Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
15:42 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 | | (21) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 15:03] |
QUOTE
Wasn't there a requirement in the last Album (2007-2009) for composers to rate their own problems in order of quality when submitting them?
It would seem to solve the 'spamming' problem quite simply.
A judge, on coming across a couple of problems which he considered not worthy of inclusion, could now ignore the rest in the knowledge that the composer himself didn't rate the later problems any better than the ones which the judge had just rejected.
Was this system used for the last Album?
It was not a requirement, just a recommendation. Same recommendation was given in the announcement of the 2004-06 album.
Only a few composers did so. In both albums, the announcement did not mention if and how this ranking made by the composers could be used, as the relevant proposal was already rejected in the Wageningen 2006 meeting. I am copying from the MOM:
FIDE Album judging - Proposal 6 (vi). Uri Avner proposed that composers should put their Album submissions into ranked order. This would ease the burden on Album judges, and also help them to differentiate groups of thematically related problems. The proposal that “Composers should be urgently recommended to submit their entries with a rank order of preference” was approved by 21 for, 3 against, with 4 abstentions. This would take effect with the 2004-2006 Album. A further proposal by Uri Avner that “A FIDE Album judge should be entitled to stop judging an individual composer’s submission when he has found 5 problems in sequence to which fewer than 2 points have been given” was rejected: 4 votes for, 13 against, 7 abstentions. The Judging Subcommittee had reached a similar conclusion.
| | | (22) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 15:25]; edited by Neal Turner [12-10-30] |
If the judges aren't allowed to use the composers' own ranking of the submitted problems then the recommendation should ommitted.
It's not an easy job for composers to rank their creations - it's like having to rank their children!
EDIT: I just checked out the Announcement for 2007-2009:
(1) Composers are asked to number their entries in each section in order of preference, starting with the one that the composer considers best. This will ease the work of the judges and may also be of benefit to the composer.
"This will ease the work of the judges" - doesn't this imply that they will in fact use the rankings to ease their workload?
| | | (23) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 15:51] |
In helping the late Eric Hassberg on the 80-82 Album, I recall vividly, the ~2000 #2s he received. I assisted him in organizing the different sets of problems we were to send to the different judges. What would've helped back then was the guide proposed for the 04-06 Album. If composers would essentially rank their own works it would be easier to seperate the wheat from the chaff. A composer sending in inferior work could be spotted quickly. Their "best" entry could first be graded by a judge, and if the quality is low, the balance could simply be dismissed. We would therefore have no real need for a maximum cap for everyone. The cap could pinch the stronger composers and i think this would be unfair for the whole problem world.
| | | (24) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 16:01] |
QUOTE
"This will ease the work of the judges" - doesn't this imply that they will in fact use the rankings to ease their workload?
As I wrote:
1. Only a few composers did rank their entries.
2. The announcement does not specifically state (or imply) how the rankings could be used, as the relevant proposal was already rejected.
| | | (25) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 16:31]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-10-30] |
The solution is simple. The FIDE judges are seeing anynomous entries (though many of the problems would be familiar to them). There should be no limit on entries. Composers who scored an average of 1 or less on their entries, should be prohibited from submitting their entries for the next Album. Perhaps 1.5 average is a better limit.
| | | (26) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 17:14] |
I should clarify my previous post, and why I favor 'arbitrary limits'.
Twice I've been asked to be Album judge. Twice I declined because IMHO album submissions are out of control. I'm not referring to "spam", which is a relatively small percentage. I mean: there are TOO MANY problems for any judge to have to sift through. One former judge said he reviewed some 2000 (!) entries. Ridiculous.
If the Album once guaranteed a place for all worthy problems, it has out-lived that promise. Composers should not feel entitled to submit every problem they deem "worthy". There must be limits for everyone, not just "spammers". The simpler these limits are, the better.
I mentioned "40 per section" and "100 overall" per composer as a starting point. But "40 per section" for a few dozen composers is still too many. Perhaps "25 per section" is more sensible for those brave enough to be Album judge.
| | | (27) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 17:43] |
We can not identify spammers and I think this is not the right question to ask.
