Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

17:48 UTC
ISC 2024



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum Liga Problemista 2009 You are invited to make your award for LP 3/2009!
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(1) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, Aug 23, 2009 02:29]

You are invited to make your award for LP 3/2009!

The 3rd round of Liga Problemista 2009 (sh#) is closed. So far there are 28 entries, but there may be few more entries sent by the snailmail.

As stated in the announcement, this time we'll make a small experiment: each member of MatPlus.Net have the opportunity to take part in judging. The problems are listed in "Comments" application (the link has been been moved to the main menu, just below the "Originals" item). To see them please select the line "Tourney: LP 2009, Round 3" from the options list just below your name. Optionally, you can use a quick link (look left, just below the main menu).

Problems are listed anonymously and each is for your conveniance associated with the randomly chosen pseudonym from Greek mythology (just heroes and other mortals, no gods).

The application for judging may not be the world-champion user-friendly-wise, but the problemists are clever people expected to intuitively learn how to use it. If nothing helps then please read the instructions (click on a question mark icon in the top bar of the left-hand side frame). Note that for the valid award you should rank at least 12 entries and that it should be completed by September 10th 2009 (just in time to be printed in the Autumn issue of Mat Plus planned for the end of September). You are also welcome to submit your comments on each problem which to your opinion deserves it.

Your remarks and/or suggestions are welcome. Thank you!
(Read Only)pid=4013
(2) Posted by Steven Dowd [Sunday, Aug 23, 2009 02:44]

Clicking on the problem as indicated does not show me anything; that is, no problem appears.
(Read Only)pid=4014
(3) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, Aug 23, 2009 03:01]

Clicking on the problem as indicated does not show me anything; that is, no problem appears.

Gee, aren't you fast :)
Sorry, just uploaded new scripts, missed one module. I hope now it's fixed.
(Read Only)pid=4015
(4) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, Aug 23, 2009 04:07]

In case that someone prefers to analyze the entries "off screen", here are print versions: (72 KB) (83 KB)
(Read Only)pid=4016
(5) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Aug 23, 2009 21:48]

Actually, I am wondering what do people here think about judging their own entries to the tourney. I have judged my pair of problems without any hesitation, one putting perhaps slightly too favourably, the other getting harsher treatment from me. Is there envisaged any general approach to this issue?
(Read Only)pid=4017
(6) Posted by Paz Einat [Monday, Aug 24, 2009 17:00]

First, I like Milan's idea of mass judging, as well as the application to perform this!

It is almost impossible to treat your own problems objectively. I see two options to treat this: one way is to eliminate the two most extreme marks for each problem. Another is that composers will not judge their own problems; I assume Milan knows who gave marks and can eliminate the self-marking
(Read Only)pid=4018
(7) Posted by Geoff Foster [Monday, Aug 24, 2009 23:40]

Composers should not judge their own problems. However it is unfair to just eliminate the self-marked scores, because this means that a composer would be at a disadvantage if he acted as a judge -- he would give marks to other composers, but none to himself! The best way is for a judge's own problem to be given the average score given to the problem by the other judges.
(Read Only)pid=4019
(8) Posted by Administrator [Tuesday, Aug 25, 2009 20:28]

I agree that author cannot be objective when judging his own problem. However, it is also a truth that otherwise judging can be a handicap for the author. I think that the best solution would be to put a (best) problem by the judge to the first place in his judgement, despite how paradoxical it may sound. At least it would encouradge all participants to take part in judging too.

I don't want to rush with the decision and I would prefer if we do it all together. The simplest way is a poll (see below the main menu), but your comments are also welcome in this thread.
(Read Only)pid=4020
(9) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Aug 25, 2009 21:55]

I am also fan of proposal made by Paz, i.e. to eliminate two most extreme marks for any problem.

In the present case I have not put my own problem to the first place, there are a few problems clearly better than it in my view and bunch of problems of similar quality.

Putting judge's problem to the first place would in fact give some disadvantage to the authors not participating in judging, wouldn't it?
(Read Only)pid=4021
(10) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Thursday, Aug 27, 2009 02:10]

This experiment may turn into a great step forward for Problem Chess. There are at least 3 benefits from more awards: 1) many useful on-line remarks collected in the same place, 2) as more judges, as fewer problems are needed to be selected or commented by each judge, 3) the lowest and the highest mark could be excluded, with many awards still left.
The Milan's idea to stimulate each participant to be one of the judges seems logical. It would be even better if each participant would be obliged to make his award (without his-own problems). Then no stimulation would be needed, and 6-8 problems from each judge would be enough to secure selecting best 12.
(Read Only)pid=4022
(11) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Aug 28, 2009 02:44]

A great idea, Milan. However, I've never much liked the idea of eliminating the extreme marks of an adjudication (regardless of whether a judge's own problems are participating or not): most problemist-judges are not extremists, even in evaluating their own efforts! Much to be preferred though, in my opinion, is the 'averaging' idea proposed by Geoff (and not just because he's a compatriot!); it has worked very well for decades in, for example, the Brian Harley Awards run by the BCPS. It is always invidious and short-sighted for a problemist - however fair-minded - to evaluate his own work: one is simply too close to one's own creations for a dispassionate view, particularly if the time-span between creation and evaluation is brief.
(Read Only)pid=4026
(12) Posted by Joost de Heer [Friday, Aug 28, 2009 10:56]

IIRC, there has been a studies tourney in which the participants were the judge. It was mentioned in a long article about judging in Strategems last year. Unfortunately my chess stuff is currently residing in boxes, so I can't look up the exact tourney. If memory serves me right, Pal Benkö won that tourney.

I won't judge, brvause I know not enough of this field to make a proper decision.
(Read Only)pid=4027
(13) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Aug 30, 2009 16:50]

If *my* memory serves me right, this tourney was quoted
in an article by Gerhard Josten. You might PM him for details.

(Read Only)pid=4030
(14) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Aug 30, 2009 21:18]

Attila Schneider MT

Due to recent circumstances, I can't send the award now. It should be available via e-mail from Gerhard Josten (tourney director).
(Read Only)pid=4031
(15) Posted by Geoff Foster [Wednesday, Sep 2, 2009 01:56]

There is now a poll to determine how a judge should rank his own problems. The options are:

1. He should NOT rank his problem(s).
2. He MAY rank his problem(s).
3. His problem(s) should score the average from other awards.
4. His (best) problem should be placed at the 1st place in his award.

In options 1, 3 and 4 the judge does not rank his own problems. I assume that in option 1 the judge's own problems are given a zero score. I hope that nobody has voted for this option thinking that it meant something else!
(Read Only)pid=4037
(16) Posted by Administrator [Wednesday, Sep 9, 2009 16:26]

Just to remind you that the judging will be closed in two days (high noon Friday) so you should finish your award if you intend to take a part in it.

For your information until now we have (only?) 9 valid lists. According to the current poll result it seems that the majority of you is in favour of granting the average score to the judges. Software-wise it is the most complicated solution and required some additional coding. There are now two lists where judges ranked their own problems which, by the 'average rule' which is most likely to be used, will not occupy any of top 12 places in respective awards. It would be good if the judges in question append few more entries to their awards just to make sure that their lists will be complete.

And finally, the tests have shown that the method of calculation is not as relevant as it may seem. Any of four methods suggested in the Poll gives exactly the same order of first 9 problems. With more awards the results would certainly be even better matched!
(Read Only)pid=4082
(17) Posted by Eric Huber [Thursday, Sep 10, 2009 21:50]

As usual, Vlaicu Crisan and I made our award together but we entered it only once.
(Read Only)pid=4095
(18) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Thursday, Sep 10, 2009 21:50]

I totally confirm Eric's post from above. Hope nobody is wondering why! :-)
(Read Only)pid=4096
(19) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Sep 11, 2009 14:56]

The judging is now closed!

Preliminary results:

All received comments:

More details in Mat Plus 35 in few weeks.
(Read Only)pid=4098
(20) Posted by Paz Einat [Saturday, Sep 12, 2009 13:37]

I made a judgment. How come I don't see it?
(Read Only)pid=4100

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

MatPlus.Net Forum Liga Problemista 2009 You are invited to make your award for LP 3/2009!