often gets the "post festum" information when, I am afraid, it is too late to react. Anyway, my opinion is that this obviously lame decision should be suspended immediately!

P.S.: I don't have any personal or selfish reason for this objection - I can hardly find time to make one or two problems per year :-(
 
(Read Only)pid=8934
(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Oct 5, 2012 20:51]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-05]

@Milan,

I do agree that the adopted rule is both arbitrary, and absurd.
But, the larger problem is that any arbitrary alternative is destined to failure (if the intent is to provide an objective scoreboard, by which chess composers measure relative abilities).
[hide]
1) We have an arbitrary number of albums (currently 9), collated into what we pretend is a single FIDE Album.
2) The separation between these 9 Albums is arbitrary.
2a) I have often demonstrated (in MPF), the CODEX can provide no consistent definition of the term, "Fairies."
2b) No objective criteria is established to facilitate the addition of new Album Sections, nor the subtraction of obsolete Album Sections.
3) Each of these 9 Albums has an arbitrary quota (the quantity of worthy problems in a given section, actually may depend upon spam quantity).
4) We arbitrarily assign more points for the Studies album.
5) Composers self-nominate arbitrary problems, in an arbitrary number (which drives the arbitrary quotas!).

And, according to all this highly arbitrary & complex scoring tax-code, titles are awarded.

I would prefer to eliminate the self-nomination process entirely, and to define objective sections (according to the primary type of problem offered -- e.g., FORCED-PLAY, HELP-PLAY, etc -- rather than arbitrary features of a problem), which could eliminate the need for arbitrary rules (to manage sections).
But, no matter how convinced I am that this is the right course, I can never provide a perfect alternative.

The original purpose of the FIDE Album was to gather together a collection of the best problems, for a given period.
When titles were arbitrarily attached to this collection, the original intent was forever changed (if not entirely abandoned).
Like several other non-contributing composers, I'd prefer that the two intents were kept separate.

But, supposing the intent is to provide a measure for title pursuits, let's consider the spam issue, as it relates to the Infinite Monkey Theorem.
Presume a computer program offers a randomized problem generator, solver, and theme filter.
If it runs for an infinite amount of time (or an infinite number of them run for some lesser period), it will certainly produce every great chess problem ever composed (or left to be discovered).
[neglecting, of course, the memory storage issue.]

A real measure of the "intelligence" of this program would depend, virtually ENTIRELY, upon its filter code.
Thus, a composer may be no more than the person who finds beauty, within some vast collection (e.g., the EGTB).

There is no discernible intelligence demonstrated by a computer (or human) which publishes the first Babson #4, within the spam of every possible #4 (much like publication of the entire EGTB, without a filter, would serve no intelligent purpose).

Any valid measure of a composer must depend upon the intelligence of their filter.
That is, our arbitrary measures must be weighted less by the quantity of their published discoveries, and more by their ability to filter the wheat from the chaff.
Just as any valid self-nomination process must actively discourage spam.
The correct method to incentivize this process is simple: make titles also depend upon the composer's demonstration of an intelligent filter (based upon the weighted statistical success of their submissions).

We could establish a system (or threshold levels), where titles are based upon both quantity (points), and intelligence (points per submission).
Spam will self-regulate, and titles would be more valid, more objective, and more intelligent.

But, even here, there is a subtle problem, not addressed (not by my proposal, nor by the current system):
How do you score joint submissions made by one party?
And, how do you score submissions for others (such as submissions for deceased composers, or for parties disinterested in titles)?

Furthermore, self-nomination puts beginner composers at a tremendous disadvantage.
If a beginner realizes a remarkable problem, they are penalized for having an inadequate appreciation of what the Album judges tend to favor.
Each submission by a beginner risks jeopardy from diminished points-per-submission; or, in fear of this prospect, the beginners may fail to submit quality problems (thus reducing their quantity of points).

What does this nomination process (for titles) have to do with the beginner's ability to realize remarkable problems?