The real issue is the high number of problems to be analyzed by the FIDE Album judges.
As I can see, there were some [debatable] efforts made to reduce the number of entries:
1. The decision to automatically admit in the FIDE Album the compositions scoring 8 points in WCCCI.
2. The decision taken at Kobe Congress to limit the number of entries per composers.
An alternate option could be to reduce the FIDE Album scope from 3 years to 2 years.
| | | (28) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 22:01] |
These 'votes' of the commission can be at most recommendations, and at least authorizations given to the judges to have such a drastic attitude.
It should be interesting to know from the teams of judges was they really intend to do in each section.
| | | (29) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 22:46] |
VC: "An alternate option could be to reduce the FIDE Album scope from 3 years to 2 years."
Why not have two (or even three) teams of judges per section? Each team reviews one-half or one-third of the overall entries. That could mitigate another Album sticking point: national favoritism.
Further, if there were just TWO judges per team, the criteria could be: a problem is accepted if the total-points >= 5.5.
| | | (30) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 07:20] |
Some explanations concerning the decision.
Still, please consider this text as my personal opinion.
I consider necessary the following restrictions.
1. No penalty for previous spam.
Every composer may improve in composing or at least in understanding. So, his previous mistakes must not affect next cycle.
2. No general limitation
There is no person or unit under current rules who calculates the full number of problems sent by anyone to all sections of Album. There also will be no correct way to enforce this kind of limitation if it will be ignored by some person.
3. No right for judges to discard accepted problems.
The author is not really required to be a great judge.
---
Yes, we have no adequate way to identify spam remotely.
So the approved proposal based upon the following principle: "Prove beforehand that you are not a spammer".
Really, in current situation we have a very small number of active spammers. The decision solves _this difficulty_ very effectively in my opinion. The exact numbers (30 problems and factor 3 for the points) may be discussed and _were discussed_ in Kobe.
There is only one real special case, which was also discussed in Kobe - the situation when a rookie starts with a really big number of great problems or a great composer had missed an Album fo some reason. The probability of such event is quite small, and so, if there will be a need, a special case may be considered.
| | | (31) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 16:24]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-31] |
First, let's consider Vlaicu's unsupported assertion: "We can't identify spam (or spammers)..."
If you can not identify spam, either it does not exist, or it is time to admit that your judges lack an objective capability to discern it.
If the latter is true, it strongly suggests that your titles are based upon a highly subjective system (thus undermining their very credibility).
Second, I do agree with both Vlaicu and Dan, that the issue here may not be spam.
1) There are more active composers today (according to my database), than at any time in history, and
2) The average composer today will publish a higher number of problems (again on average).
This is almost certainly due to computer assistance (the elephant in the room, which nobody likes to acknowledge)!
And, there is a credible argument to be made that computer assistance has similarly raised the overall quality of output.
To that point, Dan and Vlaicu have helped to better frame this debate -- by suggesting that the problem is not limited to spam (entries which had no chance), the bigger problem may be today's increased quantity of good problems (worthy of consideration).
To adjust for this, we could simply raise the threshold for what is considered "spam."
But, the downside -- though it goes unstated, I think we all recognize -- is, the more you raise this "spam" threshold (and the more you rely on penalties for spammers), the more a judges unavoidable bias will creep in (distorting the value of points and titles).
I have read enough judgments (including points awarded by various FIDE sub-Albums) to know that it is not unreasonable to admit that even specialized titled judges do not always have the capacity to discern a high-quality composition from low-quality spam; and, there have been several cases where allegations of bias are unavoidable.
I speak only based upon my own subjective opinion (and, I claim neither to be an objective judge, nor an expert in most genres); but, I've heard similar grumblings expressed by a number of talented composers (toward a wide variety of judges, spanning several "genres").
Finally, let's consider the "more judges" suggestion.
If there are more good problems, does it justify a higher frequency of albums, or should we prefer more judges per sub-album?
First, I don't imagine it would be a difficult challenge to find the top problems of this period, if you had the advantage of looking with 25 years hindsight.
