Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
4:03 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Album Threshold Mysteries |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 18:13] |
You are right! This is also a very positive effect, as far as there are a minimum number of entries, and of represented nationalities in a qualifying tourney. :-)
| | | (42) Posted by Hans Gruber [Wednesday, Jul 4, 2007 23:47] |
Hi Guy,
I am afraid your idea would too clearly prefer composers of those kinds of problems of which the most tourneys are announced (helpmates?! maybe two-movers?! even two-mover miniatures?!?!)
hg hg
| | | (43) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 00:29] |
Dear Hans,
You are right, at least for the special tourneys or jubilees. On the other hand most of the reviews are awarding the originals yearly, also fairies, proof games, etc...
With the existing system, most of the IM and IGM are composers of orthodox problems, and mainly the ones that you mention. This lack of balance is a current situation that reflects the level of production for each kind of problems. I agree that my "suggest" has not for objective to improve that (if needed).
Even if a normal effect should be the development of new sections in some reviews, and also of new special tourneys and jubilees, as forescast by Thomas.
| | | (44) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 09:13]; edited by Uri Avner [07-07-05] |
@ Guy Sobrecases
Your idea to base composing titles on tourney results sounds natural and straightforward, bypassing many difficulties inherent in the current system, saving a lot of time and energy ... and so one cannot resist complicating it a little bit...
The main problem stems from the inequality among tourneys as to their level/strength (a) of the participating composers, (b) of the actual entries submitted and (c) of judges.
If we take the Fide example, we can try to overcome this problem by exercising a central control over tourneys. That is, only those tourneys authorized by the PCCC, will be eligible for titles. This eligibility, so it seems, can only be granted post factum, seeing that the tourney in question meets specific criteria. There can also be different categories for different tourneys.
This, make no mistake, still leaves many problems unsolved.
Anyway, a food for thought for the PCCC, perhaps...
| | | (45) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 09:15]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-07-05] |
On the recent discussion, see what I wrote more than half a year ago, please!
http://www.selivanov.ru/download/Articles/Chudesa/Hor.doc
I still agree with myself!
QUOTE
It would be nice to have a central position where tourneys are announced and executed (e.g. prizes are sent to them and they send it to winners). At the moment, Jan Golha shows announcement of many tourneys on his website but everything else is decentralized.
QUOTE
There should be accredition for judges by absolving a class. This should take no less than a weekend and no more than two full weeks. This also must be centrally organized. Only approved judges should judge tourneys. Note this doesn't replace judge titles but give a minimum of experience judges need.
QUOTE
I think, titles should be awarded for certain successes. There should be titles for every form of composition so that no grandmaster of studies can be considered grandmaster of fairy chess. Next, titles should be awarded by the importance of a person. It is very hard to understand why for example the Platov brothers should not gain a title.
I believe there should stay three titles. These should be National Master, International Master and Grandmaster. For National Master it should be enough to win either five tourneys or reach one of the first three ranks of a WCCT. For International Master it should be enough to win fifteen tourneys or reach one of the first two ranks of three WCCT. For grandmaster it should be enough to win twenty-five tourneys or win three WCCT. There should be points for ranks to make things equal. So there may be awarded ten points for first prize in a tourney, six points for second prize etc. while WCCT should count ten times those points. There must be tables worked out etc. Of course the numbers in the examples are just examples. A more detailed chart will have to be worked out.
PS: I even go as far today! I say, PCCC must become completely independent of FIDE.
 |
| | | (46) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Thursday, Jul 5, 2007 10:45] |
@Uri Avner
I fully agree with your comments. Eligibility of the tourneys by the PCCC, and fixing of categories are important.
A good balance can be perhaps that the PCCC, looking on judgements, will attribute norms (points?) according to the tourney level (number of competitors, entries, nationalities, titled composers, is the judge titled or not,...) and category (easier).
| | | (47) Posted by Hans Gruber [Friday, Jul 6, 2007 23:28] |
hi all,
it is quite probable that we are going to commit a kind of collective suicide if the (worldwide) few activists in chess composition spend so much time in defining, refining, defending, and extending rules for our small world of chess composition.
defining and classifying the strength of tourneys, sending (future) judges to a class, setting up rules and persecuting those who don't follow them, etc.: well, but ...
... then we have to continue answering more difficult questions:
* who is permitted to define and classify the strength of tourneys?
* who is permitted to teach at judging classes?
* who is permitted to set up rules and persecuting those who don't follow them?
don't answer: the grandmasters are permitted! (they have been chosen according to a system which seems to be faulty and thus has to be changed.)
don't answer: the international judges! (they have been chosen according to a much less elaborated system that those used for producing grandmaster; none of them ever visited a judging class; those who chose them never visited a judging class, and many of them not even are international judges.)
don't answer: the PCCC! (do you know how members qualify to become member of PCCC, which tests they have to master, which classes they have to visit?)
(and be aware that if you find a different answer XY, then the next question would be who legitimates this XY, etc.)
come on: less regulations, not more!
in the magazine feenschach we are just introducing a new column "tourney reports" with the main intention to provide high quality criticism of tourney judgments. don't destroy our fun of this for setting rules that help to produce perfect judges who produce perfect judgments.
hg hg
| | | (48) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Monday, Jul 16, 2007 21:39] |
Dear Hans,
I understand your worries. On the other hand, I do not see any persecution when some authorities are reading judgements to attribute norms. The same to evaluate the category and the strength of a tourney according to the a/m parameters. I agree that it is not perfect, but one has to start somewhere. That's the way it works for the Chess players norms, and I think that this long experience should help to avoid the risks that you mention, thanks to some adaptations for composers.
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General Album Threshold Mysteries |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
