|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
| (1) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 18:54] |
FIDE ALBUM 2013-2015 – Results in section E
Of the six prize-winning tasks, not one was chosen for FIDE ALBUM. Honestly, no interest in the composition. In FIDE Albums, I met a lot of tasks with differences between COMM and HM. I wish our humane judgments all the best. You fellows!
|
|
| (2) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 19:12] |
Kenan Velikhanov (Azerbaijan)
ЮК «ПОБЕДА-70» -2015
3rd prize
1n61r1p1p22p2Pb14krN13Np1KB4p37b3R3n
1.Bh7 Sde6(A)(Sge6?) 2.f:e6(d:e6?) Sf7#,
1.Sa6 Sge6(B)(Sde6?) 2.d:e6(f:e6?) S:c6#
1.Kd6 Bg3+ 2.Re5 Sde6#(A),
1.K:f6 Rf1 2.Be5 Sge6#(B).
|
|
| (3) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 19:15] |
Kenan Velikhanov(Azerbaijan)
Variantim,12.2014(64/2603)
2nd prize
83rB382n3R13k1n1q1br51P3PP15K
1. Scd3 Bc5+(A) 2. Ke4 f3#(B)
1. Rd3 f3 (B) 2. Bc4 Bxc5#(A)
1. Kc4 bxc3(C) 2. Rd3 Rc5#(D)
1.Sfd3 Rxc5(D) 2. Qe4 bxc3#(C)
|
|
| (4) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 19:18] |
Kenan Velikhanov (Azerbaijan)
2nd Azerbaijan chess composin cup-2015
1st place
5R22K3B1r71p4b11P1PpPP12pppp1P2Nk1N
1.Rf6 Sxd3 (Sxe3?) 2.Kxd3 Sa3 3.Kxd4 Rd8# 1.Bf6 Sxe3 (Sxd3?) 2.Kxe3 Sh1 3.Kxf4 Bh6#
|
|
| (5) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 19:49] |
Dear Kenan,
the aim of Album selection is not to autoselect all prizewinners.
And the aim of this forum cannot be to collect all complaints of composers, which problems were not be choosen for an Album.
|
|
| (6) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Nov 29, 2017 20:13] |
Dear Frank, well, I somewhere have to express my dissatisfaction)))
|
|
| (7) Posted by Torsten Linß [Thursday, Nov 30, 2017 00:08] |
Sorry, Kenan, I agree with the judges. Also in my opinion neither of the three problems you present is of album quality.
Torsten
|
|
| (8) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Thursday, Nov 30, 2017 04:53] |
But I've seen many poor-quality tasks in Albums. What is wrong with these tasks? For example, the problem of H # 3, the change in function of the whites of white figures and pawns. Correct mats with bunches overlapping figures on Grimshaw, with a homogeneous game.
|
|
| (9) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Nov 30, 2017 14:12] |
Well Torsten, the first Kenan's problem (ЮК «ПОБЕДА-70» -2015 3rd prize) is not so resolutely "below the album quality" as you think. At least in the opinion of 5 WCCI judges who marked it 3/2.5/2.5/2.5/2.5
It's closer to "ought" than to just "could" be in the Album.
But as Michel said, while WCCI would evaluate the "composer's skills", FA should present the "historically significant problems".
|
|
| (10) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 09:34] |
The helpmates section in the JT "Победа-70" was a strong tourney (I was the judge). The 1st Prize (h#2.5 Krizhanovsky), the 4th Prize (h#4.5 Shorokhov) and the 1st HM (h#2 Gurov) are selected to the Album.
|
|
| (11) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 13:03] |
I do not want to offend colleagues and therefore I will not publish problems that are much weaker and have got to the album. From this, such a conclusion that some judge not by quality but by name.
|
|
| (12) Posted by Torsten Linß [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 13:09] |
Nikola, thanks for the information. It means that in addition to 3 album judges also 5 WCCI-judges (on aggregate) have not selected the problem under discussion for inclusion in the album. That is a very clear vote, I'd say.
|
|
| (13) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 14:44] |
Dear Kenan,
I'm a complete nonexpert for Section E. Thus only two
generic remarks:
- While the fact that the FIDE album probles are selected
nonanonymously *might* introduce a bias to big names,
accusing the judges of this is a "big" statement and
therefore should be reinforced with "big" facts.
- Especially, what was your competition? Even if your
problems are great (as I said, I have no idea, other
than you got some prizes), if 100 other contenders are brilliant,
then you still are not in. (And, obviously, if they are
just equally great, it's a matter of taste.)
Hauke
|
|
| (14) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 16:06] |
Torsten, where have you found the marks of 3 FA judges? Without knowing these marks I can't guess the judges' opinions.
Mark 2.5 actually means "good just enough for FA"!