The problem is, the FIDE sub-Albums want to produce titles instantaneously -- it is no longer ONE Album, concerned with finding the top problems, spanning all genres, for a given period.
So, let's make an honest separation of these two endeavors.
Let's ask the question: why give a title to a composer -- is it not their (art)work which deserves the title?
If you still believe that individual titles are a noble endeavor, let's admit your real goals:
1) to produce the most objectively fair INDIVIDUAL TITLE system, that is practically possible,
2) to provide rapid feedback (faster than most awards, in my experience -- save only a few journals, which deserve great credit for insisting upon prompt turnaround),
3) to preserve, as much as possible, some familiar attachment with the old system.
etc -- you guys will have to fill in the blanks here (I don't happen to agree with this endeavor).
I will say this much:
If I was going to design such an individual title system, I would first establish some methodology to measure how objective/accurate are the judgments it produces.
Because, if I can not demonstrate that the points/titles generated are credible, it will out that my titles are a waste of time.
We have considerable statistics, based on a large number of preserved judgments.
If statistical credibility is not established, I'd beware that some statistician may publish his own results -- and, I do not expect that you'll find the conclusions particularly kind to the value of your titles.
| | | (32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 18:30]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-31] |
@Georgy,
>I consider necessary the following restrictions.
>1. No penalty for previous spam.
No argument here!
>2. No general limitation
Please define what you mean by "general limitation."
I presume you mean that there is no limit spanning all of the sub-Albums (or "all sections" as you prefer to label it -- though, it is dubious to pretend there are several sections of one Album, when the Album is, in fact, a collection of multiple, independent sub-Albums).
However, my presumption must be wrong, because, if a "specific limitation" now applies to every sub-Album, then a "general limitation" applies (and is enforced) across the entire collection.
>3. No right for judges to discard accepted problems.
>The author is not really required to be a great judge.
If it is truly the case that an author is not required to be a judge of his own work, then we can not ask authors to sort their work -- and we surrender any capacity to ignore works submitted by "spammers" (since they are not expected to distinguish quality composition from spam).
Furthermore, we surrender the ability to award titles based upon a second criteria (such as the one I have suggested: points earned per submission).
Thus, this policy fails to identify spam, and fails to provide any incentive to discourage the submission of spam.
As such, you similarly surrender any right to declare this an anti-spam policy.
It is nothing but a regressive limitation (which tends to favor composers who are fat with points from the previous album).
>Yes, we have no adequate way to identify spam remotely.
Clearly, asking judges to give a quantitative evaluation of sub-acceptable problems would not only identify all spam, it would provide you a credible measure (to the extent judgments can be credible) of it.
Furthermore, requiring a composer to identify spam, would allow you to create an incentive for self-editing (at least for self-submitted, non-joint works).
Finally, I would advise giving newcomers the option of postponing their submissions, until after a tournament judgement is rendered. And, in this way, problems which receive an Honorable Mention (or higher) might be considered immune from spam calculations.
This kind of feedback mechanism would greatly aid newcomers -- particularly, if journals would make better efforts to complete awards on a more timely basis!
>So the approved proposal based upon the following principle: "Prove beforehand that you are not a spammer".
With due respect, this is a wild distortion of the proposal.
The proposal neither identifies spam nor spammer, and does nothing to discourage the proliferation of spam.
All this proposal does it guarantee previous winners with a far greater opportunity to submit (spam or otherwise).
Furthermore, it must be asked: is the quota system still in place?
Because, if so, let's consider the impact:
1) Presume that each sub-Album (genre is the wrong term, as it has never been adequately defined!) has a given number of enthusiasts.
2) If each enthusiast has a limitation, so too does the entire sub-Album.
3) Judges in this sub-Album are favorable to such problems.
4) Acceptance of 100% of their quota (based upon entries) would assure greater opportunities for awards in the following period (for their sub-Album).
Lastly, you make room for consideration of "special cases" for this proposal.
>if there will be a need, a special case may be considered.
Even without the special case exception, no independent observer would consider this a logical proposal, leading to a fair system.
This special case exception serves as a blatant admission that the entire system is a subjective facade.
