Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
10:58 UTC
| |
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 | | (81) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 11:00] |
If/when WFCC mandates participation, then it's a book not an Album.
| | | (82) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 12:09] |
Say it as you want.
It is a book - as an evidence,
A book cannot be an Album ??
| | | (83) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 12:28] |
We have fundamentally different views of the role of the WFCC (to govern, not to dictate) and of the Album (to represent the composer, not the WFCC). Nuff said.
| | | (84) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 12:41]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-16] |
The only books I know that are close to your idea is the serie of Caissas Schlossebewohner. They are very nice, but not at all a'best of'...
| | | (85) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 14:25] |
May be the Album was installed to be a "Best of chess problems".
Today it is degenerated to a publication for point hunters.
Not all, but many composers want to publish not their best, but as much as possible of their own compositions. So I fully agree with the new limitation, but of course it cannot solve the main problem of a constantly increasing number of entries due to the lack of self-criticism.
| | | (86) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 19:37]; edited by Yochanan Afek [12-11-16] |
This endless however fascinating discussion is somewhat virtual failing to ask the most important question: where are the Albums? We are approaching the end of 2012. When did we last see an album?
| | | (87) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 20:35] |
@Yochanan
To answer your last question, the last album was published in 2011 (it was the 2001-2003 album). If I had to make a guess (wish?), it would be the year 2013 for the next cycle (2004-2006), 2014 for 2007-2009 and maybe 2015 for the 2010-2012 period.
| | | (88) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Friday, Nov 16, 2012 21:01] |
My copy of Album 2001-2003 says it was printed in 2011. Believe it or not, it was published the last year, even my personal blog entry says it arrived to me in June 2011 (and I have ordered it during Crete WCCC as many others) - http://lorinc.blog.sme.sk/c/267858/Vysiel-Album-FIDE-2001-2003.html
Now you surely know about Denis Blondel's premature passing and since then multiple people under Peter Gvozdják's lead are trying to finish his started (and well advanced) work on Album 2004-2006 with a view to publish it in a few months.
Then, judging of Album 2007-2009 was just finished and as soon as previous one is finished, editorial work should start. You see there is serious try to reduce the delay, on the other hand, with so many people involved and so much work it cannot be done during the eye blink.
| | | (89) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Saturday, Nov 17, 2012 02:55] |
Thanks! It seems that progress indeed has been made.One language hopefully from now on to cut process and costs. This website shows that problemists worldwide communicate quite well in one language- the chess language.
| | | (90) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 10:15]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
What is the purpose of the Album?
I agree with Frank -- it has degenerated into a crooked scoreboard, which point- and title-hunters use to seek (and measure) points and titles.
That was not the original purpose.
The Album was intended to be a collection of "best works, over a given period," based upon a group of three FIDE sanctioned judges.
The attachment of points and titles, to selected works, changed everything... dramatically!
We no longer have one Album of best works -- we have a collection of poorly divided sub-Albums (with no logical criteria for expansion of these divisions), each one is judged individually, based upon quotas, for the purpose of winning points/titles.
And, now there is a proposal to limit opportunities for entry, based upon an entrants points in the previous period.
Plus, people are suggesting that special provisions may be made for favorite composers (to exceed these limitations).
The Album was already a subjective competition -- now, it has become severely unfair.
It reflects very poorly on the art of chess problem composition.
Dan says, "the role of the WFCC (to govern, not to dictate)."
This statement reads like an attempt to dictate the role of WFCC.
In other words: don't mess with your crooked point/title ladder -- not while I'm still climbing it!
The WFCC delegation is quite capable of defining (or redefining) their own role.
If you don't agree with how they define their role, you have three choices:
1) Elect new delegates,
2) Make your own Federation (complete with Album, Points, Titles), or
3) Petition WFCC to reconsider.
Many people in this thread are asking WFCC to reconsider (a variety of issues).
There should be no suppressing of voices here -- everybody should welcome insights/petitions to improve the Album.
'Nuff said? I don't think so.
I do recognize that an alteration of purpose is a sensitive matter for people on the point/title ladder.
However, it is not my principle interest to address WFCC's resolution of point- and title-ladder issues.
As far as I am concerned, that is tangential to this discussion.
My principle interests are to restore the Album's purpose, and to protect the artform from such an unseemly competition.
| | | (91) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 10:42]; edited by Dan Meinking [12-11-18] |
KB: Dan says, "the role of the WFCC (to govern, not to dictate)."
This statement reads like an attempt to dictate the role of WFCC.