If 2.5 would mean "not good enough", then none of 3x2.5 problems should ever appear in the Album because all 3 judges say "not good".
|
|
| (15) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 16:20]; edited by Kenan Velikhanov [17-12-01] |
Dear Hauke, the choice of tasks for the Fide Album can not be anonymous, here we indicate the place and publication date, the difference, etc. I am offended by the negligence of the judge. Once again, many tasks with differences lower than mine, were included in the album. It's just that I'm looking for some cognizance, but it's not visible, unfortunately.
|
|
| (16) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Dec 1, 2017 23:07] |
Honestly section D also was a mess in that regard, although everything followed the rules. And there are not enough capacities to have more judges like in the WCCI where the highest and lowest would not apply. And after doing the director job once I do not want to have any FIDE Album job again currently. Whatever is judged, it is always wrong, you always personally disagree even while you see that the judging marks are fully correct, as in no judge is significantly lower than the others. So studies are left out you personally would have included, and maybe you personally give slightly higher marks than the judges and since mostly the judges' studies are judged by you as director, they profit from it, but if you would have been judge everyone would have profited. So studies come into the album with 7.5 points that otherwise would have gotten only 7 points if they were by someone else and those three judges judged them. But there is personal taste only, and you also give low marks to other studies and then the judges are not happy about that decision but you can't raise that or otherwise it would be manipulation, and that would be the worst thing to do, as then you would forever (deservedly!) be excluded from everything in the future.
So whatever you do, it is wrong. As a judge, it is wrong. As director judging the judges' studies, it is wrong. Everything is wrong, no matter what you do! In the end, it looks fishy and isn't but if you would have jduged differently, it would actually be fishy and might not look like that. The big issue is that different judges have different tastes, and some judges give lower or higher rarks than others in general. So what is there to do? You have a mess, whether you are a judge or director. Everyone will hate you in the end for doing your work, for giving "too low" marks. So, individual judges' scores aren't given out, but still the authors are understandably frustrated.
For me FIDE Album is a great idea, a great project, but not with enough resources, not with the possibility of that. We would need more neutral judgments, more judges in general. But everything has disadvantages, and the big disadvantage here is that there aren't enough judges...
|
|
| (17) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Saturday, Aug 8, 2020 10:32] |
FIDE ALBUM 2016-2018 – Results in section B
 (= 12+8 )
1. ... Qc6 (a) 2. Qf4+ Kd5 3. Sf6#
1. ... Qd4 (b) 2. Rxe6+ dxe6 3. Qxe6#
1. Sf6! (2. Qd5+ Kf4 3. Sh5# Switchback)
1. ... Qc6 (a) 2. Sxd7+! (A) Qxd7 3. Sd3# (B) 2. ... Kxd6 3. Qxc6#
1. ... Qd4 (b) 2. Sd3+! (B) 2. ... Qxd3 3. Sxd7# (A)
1. ... Qxd6 2. Qc3+ Qd4 3. Sd3# 2. ... Kf4 3. g3#
1. ... Kxd6 2. Qd4+ 2. ... Kc6/c7 3. Qxd7#
Keller paradox, changed play, changed 2 and 3 moves, correction.
In this problem, the changes of the game with the Keller paradox are synthesized, as well as the alternation of moves. Great first move with a Switchback on move three. Dear judges, can you explain why this task did not please them?
|
|
| (18) Posted by Torsten Linß [Tuesday, Aug 11, 2020 14:56] |
The problem was awarded 6th place=prize in the 6th World Cup. The judge comments: "... the 6 white pawns make the position clumsy. The key is quite acceptable, but the lack of set play reply to the king’s flight is regrettable. This problem is a decently good effort..."
Decent means "of an acceptable standard; satisfactory". Neither "acceptable standard" nor "satisfactory" suggests FIDE-album quality. For many problemists (and judges) an unprovided set flight is a no-go.
The problem was submitted to the WCCI where it scored 2x2P and 3x2.5P and missed the 8 points limit too. Thus, the decision of the 3 album judges, not to select the problem, is an agreement with the 5 WCCI judges. Most likely it's the author who is overestimating the quality of his creation.
|
|
| (19) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Tuesday, Aug 11, 2020 18:49] |
There are a lot of such problems (with free movement of the king, no answer). And in Album Fide too. Watch the last (8th) world cup, the problem that received the 1st prize.And the pawns in this problem are even 7.In my task, all pawns are active, working ones.The mechanism itself is original and implemented for the first time.And she is worthy of being in the album.
|
|
| (20) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Tuesday, Aug 11, 2020 19:41] |
FİDE ALBUM 2013-2015
Problem B1
1st HM
İgor Agapov
87Q88BP2K383k
pc3-b4
a problem with a lonely black king and no answer to free moves.With the opening move, the free king square is taken away and with a short threat. Isn't that against the rules?
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net  Forum General FIDE ALBUM 2013-2015 – Results in section E |
ISC 2024