What's the use proposing a new law, if already you have to admit that it only applies to those who are not subjectively deemed to be "spammers."
I wish you'd just admit: this does nothing to prevent spam, does nothing to identify spam, does nothing to discourage spammers, you have no evidence that the limitation would apply to spammers (present or future) any more than it blocks quality submissions!
I suggest you start from the beginning.
1) What is the purpose of the FIDE Album, and the sub-Albums?
I submit to you the original purpose has been lost, and the new purpose is to provide a relatively fast mechanism to award individual titles.
Can we agree on that?
2) How do you define divisions in the sub-Albums?
I submit to you that you can not clearly define the present subdivisions -- I challenge anybody to try!
Each represents a vogue form of subjective favoritism.
I have made repeated suggestions to make objectively divide the album, but the scope of my solution is frightening to the entrenched, title-seeking traditionalists.
3) By what measure can you demonstrate the validity and fairness of these titles?
It is certainly not fair to award entry opportunities based upon prior performance.
If it were, your very same logic could equally apply to prior spam.
4) etc -- if you keep asking the right questions, and answer honestly, I expect you'll arrive at something better than the proposal provided.
I consider this proposal a fraud, because it does not begin to mitigate the problem outlined.
Spam is never defined -- we're left to presume that it means: "problems from undesirable composers."
And, let's be honest -- who are these undesirable composers?
I submit to you that the real issue is the potential for boundless entries from automated composers!
It strains credibility, given today's advances in automated composing, that nobody has bothered to address this directly.
Are we members of some secret society?
Why can't we be transparent enough to admit that the real reason for this limitation proposal is computers?
And, that brings me to another bad assumption you've made -- which is easily refuted: given the technological possibilities of computer assisted composing, there is no reason to believe that newcomers, today, can not generate unprecedented quantities of high quality problems!
The biggest problem with your proposal is, you presume that newcomers need not have any ability to judge their own works.
Tell me, if this is true, how then will they know which 30 (or 100, or whatever your arbitrary number) entries to send? If they have produced problems beyond your limit, they *must* require some judgment!
And, supposing they have the good judgment to send their best entries, and all are published in a sub-Album, your proposal would provide them with constantly accelerating opportunities -- possibly beyond what any human composer could catch!
This drives up the quotas for the sub-Album, encourages more automation, which drives up the quotas ... such a positive feedback loop could lead to "The Big Rip" (note: I don't even buy this theory in astro-physics)!
This is the worst chess proposal I've seen, since Bobby Fischer went crazy.
It does not solve any legitimate problem, and it spawns a host of new dilemmas (to be resolved by more subjective favoritism).
| | | (33) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 18:31] |
In my opinion, the discussion how to identify spam is superfluous.
Album judges are suffering from spam as a result of the Album's connection with the current title system. Hence it's in need of reform.
To get rid of the spam problem, its reason has to be removed. Today, 8 (sometimes even 7.5) judgement points for one problem automatically lead to one full title point. Here, maximum quantity at a tolerated minimum level of quality is the most successful strategy for getting composing titles.
In comparison, the existing WCCI rules are based on quality whereas someone's numerical output is less important. They could easily be applied to the title system:
Using a scale from 0 to 4 points like now, each judge will allocate points to all Album entries. But just the sum of a composer's best compositions should be considered for titles - in all sections and without time restriction (since 1980). The norms for different titles will also have to be different [example: for FM / IM / GM title 100 / 110 / 120 points out of the 12 best] Each new Album will give the opportunity for an 'upgrade', but problems of lower quality never can influence the individual top score. So the motive for spam strategy will be abolished.
There should be no restriction of the number of entries, so that the Album's aspect of documentation will remain.
| | | (34) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 19:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-31] |
@Marcel,
The suggestion you offer appears to be of exceptionally high quality.
That's probably a sign that nobody will take it seriously. :)
But, supposing they do -- there are some troubling failings within the WCCI system...
The most notable is this system's inability to recognize an individual's participation in joint problems.
And, there are some troubling issues surrounding implementation of your proposal.
For starters, even if we exempt titled composers, it threatens to impact those climbing the present ladder.
