Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum General Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums?
You can only view this page!
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
|(21) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 10:41]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]|
I'm not asking you for proof, Sergiy.
I value your opinion (especially if we disagree).
I would sincerely like to understand your position better.
Why should a study earn more points than a retro?
Why should an orthodox study earn more points than a fairy study?
|(22) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 10:47]|
Everyone is free to peruse, misuse and abuse this rule. Please, do it. I'll be happy to see another hundred of great studies and several more studies grandmasters. It is what this rule is intended for.
Somehow we still only have 10 studies grandmasters and this number would have been reduced to only 2, if we recount points to 1 per problem.
|(23) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 10:52]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]|
How many retro Grandmasters do you count?
How many might be, if retros counted for more?
That is a completely separate issue -- you are arguing that study composers deserve more points per composition, because we only have 10 Grandmasters who compose studies.
Once again: 76 GM titles awarded, in 9 sub-Albums = ~8.4 GMs per section.
You are arguing that study composers deserve comparatively higher points per composition, because they are statistically OVER REPRESENTED (by comparison)!
Not only are studies composers statistically over represented by category (based upon the assumption of equal productivity) -- consider their comparative output.
How many studies are published every year, compared to the number of fairy problems?
Using that ratio, count me out an equivalent number of composers who have earned a Grandmaster title exclusively from the fairies sub-Album.
|(24) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 11:05]|
Because of the rules, Kevin. Studies deserve more points because they don't break any chess rules. Problemists play their own game which is an interesting one but it's not chess.
|(25) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 11:14]|
You say that study composers require a crutch, in order to create more Study Grandmasters...
A few questions:
1) why settle on 1.66 points per composition?
Why not 2 points per composition (as Sergiy suggests)?
Why not use pi?
Why is the number fixed?
2) what is your target number of study Grandmasters (out of 76 GM titles awarded)?
You say more than 10? Is it more than 20?
3) which sub-Album(s) would you give a haircut (in order to lift up the study composers)?
Selfmates? Two-movers? Who has an over abundance (if not studies)?
4) why not give studies their own special GM title (and let them award independently)?
Easier to hit their target numbers, this way.
|(26) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 11:33]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]|
You must not be aware, the FIDE RULEs have evolved, and continue to evolve.
See FIDE law 5.2b (a new rule, since July 1997, which altered the intent of several "orthodox" studies).
You should be aware of this, btw -- your Elo may depend on knowing something about the rule book!
It is one thing to ask PCCC and FIDE to encourage composers to produce more studies.
Quite another to ask everyone else to hold the door for study composers.
You want an unfair crutch? you can have it.
But, don't expect the "Studies Grandmaster" title will carry the same level of respect.
PCCC should openly declare the rationale for this unfairness.
If this is a fraternity of chess players who compose problems, I'll be the first to leave.
I was under the impression that this was a union of problem artists, who use some aspects of chess in their compositions.
|(27) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 13:42]|
Kevin, I think that it's a good idea to award independent titles (Twomover Grandmaster and so on). Let problemists try to get the necessary 70 points in one genre! Then an inflation of the title "Studies Grandmaster" wouldn't affect other titles.
Another option is to award two titles: Chess Problems Grandmaster and Chess Studies Grandmaster. And I don't care if these titles carry the same level of respect or not.
|(28) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 14:03]|
Please, do not distort my words.
I consider the current number of studies grandmaster reasonable. I think that to believe that only Kasparyan and Gurgenidze are worthy of title is wrong.
Please, do not try to repair what is not broken. Especially, when you have no idea at all about studies.
Also, read again what Yochanan has written - he is absolutely correct.
|(29) Posted by Torsten Linß [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 15:00]|
SD: "You don’t see the difference between football and handball."
I do, but I also see a common feature: both use balls.
Similarly, there is a difference between competative chess and chess composition, but both use a chess set.
SD: "Chess strength is one of the necessary components for someone who wants to be a good studies composer."
That's a good joke. What you need for composing studies is a solid knowledge of what types of endgames are known to be won/drawn/lost. This does not require OTB playing strength. Furthermore, you need artistic imagination and construction skills. These are elements typical of chess composition. You find them both in endgame and problem composition.
Apart from this, I don't understand your repeated reference of "problemists breaking rules". What rules does, for examples, a two-mover
composer break that a study composer does not?
|(30) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 15:32]|
Orthodox problems "break chess rules" by the requirement to give a checkmate in a given number of moves. But there are none of such additional conditions in chess studies. No difference, capish?
Torsten, you are not attentive enough. I wrote "one of the component", "a good studies composer". But you keep on acting like a clown, pretending to know better than me what is needed for composing studies.
|(31) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 20:43]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]|
>"...to believe that only Kasparyan and Gurgenidze are worthy of title is wrong."
Nobody said that, Georgy -- beyond a distortion of words, this is a logical fallacy (straw-man).
You are arguing against an opinion which has not been expressed (and may not even exist).
The total number of Grandmasters (exclusive to ANY given sub-Album section) is an entirely separate issue.
If the points required to make Grandmaster seem excessive, there are remedies which could apply equally, to all sub-Album sections (e.g., lower the arbitrary number of points required to make Grandmaster).
Once again, please remember that the issue at hand, in this thread, is to discern why a comparative advantage is provided for Study composers (a special advantage in points per composition, above the rate provided for all other category divisions).