This catch-22 is particularly discouraging for newcomers, whose participation should be encouraged.
Beginners require a system which acts as their friend -- automatically nominating their best achievements, at no statistical penalty.
Maybe we all should prefer such a friendly nomination process.

Lastly, it is a profound shame that a beginner often doesn't see a judgement, until AFTER the Album's entry period has expired.
And, the astute reader will immediately recognize, these problems are not exclusive to beginners -- but, they are disproportionately affected by our poor system (which already favors experienced composers far, far beyond their real talents).

But, even if you make provisions for all of these issues, an arbitrarily objective scoreboard, based upon self-nomination, may lead to unforeseen failures.

Such is the nature of art -- its beauty is forever resistant to quantification (and titles).
[/hide]
 
(Read Only)pid=8936
(3) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Saturday, Oct 6, 2012 17:00]; edited by Marcel Tribowski [12-10-07]

This topic already had been discussed in on this website some time ago ("FIDE albums, quality and titles").

The WFCC decision may cause disadvantages for newcomers or non-active authors who didn't acquire a "licence to spam" [> 30 entries per section] by the preceding Album. Therefore it belongs to the not very best among the possible solutions of the "spam" problem. But it's still better than to do nothing as during the past decades.

"Normally, one cannot expect that more than 20-25% of his entries will be selected for the Album. And this assumption seems to be too optimistic!"

I think, an experienced composer of course can expect more than 20-25% of his entries to get selected to the Album. It just depends on what he submits after his own pre-selection - which one can expect he's able to do. If for example an International Judge misses this percentage, he should ask himself if he's worthy of his title.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8939
(4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 6, 2012 22:28]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-06]

Yes, but you can not retroactively evaluate your points per submission, because you had no incentive to be selective about your submissions.
Your only incentive was points; so, if you considered that a problem might be worthy, you likely sent it for consideration (without a second thought).
There was no penalty for slightly missing the mark (nor, for spamming far beneath it).

A composer has an incentive to flood the tourney with spam, thus raising the quotas, and elevating the value of their nearly worthy problems.
Spam is a winning strategy -- and, it will continue, up to the limit (of 30, or 3x acceptance -- whichever is greater).

You say this limitation is not perfect, but offers some protection ("better than doing nothing").
I can't agree -- eventually, everybody is going to realize the benefits of taking their submissions to the very limit (resulting in more spam, not less); and, someday, this "protection" is going to penalize a quality composer of high output.

I expect this cure will prove far worse than the disease itself -- it will serve to encourage peak entry (more spam).

I know there many composers with high integrity, who will refuse to send strong candidate problems.
And, I have watched some of these composers witness their valued problems fall shy, while the spam of others passed right through the detectors.
Self-selectivity is a backfire strategy -- spam to the hilt is always your best bet.

This "cure" encourages entrants to depend upon these imposed limitations, to resolve the spam issue.
Spam and spammers will increase -- only the spam per spammer will decline.

How much do you want a composer title (or a better one, or just more points) -- enough to strive for peak entry?
Each composer gets 30 entries x 9 Albums, every 3 years (all we ask is 90 problems per year, and NO MORE!).
That's the new game this "solution" offers.

Judges will be inundated with more junk -- until their temperaments begin to buckle!
They'll require more cursory evaluations -- what can be quickly tossed out (as spam)?
And, with the bathwater, out goes your baby!!
Title-seekers will be encouraged to send works which pass a cursory evaluation!
The result: a positive feedback loop, pushing more and more spam through a bottleneck of lesser quality detectors.

That's not a solution -- that's engineering FOR failure.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8940
(5) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, Oct 7, 2012 03:43]

 QUOTE 
Marcel: If for example an International Judge misses this percentage, he should ask himself if he's worthy of his title.

Wrong! Another quick look at the the individual numbers of received and selected entries tells that at least every second IJ should do it. Don't forget that for problem to be selected it is necessary that 4 persons (the author and 3 judges) reach the (affirmative) agreement, and we all know how often even the generally recognized experts' opinions are different (and sometimes completely opposite!).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8941
(6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 7, 2012 06:47]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-07]

This is why points per submission provides a better measure.