(note: if you lose them, your suggestion is doomed!)
I suspect easy remedies might be possible to implement your suggestion -- which can not be said of the many recent proposals to remedy the presently flawed system -- but, my presumption remains to be tested.
And, I particularly like the idea that composers are judged ONLY upon their very best work(s), rather than by some arbitrary quantity of "minimally acceptable" works.
I don't require 12 "good" novels to spot a master author...
Harper Lee wrote only one: "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Margret Mitchell wrote only one: "Gone with the Wind."
Nor would I include sub-par movies, to achieve an arbitrary number (say 70), in the list of a works by a great master director...
Stanley Kubrick's value should hardly be influenced (either way), by the movie, "Eyes Wide Shut."
I, for one, would prefer to compose one masterpiece problem (let's say a 12-pointer), to a million 8-pointers.
I'm guessing most composers would agree -- so, why not award titles accordingly?
| | | (35) Posted by Abdelaziz Onkoud [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 20:43] |
Bonsoir à tous ,
Permettez moi d'intervenir en Français...j'aurai pu le faire en Arabe :)...mais c'est compliqué pour vous!
Après une longue hésitation , je me jette dans la discussion bien que je préfère composer .
Il en reste certainement des idées à faire !
D'abord , qu'on se mette d'accord , si cette discussion s'opérait au 20ème siècle , à travers des lettres , cela prendrait quelques années. Le monde a changé. La gestion des problèmes d'échecs doit évoluer et profiter de la modernité.
La famille des compositeurs doit se pencher sérieusement sur le sujet d'un site web qui doit être d'abord une base de donnée générale sur le problème d'échecs à la portée de tous et surtout ouverte à toutes les contributions sensé l'enrichir , l'améliorer et la corriger.
Une des rubriques devrait se consacrer sur les Albums Fide... Il ne faut pas attendre vers 2016 pour lancer l'Album FIDE 2013-15 . Il faut commencer maintenant !
La rubrique de l'Album FIDE doit accueillir à partir de 2013 , les problèmes publiés pour la période 2013-15. Je ne sais pas combien est estimée la production problémistique en 3 ans. Mais elle devrait être contenu sur un site WEB .
Les auteurs devront eux même contribuer à entrer leur problèmes dans cette base de données internationale. Les éditeurs des revues ou organisateurs de concours peuvent le faire.
Les visiteurs de cette base de données internationale peuvent éditer leurs commentaires et leurs observations ( anticipations , amélioration...etc).
C'est ainsi qu'on peut aider les juges qui seront proposés vers 2015! ils auront tout un travail en amont fait par tous et pour tous. Le juge aura pour chaque problème des données sensés l'aider à trancher , évaluer et noter les problèmes soumis pour l'Album FIDE.
Les auteurs peuvent être donc invité à soumettre leurs problèmes pour l'Album FIDE 2013-15 à partir de 2013 dans une rubrique dédiée à l'Album FIDE.
Maintenant , sommes nous prêts pour aller de l'avant ?....je suis sûr que la modernité va prendre le dessus un jour...
Limiter est une idée contre-productive qui peut nuire terriblement à l'essor des problèmes d'échecs.
Je ne remet pas en question le système de l'Album FIDE ...d'ailleurs cette discussion ne m’intéresse pas ... je propose juste une aide aux futurs juges..car on a les moyens pour faire mieux qu'avant.
Bonne soirée à tous.
| | | (36) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 21:07] |
If I know what language this is, I can try to use an auto translator !
| | | (37) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2012 22:29] |
it is in french. And it is very interesting.
| | | (38) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 03:01] |
Below is a bing.com auto-translation of post (35).
========================
Good evening everyone,
Let me respond to French... I could do in Arabic :).. .but it is complicated for you!
After a long hesitation, I throw myself into the discussion although I prefer composing.There certainly ideas to do!
First, it starts okay, if this discussion was taking place in the 20th century, through letters, it would take a few years. The world has changed. Chess problems management must evolve and take advantage of modernity.
The family of composers must seriously look on the subject of a web site that first must be a general database on the chess problem within the reach of all and especially open to all contributions make sense enrich it, improve it and correct it.