A typical distortion. Should WFCC 'dictate' to Chris Feather that he has no choice but to participate?
In every modern Album the composer is the FIRST judge. Only then do 3 other judges get to decide. We have already read about 'anomalies' (to both extremes) regarding differences in judge vs. composer views. If the WFCC 'dictates' that the composer be removed from the selection process, that is a step backward IMHO.
KB: In other words: don't mess with your crooked point/title ladder, I'm still climbing!
So it's "my" crooked ladder now? You might read my initial post where I suggest arbitrary limits, against popular opinion. I do seek an IM title, but not by stuffing the ballot box.
| | | (92) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 10:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
Dan, are you telling me that there is not a single instance of a composer whose problem was submitted to an Album (including the first Album), after that composer had passed away?
>"Should WFCC 'dictate' to Chris Feather that he has no choice but to participate?"
Yes, they should.
FYI: I've had the pleasure of an extensive conversation with Chris Feather, concerning this very issue.
It so happens that he has very similar concerns, to a number of issues raised in my prior post.
For example: He agrees that it makes little sense that composers should be required to nominate their own work(s).
He's not opposed to my suggestion -- he endorses it!
He even goes further, agruing that "Time is the best judge" -- fast turnaround spoils our perspective for a high quality Album.
He even told me that he presupposes that the purpose of the albums is "documentation."
And, concedes that to a large extent, they have morphed into a competition!
ps: I wasn't saying it was "your" crooked ladder -- "your" refers to WFCC's (it is their ladder, not yours).
| | | (93) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 11:27]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
@Dan,
>"If the WFCC 'dictates' that the composer be removed from the selection process, that is a step backward."
If your compass is wrong, the right direction will appear to be a step backward.
Your compass points to the competition of "modern" Albums (ignoring completely the swamps you've waded into, to get there).
I maintain that your direction is not True North (and, if it were, you're not on a golden path to it).
My compass -- Chris Feather's compass -- points to the original purpose of the Album (documentation)!
Chris Feather once told me: competition (titles and points) "distorts documentation."
I could not agree more.
WFCC's direction has veered, dramatically, from the Album's original pursuit.
Their means of travel is no longer fair.
And, so far, they have refused to admit a dramatic polarity shift.
This reflects poorly on the art form.
I'm simply asking WFCC to:
1) acknowledge their direction (state the true purpose of their Albums),
2) define their sub-Album divisions,
3) explain the logic behind newly created divisions, and
4) provide a fair opportunity to all qualified participants, if they chose to warp the Album into a competition.
[If your purpose is competition, make it fair (it is not). And, admit that the Albums no longer provide high-quality documentation (which was originally expected).]
But, they can not continue to pretend to service two masters.
Either their purpose is competition, or their purpose is documentation.
True North can not be both directions.
| | | (94) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 11:45] |
KB: >"If the WFCC 'dictates' that the composer be removed from the selection process, that is a step backward." If your compass is wrong, the right direction will appear to be a step backward.
If WFCC eliminates points and titles, fine. But I still believe composer pre-selection is essential. Otherwise the "Album" is just a book, authored by WFCC.
There are many sources of documentation. The Album, on the other hand, gives the composer a chance to put his/her best work forward.
| | | (95) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 11:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
@Dan,
If the purpose were strictly a competition, I might agree with you.
The composer's own judgement is probably the best, and most essential measure of skill.
Mastery of an art might well depend upon nothing, except good artistic judgement, and time.
Especially in the era of computerized composing tools!
[edit: search efficiency becomes moot, because computer tools provide an artificial boost.
Constructional skill is generally a misnomer for search efficiency.
But, there is a a third element of mastery, which judges often under-appreciate: creativity.
With a greater time-span for judgement, truly original thematic ideas are more likely to get the consideration they deserve!]
Our primary difference lies elsewhere -- with purpose: documentation or competition?
Also, recent proposals (which spawned this very thread) suggest an alarming departure from fairness (and we had little to begin with)!
| | | (96) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 12:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
@Dan,
You say:
>"There are many sources of documentation. The Album, on the other hand, gives the composer a chance to put his/her best work forward."
There are many alternative methods to put your best work forward.
We both know that the Album does not do this for you -- some of your best work does not appear in the Album!
That's true of almost everybody.
That's why you have your collection available: to document your best work.
The Albums cannot document this for you.
But, if you give them the advantage of time, they can document the best problems of a period, with a much better perspective than we, who live through it, are afforded.
There are better methods to award points/titles.