There's a difference between submitting problems which had a good shot, and problems which were complete spam.
Percentage approved would completely discard this information; whereas, it could be clearly quantified by a weighted measure (e.g., points per submission).

However, as I've stated, you can not retroactively apply this measure, because there was no disincentive against spam (and still, we have none).

And, if Marcel intends to apply the weighted statistic to FIDE International Judges (for composition), going forward, it's a recipe for more failure -- remember: this is a TITLE (are you going to rescind it, as new submissions arrive, driving this measure below some threshold?).

Furthermore, this is not an honest disincentive (especially for title-seekers uninterested in judging).
In fact, such a plan would only reduce the number of available album judges (bad idea)!

However, you can easily apply this measure to composition titles, because such titles may be considered after specific milestones.
That is, once the # of points is surpassed, and the points-per-submission is brought above an established threshold, the composer qualifies for a title (which is permanent -- regardless if points/submission falls).

There are two problems here:
1) GMs are free to spam w/o penalty, and
2) There is some difficulty in defining what counts as a submission (in joint problems, and in problems submitted for other composers).

I'm guessing the first issue is not so bad -- once you get to GM, your interest would be stats (not just highest points, but also highest points per submission).
Thus, there is a natural incentive.

If the second issue can be resolved, you'd have an honest incentive to decrease spam.
Album Judges would see fewer problems, and they could take all entries more seriously.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8942
(7) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Oct 7, 2012 16:08]

I plan to post my view of the issue...
... as soon as the judgement of fairy section 2007-2009 is finished (because it should be soon and yes, it's me who is mostly delaying the work). I have quite a few remarks on the topic, but in general...
... in my view the decision of WFCC to limit number of entries is OK (and yes, I was regularly sending more than 30 problems to fairy section previously).
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8943
(8) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Sunday, Oct 7, 2012 17:10]; edited by Marcel Tribowski [12-10-08]

„We should change the rules so that there is at least no sense in sending in weak problems.“ [G. Evseev, Oct 10, 2010]

Judgement points are the Album's currency for quality. The most effective measure to decrease spam (and without side-effects as described above) will be to include them stronger into the selection process, where high quality is the desired output.
Today, the only alternative still is 'yes' (8 points) or 'no' (< 8 points) - not enough for a "natural incentive“ [Kevin] to hold back second-class material.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8944
(9) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Oct 8, 2012 14:21]

Methinks all Album troubles are linked to a severe multitasking fail:
The FIDE album is intended to
a) document the best problems of (the last) 3 years
b) document representative problems thereof
c) be the basis for problem chess FIDE titles
d) feed the egos of the involved composers. :-)

Honk if you find still more purposes.

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8948
(10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Oct 11, 2012 21:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-11]

>"Today, the only alternative still is 'yes' (8 points) or 'no' (< 8 points) - not enough for a "natural incentive“ [Kevin] to hold back second-class material."

That is where the bad taste comes from -- the recipe calls for the release of a complete, quantitative judgement.
You can not distinguish the spammer from the chef, if you don't sample the dish.

If you honestly want to discourage the spammer, you need an honest disincentive.
You can not establish an honest disincentive, if it also penalizes a good chef.
You can not adequately defend the "improved" system (30 entries per cooking contest), if you stipulate that this system makes no distinction between spammers and chefs.

All this system does is limit entries.
It does nothing about the very spam it was intended to prevent.

Yet, when asked why this limitation is necessary, we only hear this flap about it being an unfortunate, but necessary, spam-curbing mechanism.
It's completely ridiculous.

When the spam-mechanism argument comes off the table (and, it has been stipulated to be on the floor), what remains on the plate must be the truth; and, that truth is apparently something that nobody is willing to admit.
I suspect this misdirected effort was intended to a curb particular individual (or individuals) -- without ever addressing the real issue of spam.