One of the topics should focus on the Fide Albums... Do not wait to 2016 to run the Album FIDE 2013-15. You must start now!
The topic of the FIDE Album must accommodate issues published for the period from 2013, 2013-15. I do not know how much is estimated production problemistique in 3 years. But it should be contained on a WEB site.
Authors should themselves contribute to enter their problems in this international database. The publishers of the journals or contest organizers can do.
Visitors to this international database can edit their comments and observations (expectations, improving... etc).
It thus can help judges that will be brought forward to 2015! they will have a job done by all and for all upstream. The judge will be for each problem supposed data help to determine, assess and note the issues for the FIDE Album.
Authors can therefore be invited to submit their problems to the FIDE Album 2013-15 from 2013 in a section dedicated to the FIDE Album.
Now, we are ready to go ahead?.. .je'm sure modernity will take over one day...
Limit is a counterproductive idea that can hurt terribly to the growth of chess problems.
I do not call into question the system of the FIDE Album... Besides this discussion does not interest me... I propose just an assistance to future judges...because they have the means to do better than before.
Good evening to all.
| | | (39) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Thursday, Nov 1, 2012 11:02] |
@ Georgy
"Still, please consider this text as my personal opinion..."
what else could it be ??
"...There is only one real special case, which was also discussed in Kobe - the situation when a rookie starts with a really big number of great problems or a great composer had missed an Album fo some reason. The probability of such event is quite small...."
The number of Grand-Masters too is quite small. One of the aims of these albums is also not to miss one!
"..., and so, if there will be a need, a special case may be considered...."
How ?? without looking at his problems ?? ... and if yes looking, what is the use of the recommendation ???
@ Kevin
for me each word is a problem ...
do you want to illustrate with your very long posts what can be called "spam" ??
| | | (40) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Nov 2, 2012 18:17]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-02] |
@Jacques,
I can understand why you might consider my posts excessive.
While I do apologize for some rambling, and will make an honest effort to be more concise, I take exception to your suggestion that my posts constitute a form of "spam."
This is not an Album -- to which masterpiece posts, of remarkable economy are sent -- This is a forum (for discussion).
We can ask the Mat Plus Admin to limit characters per post, and posts per individual.
This will not prevent spam -- more likely, it blocks opportunities for discussion.
Take what I have said in this forum, divide it by my total number of posts, further divide that by my average words per post, and you'll find, I am not ducking any issues.
What's your position on this proposal? That of a sniper?
Read the posts proposing to govern the number of problems submitted to the FIDE Album -- all have suggested this would reduce spam.
Not a single one of these posts offer a definition of spam, a method to identify it, or any shred of evidence that such a policy would help prevent it (any more than it prevents quality problems).
I was asked to provide an alternative proposal -- and I did: I proposed a method to identify spam, quantify spam, and discourage spam. I made suggestions which might shield beginners from harsh anti-spam penalties (such as freely accepting problems of a certain award).
What have you offered?
Look at the response I get:
1) I'm told there is no way for judges to identify spam.
FALSE -- if judges can not quantitatively distinguish a quality problem from spam, there is no value in album-points/titles.
2) I'm told composers can not be expected to judge their own problems.
FALSE -- if quantity exceeds the arbitrary limit of such proposals, the composer is forced to judge their own work.
3) Georgy's proposes to provide "special exceptions" (ghee, I don't know, perhaps for our favorite composers)!?
There goes any shred of integrity that the Album has left (and, so goes the art form).
4) I'm the target of Sniper fire.
Hey, if my help is not appreciated, why am I asked?
You guys are doing a heck of a job promoting chess problems, with this increasingly absurd title race (an album, divided into completely separate sub-Albums, delineated by undefined terms, driven by quotas, with entry opportunities limited by previous performance, and with special exceptions for subjective favorites -- all judged by a system more demonstrably subjective than even figure skating).
Here's my advice: keep it up, maybe nobody will notice the exposure.
But, if a statistician sets sites upon the awards, the points, and the titles... don't say you weren't warned.
Until that happens, viva Lance Armstrong.
| |
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
