|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| (61) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Nov 9, 2012 12:01] |
On a sidenote, I'm a scientist and firsthand know the overall steady
increase of publications there.
The default action of journals is
a) increase the rejection quota. (You can always enter your spam, eh, paper again
at some more low-brow journal. Their number increases too.)
b) more specializing (indirectly increases the number of journals, spin-offs)
c) shortening the interval between consecutive issues.
Drawing parallels/outlining differences is left to the reader :-)
Hauke
|
|
| (62) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Nov 11, 2012 10:57]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-11] |
@ Kevin
It seems that you do not feel what I mean.
"Spam" is pollution. To send spam is to pollute. It is not moral. It is an accusing word.
I think it is not good to be accusative in that way.
Moreover to say that there are any secondary calculation in that is completely out of any purpose.
The judgements are most unpredictable and then it is a fair behaviour for any author to send all his production, even those problems that he estimates "medium" or "low", because there are (many) surprises.
|
|
| (63) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Nov 12, 2012 02:49] |
@Jacques,
And, your position remains unclear, to me.
I don't quite understand your point, here.
I'm not advocating that judges label problems as "spam."
I simply suggested that they might penalize entries below some threshold, in order to discourage entries of a quality perceived (by 3 judges) to be an unsatisfactory submission.
It doesn't mean the 3 judges are correct.
And, regardless the term you use to describe it, the point of the penalty would remain (to discourage excessive entries, which tend not to please judges).
|
|
| (64) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 12, 2012 04:04] |
What is unclear ?
you want to penalize ? - I don't agree
you want to discourage entries ? - I think it's better to encourage entries - of any level!
Any author participating should be welcome regardless of the number and of the quality of the problems he sends.
|
|
| (65) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Nov 12, 2012 04:07] |
Althought it has certainly some entertainment value, I feel that your private feud is a bit distracting. :-)
|
|
| (66) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 12, 2012 04:29] |
no feud, sorry Siegfried.
But I am happy if you are distracted.
Thanks
|
|
| (67) Posted by Olaf Jenkner [Tuesday, Nov 13, 2012 01:34] |
" it is a fair behaviour for any author to send all his production, even those problems that he estimates "medium" or "low", because there are (many) surprises. "
Ask Gerd if he makes a script to pull out all problems of the last three years from the PDB. He sends 20000 problems to the judges and we all wait for surprises.
|
|
| (68) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Nov 13, 2012 03:34]; edited by Nikola Predrag [12-11-13] |
Hm, I think that Jacques is right, everyone should be welcome. Is it possible to realize? Several qualifying steps involving many judges seem as inevitable. Obviously, the first job that should precede such an enterprise would be a formulation of pretty clear and uniform criteria for the evaluation of problems, that's easy :)
|
|
| (69) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Nov 13, 2012 18:59] |
OK, Jacques has it right.
Every problem of the period should be considered -- whether submitted or not.
Now, how to judge them fairly?
I suggest: wait ~50 years, and judge them all like the first album was judged.
|
|
| (70) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Nov 14, 2012 08:15]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-14] |
I had a look at what can be found in WinChloe : for 2007 - 2009 you have about 25 000 problems registered, without knowing more, it might mean that there where published in these years not more than 50 000 problems - all sections together.
With a little good will, I think there are possibilities to cope with this task.
I just remind you that in previous years - before the databases - to obtain such a big collection was not possible.
|
|
| (71) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Nov 14, 2012 13:32] |
hm..... 150 (50 x 3) judges ?
|
|
| (72) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Nov 14, 2012 19:58]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-15] |
You have already 9 teams of 4 judges = 36.
There are many ways to organize this kind of work. The main point is the will to do so.