Why not address the spam issue directly?
Because it involves an unsettling dilemma -- on the one hand, you have progress, and on the other, we have our rigid traditions.
And, in this case, the change requires trespass upon our most sacred institution: behold, the title race (and, tremble all ye who look upon its wisdom).

I have learned that three things are consistent in chess:
1) Rigid traditions -- even when flawed -- always endure,
2) There is little effort to craft a worthy tradition, and
3) All efforts to change 1) or 2) will be met by a highly irrational resistance.

Somehow, the logic of adding a second requirement (such as: points earned per entry), is a modification that we must all run from, in panic.
I suppose in fear that yet another good idea might surface, and soon we'll lose our humanity.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8952
(11) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Saturday, Oct 27, 2012 16:49]

OK, Kevin, if you don't like the Kobe proposal, please come with a better one in order to stop FIDE Album spammers.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8986
(12) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 00:37]

Perhaps to stop FIDE albums ??

I don't know if it was possible to do better, but this vote is surely a very bad one.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8989
(13) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Oct 28, 2012 22:26]

1) It is not fair for some composers who aim a title.
2) It is not fair for the album itself to eliminate anything without judging.
3) It is not fair to change the rules on the passed years - such drastic changes should be at least done for the problems published from 2012 and future.
4) It is all in all not respectful not for composers, not for readers, not for newcomers.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8992
(14) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Oct 29, 2012 02:41]

And there's a great privilege for the composers successful in 7-9 period. Some are allowed to send more problems than they have probably composed so they must hurry to reach that number before the end of this year and to increase the chance for greater number of allowed entries in the 13-15 period. Hypothetically, very bizarre contradictions are possible.

Making the previous, the current and the following periods interdependent is senseless. Each period should be independent. For example, each composer may send 30 problems/section and depending on the points which those problems achieve, he might be allowed to participate with more problems in some corrective process.

(Someone was half-experienced in 2007 but 10 problems that he published in 2009 entered FA. He develops each year and increases the number of masterpieces - 15/2010, 20/2011 and 25/2012 (=60/3 years). But he may send only 30, just as the complete beginners. And if all these 30 problems enter FA, it doesn't matter, the other 30 masterpieces will be ignored.)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8993
(15) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Oct 29, 2012 13:05]

My humble recommendations:

- remove the "interdependency between cycles" clause
- set an overall limit of (say) 100 per composer, including joints
- set a section limit of (say) 40 per composer, including joints

(1) No composer will feel "punished"
(2) No judge will be unnecessarily burdened
(3) Prolific composers of several genres could achieve a GM title in one Album
(4) Prolific composers in a single genre could achieve a GM title in two Albums

Any composer who feels cheated by these (arbitrary) limits is free to write their own book.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8994
(16) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 02:12]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-30]

@Vlaicu,

My suggestion begins with a fundamental axiom:

"If ignorant both of your enemy and yourself, you are certain to be in peril."
-Sun Tzu

In the least arbitrary manner possible, provide me an objective definition of "spam."
When you have clearly identified your enemy, the correct fighting strategy will be apparent.

I submit to you that spam can only be identified based upon a high quantity of low quality submissions.
The present system fails to quantify low quality submissions (no measure bellow acceptance is provided), allowing your enemy to elude any quantifiable detection.

Rather than identify the enemy, the FIDE Album proposes to adopt a purely diversionary strategem: they point at the mulberry, while cursing the locust tree.
This is a particularly ineffective strategy against spam (such a diversion is only useful to conceal the true target of this restriction -- let's admit: automated composition is the real target of this policy).

This policy does nothing to identify or prevent spam -- despite some foolish presumptions, there is no indication that this arbitrary limitation would hamper spammers, any more than it hampers you (the quality composer).
The greatest peril is a retained ignorance of spam (which this policy ensures).

This is like trying to prevent email spam, by restricting the number of incoming emails (per 3 year period).
It fails to identify spam, and fails to penalize spammers.