I would start by assuring that the method conforms to the artists natural pursuit.
An artist does not naturally set out to create a dozen (or 25, or 70) very good problems.
We endeavor to create either one masterpiece, or one more.
We should be judged how near we came to it, rather than how often we came near.
| | | (97) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 12:14]; edited by Dan Meinking [12-11-18] |
OK, let's suppose the Album is for documentation only, without composer input and without points/titles. That 'documentation' is only as good as its sources, most likely PDB and WinChloe.
There are plenty of good problems that don't get added until years after-the-fact. In many cases, the analysis is incomplete, or 'jumbled', or incorrect, or non-existent. And many analyses overlook nuances that the composer intended to show.
The composer is the best source for selecting and presenting his/her own work. Those are the essential elements offered by the (present) Album protocol.
| | | (98) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 12:37]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
>OK, let's suppose the Album is for documentation only, without composer input and without points/titles.
>That 'documentation' is only as good as its sources, most likely PDB and WinChloe.
Given the benefit of considerable time, judges for the first Album performed an admirable job of scouring every source they could find.
WinChloe and PDB were not available to them; but, these resources (and others like them) will continue to provide an invaluable aid in documentation efforts.
That said, you do make a fine point: perhaps the Album should not be set in stone (read: print).
It is rather absurd to include problems which later proved incorrect (especially when no correction is possible).
And, it is equally absurd to exclude problems which were only later discovered.
The Nobel Prize in Physics, for any given year, can be reconsidered -- why should this not hold for an Album intended to document the best chess problems, too?
Were it not for the purpose of points/titles, would anyone want their unsound work to appear in a collection of their "best works" ?
I find no good argument against digitizing the Albums, assuming FIDE's financial interests can still be met.
>The composer is the best source for selecting and presenting his/her own work.
I don't think that's true (though, I've probably made the same statement, on occasion).
What we consider to be our own best work does not always hold up, with the years.
I would agree that we generally have a better insight into our own work, than our colleagues may; and, I'm still far more interested to learn how a composer evaluates their own problems.
But, I would trust in the future, even more than myself.
Remember: we are comparing our own assessment against the rapid turnaround of an Album judgement.
And, we are then judging which of these is more accurate.
We might include several problems, among our best works, for which the soundness can not be determined.
We would discard all such problems, if permitted to look ahead in time.
And, beyond mere soundness, the benefits of perspective and objectivity (also afforded with time) are likely to produce a better documentation of our best work.
Ultimately, the future will judge (and document) our works -- that is quite sufficient.
I, for one, refuse to accept that they should judge us -- particularly on the basis of titles earned in our highly corrupted points race.
Furthermore, I reject that they should document us based upon the outcome of a quick competition.
I will say this, despite the present system's numerous, glaring imperfections, the outstanding composers recognized have generally proven fairly credible.
My argument is not with the outcome, but the process.
| | | (99) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 13:54] |
KB: "The composer is the best source for selecting and presenting his/her own work." I don't think that's true.
The composer knows his own thoughts on a problem, and is best equipped to 'document' it. That includes presentation of variations, comments on particular thematic elements, predecessors or comparison problems, etc.
KB: What we consider to be our own best work does not always hold up, with the years.
Sure, but any number of years we allow to pass will be arbitrary. In the meantime memories fade, trends and tastes change, composers pass away, and so on. Better to 'document' in the here-and-now, then correct/adjust the record later when necessary.
| | | (100) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Nov 18, 2012 14:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-18] |
Sorry, Dan... I didn't see you were still online, and made some further edits to my previous post.
>"The composer knows his own thoughts on a problem, and is best equipped to 'document' it."
I agree that you are the best person to document your own problems; and, your insights into them are invaluable.
But, you may not be the best person to judge it.
>"...memories fade, trends and tastes change..."
True -- there is an element of fashion mixed in the business of problem judgement.
New ideas may come along, which may shift the perceived value of our works.
Generally speaking, I am optimistic that this will tend to more accurately reflect the true value of a problem.
But, it doesn't matter if I'm wrong -- the fact is, the future will be the ultimate judge of our works, one way or another... whether we would like the outcome, or not... and, we can only guess what that might be.
>"Better to 'document' in the here-and-now, then correct/adjust the record later when necessary."
The composer's own documentation provides the best resource to inform the future.
It provides the best context (which might otherwise fade from view) for a work, and a clear window into the creator's intent.
But, I certainly would not consider this the most objective judgement.
And, I would still presume that the future was afforded a superior perspective on the subject matter.
| |
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
