Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
8:16 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Album Threshold Mysteries |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (21) Posted by Uri Avner [Monday, Jun 25, 2007 04:55]; edited by Uri Avner [07-06-27] |
A good fit between titles and chess composition means a much higher correlation between the relative strength of composers and the titles they hold.
The noticeable inequality that actually exists between the two sides of the equation (ideally, strength = adequate title) is not necessarily a fault of the title-granting system. Rather it is, in my opinion, an unavoidable outcome resulting from the very nature of our field.
Unfortunately (or rather fortunately), there is no purely objective measure out there for the value of chess compositions. All sort of subjective tastes play a role here, as well as uncontrollable factors like the test of time. Then, when coming to evaluate the overall strength of the composer, there is still the everlasting dilemma of quantity against quality.
The situation is the same with other artistic fields, where no titles are granted. And that is not at all because painters or music-composers are less competitive than problem-composers; if anything, they seem even more so.
And yet, believe it or not, the absence of titles does not impede our ability to recognize the supremacy of Picasso, Beethoven or Samuel Loyd. In fact, the combination "Grandmaster Loyd" sounds to me rather strange. "Loyd" is more than enough!
| | | (22) Posted by Hans Gruber [Tuesday, Jun 26, 2007 10:40] |
Dear Yochanan,
tourneys sometimes are quite good occasions for lazybones to get started with composing (instead of watching TV or so)!
And they are good to get orientated as reader - if one happens to have subscribed many magazines (I happily do), it is often impossible to study every diagram. It is probably (hopefully!) a quite good strategy to select the prize-winners of tourneys rather than the commendations if you have to make a choice. This heuristic certainly is not perfect, and the reader will miss a substantial number of excellent compositions (... thus a second chance: FIDE-Album), but it seems to me to be a sufficient one. (I try to combine it with two other strategies: looking for compositions of composer whom I appreciate, and trying to get more time for studying the magazines.)
I do not know how important titles (in such a small community as chess composition) are for the titleholders (presenting titles to each other within small communities is something that I always thought to be a very German habit in our village clubs, soccer club, gardening clubs, shooting clubs). Maybe that the titleholder I know closest, Hans Peter Rehm, is atypical, but he does not at all care being Grandmaster (even the one with second or third most points worldwide). He is pianist and mathematician as well, and perhaps that helps him to be aware that it is outstanding performance that counts, not titles.
You know much more about OTB chess, and here the situation might be quite different. This is professional in nature, and salaries (and invitations) might depend on the titles you hold. And the community is much, much larger of course, so the titles give much more of an orientation. Of course, it is not important whether Kramnik, Topalov, and other world-class players hold titles or not - they do not need them any more. But that is another story which probably was your argument some mails ago: In OTB chess the most successful actors more or less automatically and very quickly get the title(s). This is a consequence of many more features of OTB play, e. g. the easy possibility of comparing performance (Elo system), the more explicit nature of matches against opponents etc. My guess is that if we look carefully at features and purposes of the title system in OTB chess, we had to conclude that titles SHOULD BE abandoned in chess composition.
hg hg
| | | (23) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Tuesday, Jun 26, 2007 11:18] |
Dear Hans,
The prizes system is also aimed at motivating composers to excell. That is human nature and if you will just listen to how sometimes composers react to what they consider"unjust judgement" you would realize how much this dimension counts. And the WCCT? can we find such outburst of patriotic competitiveness in any other art? .I see nothing wrong with the fact that chess composition has also this sportive-competitive side and the titles have certainly given many good composers (especially in the former Soviet block)extra drive and status.
Even if I would mostly agree with your well argumented position there still remains the practical question: Can you abandon the titles that have already been awarded? who would like to take such responsibility?
the reply is pretty clear to me and leaves the entire discussion purely academic.
| | | (24) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Jun 26, 2007 13:49]; edited by Neal Turner [07-06-26] |
When comparing chess composition with other forms of creative endeavour - Literature, Art etc - it should be remembered that successful practitioners of the latter get their rewards from general public acclaim and financial benefit - in other words Fame & Wealth!
As we are all painfully aware, this doesn't apply to problem composers - all we can hope for is the appreciation of our fellow enthusiasts - prizes and titles give form to this appreciation.
One advantage of this system is that we can be confident that distinction in our field is well-earned - there's no Paris Hiltons in Problem Chess!!
| | | (25) Posted by Uri Avner [Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 10:47]; edited by Uri Avner [07-06-27] |
In coming to establish a hierarchy of composers in the form of different titles, we should not only strive to satisfy the archaic competitive drive, important as it might be for any cultural achievement, but ask ourselves other substantial questions, like:
(a) Is it wise to create such formal hierarchy among us?
We must remember that any hierarchy means inequality and its associated feelings.
(b) If the answer to (a) is yes, is it at all possible?
Because, if this hierarchy does not accurately reflect reality but rather creates a fake one (as it actually does to a large extend), then a great injustice is being done which might overshadow the advantages of such system.
And why, one may ask, we keep carrying composing tourneys in spite of their well known imprecision? Well, one wrong does not justify another, but more importantly, it is one thing to have an incorrect order of chess problems and another to establish a wrong hierarchy of composers.
Speaking of composing tourneys, in my opinion we need them to provide the stage for compositions that otherwise would escape the attention of the potential audience and, yes, in their imperfect way to award the recognition and incentive to excel to their composers.
Nothing more (besides books, articles and the like) is really needed.
| | | (26) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 13:30]; edited by Neal Turner [07-06-27] |
Within any group there's always going to be a hierarchy, formal or informal.
What's important is the effect that one's position within the hierarchy has on one's relations with others.
In my experience, occupying quite a lowly place in the problemist hierarchy, I've found that it hardly matters a jot.
In the Problem World there's no bar at all for ordinary mortals to mix with masters, grandmasters, world champions.
This is in stark contrast to OTB chess where the distinctions are much more evident.
| | | (27) Posted by Hans Gruber [Wednesday, Jun 27, 2007 16:41] |
Dear Yochanan,
of course you are right that some (many?!) composers are motivated by prizes and awards! And of course titles cannot (and should not) be withdrawn! (Both prizes and titles indicate apprecation of one's composer's work!) But how much would our world change if both did not exist?
Just to turn to the other side: As a (relatively busy) judge, I try to give good reasons why I consider some compositions worth to be re-studied by readers. (Or to give advice: If you have limited time and can study only two compositions of this tourney, then take those to which I gave the first two prizes.) I do not intend to honour the author(s)! But of course I recognise that - to take an example - in retro tournaments I very often advice the audience to re-study problems by Michel Caillaud. That indeed is the cause why I appreciate his composing skills very much. If he would compose ONLY retro problems (which is not the case), and if retros were not eligible for the album (which is not the case), he would not get a title (fortunately, he is grandmaster) - but that would not touch my appreciation of his work. A different case: Hans Peter Rehm appreciates the work of Erich Zepler for similar reasons (I agree, by the way); Zepler never got the title of grandmaster (although he applied for it, at times when the procedure was different). The only consequence Hans Peter drew from that was that for some time he lost interest in PCCC matters, because it used a system that was obviously wrong in his opinion.
OK--some good reasons to have titles! But these are different from the (clearly more material, more competitive, and more comparative) titles in OTB chess. And we have good means in our field to enjoy highest quality without caring about titles.
hg hg
| | | (28) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 07:12]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-06-28] |
A proposal for granting more titles from the Fide albums in a "good" way, would be to consider the marks given by the judges.
It seems "natural" that a 12 points problem could receive more weight for the titles than a 8 points problem.
So I propose the following system :
8 pts -> 1 (as it is now)
10 pts -> 2
12 pts -> 3
(of course 9 -> 1,5 ; 11 -> 2,5)
The simple rule is every point over 8 gives 0,5 more for the title (every 0,5 more gives 0,25 and so on). And the whole is divided between the authors in case of co-signatures.
In case of selected problems at 7,5 or 7, the rule does not change, and additionnal weight begins still over 8
This seems to provoke complicated calculation, but, due to computers help, it could be very simple.
This, in any case, does not increase so much the general marks for titles because of the low number of problems with good marks - The number of selected problems decreases very quickly when the marks grow. For instance, problems with 12pts are very few.
To give a reward to very good marks increases the pressure for very good problems. That has only positive effects
| | | (29) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 12:15]; edited by Uri Avner [07-07-02] |
This proposal is, by the way, not new...
But one should realize that it is based on some assumptions:
a) That the Album marks are sufficiently consistent (i.e. remaining the same for every group of judges or even for the same three judges over different days of the week).
b) That there is no risk of a reciprocal influence on the marks themselves by their relevance for titles (in such a detailed method where every half point counts).
c) That some Album judges would still be willing to do the work in these conditions.
All three assumptions are, in my opinion, far from being secure. And so, this really beautiful suggestion, which I would otherwise love to endorse, seems much too dangerous to put into action.
| | | (30) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 12:24] |
My 10 Eurocents:
The whole /zores/ completely stems from one fact:
A sport title is awarded for an art achievement.
Whereas this is not unprecedented (think of the Oscar),
it's naturally impossible to find a solution doing justice to
everyone.
Hauke
| | | (31) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 13:46] |
@ Hauke Reddmann
What is unprecedented in our field is the setting up of a linear hierarchy among composers.
Does this reflect reality (and the non-linear nature of chess composition as part of Art in general)? And do we really need it?
(And do you speak Yiddish?)
| | | (32) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 17:57]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-06-28] |
Dear Uri,
Your answer to my proposal sounds strange :
In any case, the existing system is built on judges' marks and all the doubts you say might already be effective.
So, it seems that your position is a radical critisism of the existing system.
It's interesting, at least.
Moreover, you say, that it's not new ? really ? and what does it add ??
My proposal is just an improvement of the system.
| | | (33) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 18:50]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [07-06-29] |
@ Jacques : Your proposal is quite similar to that of Loustau and Aschwanden, which was submitted to PCCC for evaluation in 2005. Unfortunately, this was not discussed during the Eretria congress. Last year in Wageningen, it seems that only the Qualifications sub-committee reviewed it (this as well as the other proposals, namely by Kovacevic, Zajic, Rice) and considered that "no changes to the present arrangements were necessary or desirable. The FIDE Album should remain the sole source of points, and there should be no retroactive element." Towards the end of last year's meeting, I had the impression that the sub-committee dealt only with the proposal for possible extensions of the opportunities to gain composing titles (mainly taking into consideration also the WCCT and WCCI performance), so I specifically asked about the rest of them. Both proposals by Loustau/Aschwanden and Kovacevic are to be discussed this year in Rhodes, hopefully more extensively this time.
Those who are not familiar with the proposals may refer to feenschach 161, Sep-Nov 2005, which includes all the so far proposals, open letters, etc. which were circulated during 2004-05.
| | | (34) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Jun 28, 2007 23:21]; edited by Uri Avner [07-06-28] |
Hello Jacques,
You seem to have jumped into radical conclusions regarding my reply...
Let's say you've hit on about 10% of my actual beliefs.
| | | (35) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Jun 30, 2007 23:02]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-06-30] |
@Harry Fougiaxis
I asked Jean-Marc Loustau
He told me that he did not submit a proposal, but wrote a letter in french to John Rice that was intended to be followed with a proposal, but John dealt it out as is. Jean-Marc tells me that he has no more his original text, but his main proposal was to attribute titles according to marks : for example a GMI title up to now needs at least 70 problems at 8 pts that is 560 pts. The possible change was to keep this 560 pts but even with less problems. And so on for the other titles. This was a proposal among others of the same kind.
This is another possibility I would agree with. This change is less drastic than the one I proposed : for example in my proposal 23 problems at 12 gives 3 x 23 = 69 pts with another point it gives the title of GMI. In the proposal of J-M L. 47 problems at 12 gives 564 and the title.
The main idea is to take in account the different level of marks obtained by the problems.
I think that it is difficult to say that it is equal to obtain problems with 8 or with 12 pts.
| | | (36) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Sunday, Jul 1, 2007 00:24] |
I uploaded both proposals of Aschwanden/Loustau and Kovacevic. You may get them from :
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/harryfou/pccc_2005_proposal_aschwanden_loustau.rtf
http://users.forthnet.gr/ath/harryfou/pccc_2005_proposal_kovacevic.rtf
I also consider that the main idea to take into account the points given to the problems is interesting, sounds fair and needs to be seriously examined.
| | | (37) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Monday, Jul 2, 2007 11:42]; edited by Yochanan Afek [07-07-02] |
Let us continue to slaughter the sacred cows one by one! I find the solving titles much less inadequate than the composing ones. What is it all about? There are numerous types of solving competitions in the world, be it national or international, individual or teams: mathematics, trivia, spelling,scrabble, geographical, musical, biblical,you name it. Any titles awarded? to the best of my knowledge -none! have you ever heard of a grandmaster in solving crosswords?
can you compare the amount of knowledge and devotion one needs to do well in any of the above with chess problem solving? The rules of chess and a couple of genre definitions would do. The rest like anything else is up to your brains and practice. Can one compare what it takes to become a title holder in over the board chess or bridge or even... problem composing with chess problem solving? Does the solver create anything original and valuable to make him worthy of a title?
Problem solving is a lovely pastime hobby and a highly efficient way to attract the general chess public to the magic of chess composition. Nevertheless for no one it has yet become a pivotal life issue. Without offending anybody: Isn't it the cheapest way to gain the highest professional chess recognition with the minimal investment? Doesn't it contribute to the devaluation of the other titles?
| | | (38) Posted by Hans Gruber [Monday, Jul 2, 2007 18:19] |
Dear Yochanan,
very worthwhile thoughts. Just an anecdote from Germany. Sometimes our federal president (or some deputies) arrange some bestowal of decorations: The "Silbernes Lorbeerblatt" is highest highest decoration sportsmen ever can receive in Germany (the national football team and coach Klinsmann got it after last year's championship performance) ... Franz Beckenbauer got it ... and: Helmut Pfleger and Wolfgang Unzicker (Pfleger probably mainly for his publicity work, but Unzicker certainly for sportive performance in OTB play) ... and: the German solving team (Pfannkuche, Tummes, Zude)!!!
hg hg
| | | (39) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Monday, Jul 2, 2007 20:05] |
I am very new in the nice world of chess composing, and I have of course no advice to give. So, this is only a remark. It seems to me that the system for the titles atttribution is too much complicated, and generates a lot of paper. These are also mainly the criticism written against it. I think that the submitted problems for the FIDE album have already been judged.
The following process (or similar) has probably already been discussed, but I don't see what are the drawbacks that it contains:
x prizes (granted by x' different judges minimum) = IM
y prizes (granted by y' different judges minimum)= IGM
| | | (40) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 08:53] |
QUOTE
The following process (or similar) has probably already been discussed, but I don't see what are the drawbacks that it contains:
x prizes (granted by x' different judges minimum) = IM
y prizes (granted by y' different judges minimum)= IGM
It establishes a positive correlation between the number of tourneys and the number of titles. Expect to see the number of tourneys rise dramatically.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General Album Threshold Mysteries |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