Moreover the work let's say for 2013-2015 can begin on the 1st of January 2013.
|
|
| (73) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 05:22] |
Here's an interesting anecdote. For the latest FIDE Album, I submitted about 10 Fairy entries to the controller, and, unlike most problemists it seems, ranked them from what I considered to be the best problem down to the least good. Most - not all - of them had won some award in their respective tourney (including a couple of 1st-Prize winners!), but in the end only a single problem was selected for the Album by the three judges. This composition was in fact quite low down on my list, and it was unawarded in its tourney ("Mat Plus")! I am certainly not an inexperienced composer, but my point is that composers themselves, however experienced, are demonstrably not good judges of their own efforts when apparent anomalies like this occur. Conclusion: There is no accounting for widely divergent tastes! The FIDE Album seems to me to be more akin to a lottery. This quasi-random phenomenon makes it almost impossible to know what to submit and what NOT to submit; though since the judges are known, one might try to second-guess their particular tastes... It's no wonder many composers submit large numbers of entries!
|
|
| (74) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 08:10] |
I am sure there are many such examples. It is not the composer alone, even Editors and Judges can have vastly divergent views. My friend C.G.S.Narayanan composed a nice Cross checker (twomover) in the eighties. It was rejected by a famous problem magazine for publication! Later it was published and won the first prize in the problem column of Nortwest Chess (USA) and was also selected for that year's FIDE Album!
|
|
| (75) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 10:50] |
Call me a stick-in-the-mud but... pointing to judging/editing anomalies as a reason to "judge everything" for a FIDE Album is ridiculous. I've had anomalies of the other kind: problems which received Prizes (or lesser honors) that I would NOT want published in any Album. My point is: We don't want the criteria for what is "publishable" to, by default, be construed as "worthy of Album consideration".
The best method is to let composers select their own candidates, and go from there. The logistics of how the selections are communicated can surely be improved.
Here's a proposal, assuming the PDB folks would be willing to accommodate:
- composers may submit batch files for loading into PDB
- this gives each problem a unique PDB problem-ID
- composers can then submit the PDB problem-IDs for their candidates
- entries are sub-divided by Album section, and duplicates are dropped
This eliminates many logistical issues. Easier said than done, of course.
In any case, the amount of work any Album judge must endure should be the next consideration. I believe that setting a fixed limit (per judge), and allotting multiple judge-teams per section (based on volumes from the previous cycle) is the best way to address that issue.
|
|
| (76) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 14:52] |
'... pointing to judging/editing anomalies as a reason to "judge everything" ...'
1) this is not bound to that
2) what was pointed out in the previous posts has not to be called 'anomalies'... it is the normal way.
3) if we agree that the main purpose of these albums is to be a kind of 'best of' why not, technically, built it as good as possible ?
Times have changed. The computer and databases are a revolution... and still the album will go on its old way ?
|
|
| (77) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Nov 15, 2012 20:27] |
Nothing I've suggested prevents an Album from being 'as good as possible'. By submitting his/her own candidates, the composer also declares which are not candidates. And the technology is wonderful, but it must be applied sensibly. No matter how smooth the logistics, a judge must still judge.
|
|
| (78) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 06:20]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-16] |
@Dan
If you were writing a book about chess problems, would you ask each author of the problems you want to show what he thinks ?
And if you do, you will be, in fine, responsible to follow or not to follow this or that criticism. You are the author of the book, you decide.
For the albums, the team of judges is the author. They may ask all help they want, but, in fine, they decide.
Now let's say that the total production over the period is 50 000, let's say that you have 1 000 problems in the album.
If they can say something like : ' Here is a selection of 2% 'best' problems of these years ' it is of course very impressive !
I don't think it is actually the place, here, to propose any process, but for sure, it can be done!
|
|
| (79) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 08:14] |
@Jacques
If one wishes to write a book and have 3 people select problems for it, that is their prerogative. But this is a FIDE Album, and it belongs first to the composers and second to the judges. When the composer is removed from that equation, it becomes just another book.
|
|
| (80) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 09:53]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-16] |
This is exactly what the albums are.
'Belongs to the composers' ??? sorry it does not mean a lot.
WFCC represents all problem chess fans -it might be so- it gives mandate. When the mandate is accepted, the power is full.
The composers are not in the picture.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Limit on number of entries for FIDE Album |
ISC 2024