I think it's wonderful that you have such an command of Studies Composition (I wasn't previously aware).
But, if you can not translate that into any justification for providing study composers a comparatively unfair advantage (arbitrary, fixed, and for life), over all other sub-Album sections, I fail to see how you intend to apply your "expertise."
Why not simply admit that you have no good reason for the comparative unfairness.
Your only point is to second Yochanan's only point -- which was to make clear that some believe that there are many Study composers who deserve the Grandmaster title.
That's fine -- nobody has yet disagreed with this (and the point doesn't improve by your continued repetition).
That's not the issue here, Georgy -- with all respect, you have lost focus.
This argument is a waste of your good breath.
And, you need not waste your valuable time imagining that anyone disagrees with the premise.
There are many great Study composers; and, I completely agree, more should have the Grandmaster title.
That failure is not exclusive to Studies.
The issue is: why provide an unfair advantage EXCLUSIVELY (!) to Study composers?
Do they deserve a separate title?
That is what the current remedy (1.66 points per study composition) now provides.
|(32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 21:21]|
Personal insults are not welcome here -- particularly, given the highly unfortunately absence of our moderator!
Nobody in this thread is acting like a clown.
Please, show respect for this forum (if not for others, who certainly deserve it).
|(33) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 21:24]; edited by Georgy Evseev [13-04-02]|
Yes, there is a special advantage for studies composers. No, it is not unfair or, at least, it was not considered unfair at the moment of decision.
Please, prove that it is unfair. But not from theoretical might-have-beens point of view.
The main point of Yochanan is: "One of the main reasons is that due to the unique character of this genre, study top composers are barely involved in other genres and thus diminish significantly their chances to get many entries into the albums."
|(34) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 21:28]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]|
>Please, prove that it is unfair.
Would you allow me to earn 1.66 times the points that you earn in solving contests?
We don't have enough Irish-American Solving Grandmasters.
Prove this would be unfair.
|(35) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 21:32]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]|
added: >".... study top composers are barely involved in other genres and thus diminish significantly their chances to get many entries into the albums."
Very true. Whose fault is that? Why should everyone else pay for their narrow focus?
What about the ones who do cross over into other genres (why give them an unfair advantage)?
What about composers involved exclusively in another sub-Album (why not extend the same unfair rate to them)?
Why not have separate titles for each sub-Album?
Give them some special award of dedication to one "genre."
Why encourage a composer to be a wallflower within one sub-Album?
There is no over-the-board Grandmaster title for contributions to Chess Opening theory.
There is no solving Grandmaster of Studies.
If you want to be a Grandmaster, you may have to master several challenges.
Endgames alone may not be enough.
There are many great composers, who have not earned the GM title.
|(36) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 21:50]|
>Whose fault is that?
It is not a fault. It is not a bug, it is a feature, most probably a feature of human mind.
> Why should everyone else pay for their narrow focus?
Their "narrow focus" allows them to create great studies. I am ready to pay extra 0.66 points per problem, so that they can keep this "narrow focus". And those who had set up this rule seem to have similar thoughts.
There is no limit, as I've said - everyone is free to abuse this rule to personal advantage. But somehow, I do not see a long queue of persons interested.
I can also add that currently studies "sub-album" has the most severe selection rules. It is really difficult today to create a study that will be praised as great.
|(37) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 00:12]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-03]|
That's mighty FIDE-like, of you: to charge a penalty against the other 8 sections; but, the price is not yours to pay, Georgy.
PCCC pays a hefty price -- in loss of integrity -- to abandon their responsibility to provide fair competition, for titles.
Why does every effort to reform an unfair title system always result in shady politics?
Why would a delegate want to dismiss the importance of fundamental fairness?
Do financial incentives (for titles) still linger, in certain countries, which corrupt this process?
Why do you refuse to apply your considerable problem solving skills toward finding a fair and equitable resolution?
How could any delegate be so content with the present unfairness, that he would dismiss all reform efforts, based upon a limited number of protesters in the queue?
I have witnessed this same attitude surfacing in geo-political issues; but, it's not unique to any one region -- it's an ancient, and cyclic story: somebody always wants an unfair entitlement. It always ends with fairness triumphing over corruption. Just a matter of time, and historical record.
|(38) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 06:02]|
Kevin, you have very strange notion of fairness.
Any person going for the title has exactly the same rights. If NN wants an "easier" path to title, he may compose studies. Nobody forbids him to receive bonus points.
For example, I like studies, but do not have enough understanding to compose them. And this is _my_ fault, not the fault of PCCC, or Gurgenidze, or Afek, or Begley.
|(39) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 13:31]|
The issue is that since the 1.67 weighting for studies was introduced _decades_ ago, the chess composition field has evolved markedly. The advent of computers with powerful chess-playing software and tablebases has rendered the composition of sound studies somewhat easier now than was formerly the case, thereby making obsolete the rationale for the points advantage accruing to them (relative to, say, retroanalytical compositions). It is nowadays grossly unfair to retain this weighting. It is also laughable to try to justify this injustice by asserting that studies only are 'pure' chess and that orthodox twomovers, for example, are not.
|(40) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 14:03]|
It's not laughable, old man, I just don't see other reasons why chess studies are given more points than problems. But this only reason of "pure chess" is enough for me to appreciate studies much more than problems.
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums?