|
|
| (1) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, May 6, 2012 06:19] |
Jubilee Tourneys - Preliminary Awards
Preliminary draft:
http://www.milanvel.net/pub/MPNet_JT_Preliminary.pdf
The announcement:
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&fid=tt&tid=909
|
|
| (2) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, May 6, 2012 10:22] |
In the 2nd h#2 award:
- 1st Prize = Prize (since there is no 2nd Prize)
- 2nd HM = HM (since there is no 2nd HM)
- qween = queen
|
|
| (3) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, May 6, 2012 16:03] |
QUOTE
1st Prize = Prize (since there is no 2nd Prize)
The problem is so good and I felt that only "Prize" would be a kind of degradation!
Regarding typos: The comments have not been spell-checked yet;
I'm waiting for possible reclamations before cleaning the texts up.
|
|
| (4) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, May 6, 2012 23:13] |
It should not really matter. But I agree that "I Prize" surely sounds like a higher honor than "Prize" :)
|
|
| (5) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, May 7, 2012 17:20]; edited by Frank Richter [12-05-07] |
Many thanks to Milan for the work.
As far as I remember there were only places available for ranking. So it would be good to know how the categories were determined.
P.S.: The discussion "Prize" vs. "1st Prize" is not new. My opinion - if I read "Prize", then I know, that is a "1st Prize" ...
|
|
| (6) Posted by Administrator [Monday, May 7, 2012 18:53] |
QUOTE
... how the categories were determined
It was the controller's decision, based on the calculated ranking (meaning that the collectively decided order of problems was not touched) and a subjective estimation of deserved 'weights' of the distinctions.
QUOTE
I read "Prize", then I know, that is a "1st Prize"
True, but you probably also think "... but in a not so strong tourney". The 1st Prize in question, I think, would easily win a much stronger tourney.
|
|
| (7) Posted by Frank Richter [Tuesday, May 8, 2012 08:51] |
>> but you probably also think "... but in a not so strong tourney".
No. I would look at problem's quality at first.
>> The 1st Prize in question, I think, would easily win a much stronger tourney.
Not necessary. In generally awards are overestimated in my opinion.
|
|
| (8) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Thursday, May 10, 2012 23:39]; edited by Sven Hendrik Lossin [12-05-10] |
Thanks for the good work Administrator.
Just one remark:
I really would have loved to contribute to the other awards as well. Is it possible next time to have the "Make Award" open for a longer time?
|
|
| (9) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Dec 7, 2012 14:30] |
Dear Milan, will there be the final awards still in 2012?
|
|
| (10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Dec 9, 2012 11:23]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-12-09] |
Regarding the old debate (1st Prize, versus Prize):
We should not be blind to the purpose of altering awards, to reflect this distinction.
The profound difference can be easily found in numerous composer biographies (found everywhere), which provide a specific set of statistics: some composer has published n problems, of which x% were awarded, y% with a prize, and z% were given the distinction of "1st Prize."
Presumably, the bigger n, x, y, and z, the better their justification for having passed their time composing.
Personally, I do not care to read such statistical information -- it tells me nothing I want to know, and deliberately distorts the beauty of a composer's work.
Not all genres/tournaments/awards are equal -- and all are based upon limited, and subjective judges.
This means of comparison is pure folly.
I'd much prefer to let the beauty of their works speak for itself (nobody need fear an audience which is allowed to judge for themselves).
I'll let the reader judge whether such statistical manipulations constitute a noble and honest purpose.
But, consider this: why is the true purpose never openly stated?
And, would we honestly go out of our way to clarify such distinctions, had some unknown composer won the only prize?
|
|
| (11) Posted by Administrator [Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012 18:52] |
Dear Frank,
The final award will bi printed in the next Mat Plus (No.43) and will also be published on this site later in December ... after 211212 :)
For your information, the only change compared to the preliminary award is that, unfortunately, in Group C (selfmates) the 3rd Hon. Mention had to be eliminated as non-thematic.
By the way, results of "Mark Ridley-50" jubilee tourneys will also be published on the site before the end of this year. MP 43 dated "December 2012" will be shipped in January 2013.
|
|
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net  Forum MatPlus Tourneys Jubilee Tourneys - Preliminary Awards |