An effective strategy is to base your titles upon both quantity (total points), and quality (points per submission).
I leave it to the experts to determine the arbitrary threshold values -- I would only caution against retrograde application of a spam penalty.

Another strategy would be to ask that submissions be sorted by value, such that judges may curtail all further judgement, once entries dip below some acceptable level. In the interest of encouraging entries from rookie composers, I would suggest considering some minimum number of entries (e.g., each sub-album would consider the first 6 entries per composer -- anything beyond that depends upon not dipping beneath a preset spam threshold).

Whatever the solution, judges must identify both a spam threshold, and an appropriate penalty.

All that said, I don't expect that spam will be identified -- because chess precedent dictates that dysfunction is more tolerable than progress.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9000
(17) Posted by Joost de Heer [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 07:16]

How about something like '1.5 times the number of FIDE points in the previous album + any composition that received at least a HM'. A new composer that only produced 3 compositions that received at least a HM can only send in those 3, a composer with 20 points in the previous album and 40 awarded compositions can send in 70 (if he wishes).

That way the number of compositions is divided over previous achievements and peer review. Only flaw is probably delayed jury reports.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9002
(18) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 10:13]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-30]

@Joost,

While I have great respect for you, I find your suggestion completely preposterous.

You make no effort to filter or discourage spam -- you don't even IDENTIFY what "spam" is!
Instead, you suggest inhibiting fair access to consideration (by judges), for new composers.

To pretend your suggestion has any bearing on the problem, one would have to presume that those fat with album points are entitled to expansive dinning privileges.
I don't accept the premise: if anything, as it is, new composers already receive far less than a fair consideration (it is unhealthy to tilt the system toward the fat getting fatter, faster).

It is not my intent, here, to spiral down into a debate about the favoritism/unfairness of the present system.
The point is, an effective spam filter, for emails, does not inhibit or restrict quality emails -- not from old friends, not from new friends!
The same principle should hold for submissions to album judges.
It is astounding how many "solutions" offered, in this thread, fail to even identify "spam" entries.
You neither filter, nor discourage, that which you fail to identify.

Here is what an "anti-spam mechanism" must do:
1) Identify the problem (what constitutes spam),
2) Establish a quantitative threshold value (what level of problem constitutes an unacceptable entry),
3) Establish some filtration mechanism (to quickly lighten the load for judges), and/or
4) Establish some fair penalty/disincentive, to help reduce spam.

Beyond what must be done, a good spam filter presumes innocence.
To that end, you may *want* to:
5) shield rookie composers from harsh penalties (to encourage participation).

Your suggestion achieves not one of these items.
In fact, beyond doing nothing, it does things which are not necessary: you actually go out of your way to reverse item 5).

Already, I refuse to contribute to the album, because:
a) I don't consider it an honest competition, and
b) I consider title pursuits -- particularly given financial incentives -- to be highly corrosive to the original intent of the FIDE Album.

I'd be far less inclined to participate, if your suggestion were adopted.
Astonishingly, I can say the same for the majority of "spam solutions" offered in this thread.

@Dan,
You would say that I, and many others like me, have the freedom to go write our own book.
What a lovely message of welcome this sends: go find yourself a better pursuit (our game is unyielding to fair play)!
Thanks for the advice -- I only wish I had heard it 12 years ago!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9004
(19) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 13:21]; edited by Neal Turner [12-10-30]

Wasn't there a requirement in the last Album (2007-2009) for composers to rate their own problems in order of quality when submitting them?
It would seem to solve the 'spamming' problem quite simply.
A judge, on coming across a couple of problems which he considered not worthy of inclusion, could now ignore the rest in the knowledge that the composer himself didn't rate the later problems any better than the ones which the judge had just rejected.
Was this system used for the last Album?

EDIT: Now I see that Kevin suggested exactly this in #16.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9006
(20) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 13:55]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-10-30]

yes, this seems really excellent. It is likely to reassure the judges. It might be enough, in the meanwhile.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9007

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6

MatPlus.Net Forum General Limit on number of entries for FIDE Album