Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:51 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Public call for voting about my study, Olympic T. Baku 2016 |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Darko Hlebec [Thursday, Mar 10, 2016 18:32] | Public call for voting about my study, Olympic T. Baku 2016
Dear chess problemists,
Perhaps you are already familiar with the campaign of the current World
champion in studies (WCCI 2010-2012), Sergey Didukh, launched on his blog to
publicly vote on a study of mine. The study in question won a high special
prize at the Olympic tournament in 2016 by judge Martin Minski. The link
for voting is here:
http://didok.moyblog.net/2016/02/26/%D0%BC%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B0/
He apparently dislikes this study, and, hence, the idea to vote on it.
I too am aware that the starting position is imperfect, but I insisted
that all pieces play during the solution, forming an ideal stalemate on
even 5 pinned white pieces, which is a task! I personally don't like
Didukh's style which insists on boring, logical studies.
Moreover, in his comment about the authors participating in WCCI
2013-2105, Mr. Didukh called me a study hooligan
http://didok.moyblog.net/wcci-2013-15-2/
Since there is currently a voting on my study, I took the initiative and
contacted a number of international and domestic problemists, mainly chess
study composers. To all of them, I sent the following standardized letter:
"I would like to inform you that you can vote on site
http://didok.moyblog.net/
about my study from Olympic tournament. On the same site you can see all
studies from Olympic tournament including my
(http://didok.moyblog.net/olympic-tourney-2016/). Thank you and all the
best. Darko Hlebec"
I have no idea whether they all voted, and especially I have no idea how
they all voted.
However, most of them answered my email and offered their support, stating
that they had ranked this study highly. Thank you all! Also, some of the
problemists who support me, said that they prefer not to vote at all, as
they would otherwise give legitimacy to Mr. Didukh. Others refused to have
any contact with him, even if we are talking about electronic and
anonymous voting, because the IP address of the computer which the person
votes from could probably be recognised.
From all these letters, I realized that Mr. Didukh has a very serious
problem, and that he is in a constant conflict with most of the chess
study composers. With such attitude, Mr. Didukh has found himself in a
situation to be a persona non grata. It is about the time to reconsider
whether an outstanding composer (somebody would say genius, although I
don't think so), can terrorize the entire population of problemists by
criticizing various study Awards, which he regularly does on his blog, like in
the case of this unverifiable voting.
With this post, I only wanted to invite all the other problemists to vote
for or against my study, and not to continue the polemics about Mr. Didukh
in which I don't want to participate, even though I initiated this thread.
I salute you all with the chess motto GENS UNA SUMUS.
| | | (2) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Sunday, Mar 13, 2016 02:13] |
To your knowledge, Mr.Hlebec, I have already asked the opinion of the readers of my blog concerning my critical articles about the awards http://www.rupoll.com/dmctjxoosr.html. And 85% (60 out of 70) wanted me to continue. Also as anyone can see, for the votings I use a special free website, so I cannot influence the results and I can't see any IP adresses. Besides, being in conflict with other composers is not a serious problem for me because I am in conflict only with selfish or stupid people.
| | | (3) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Mar 13, 2016 08:29]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [16-03-13] |
I am officially stupid, thanks!
But I see not the issue of Darko's links, as they do eventually lead to the poll you mentioned.
| | | (4) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Sunday, Mar 13, 2016 08:35]; edited by Darko Šaljić [16-03-24] |
del
| | | (5) Posted by Torsten Linß [Sunday, Mar 13, 2016 18:07] |
This poll (and all others on that platform) are a joke and worth nothing.
I just managed to cast multiple votes. If I'm able to do so anybody is able to do so (including Mr. Didukh, Darko or Martin or whoever) and turn the vote in any desired direction.
I'm surprised an intelligent being like Mr. Didukh didn't realise this possibility beforehand. Or maybe he did...
| | | (6) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Mar 14, 2016 14:43] |
Intelligent beings don't cast multiple votes.
| | | (7) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Mar 14, 2016 18:16] |
I think what Mr.Torsten Linb meant was that the person who initiates the poll can himself manipulae the result as per his liking.
| | | (8) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Monday, Mar 14, 2016 19:31]; edited by Darko Šaljić [16-03-24] |
del
| | | (9) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Mar 14, 2016 19:58] |
Anyone can manipulate the results because there is no way to make a safe voting in the Internet. And my possibilities to turn the results into my favour are the same as yours or anyone else. Still I don't think that someone had tried to vote several times from one computer before Mr. Torsten mentionned it was possible. So, the results are not far from reality.
The number of votes for giving a prize to Mr.Hlebec's study was around 10% before the poll appeared on KasparovChess forum. Obviously, 90% of composers don't like this study. I am sure that many of Hlebec's friends don't like it either, but they have no guts to tell him the truth.
| | | (10) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Mar 14, 2016 21:11] |
So I have voted for a prize, and I will tell you why.
The study is a task problem, it shows a difficult task that was not mastered before. The entirety of the study is focused on the final position, or to reach it. The play looks at first glance incomprehensible to humans, or at least to me, and I did not wish to spend more time trying to understand the mysteries behind the moves. I trust that they are correct. Where should this study be rated? The actual play is trash, it deserves nothing, and I believe that is where the majority of the people sees it.
However, as an anticipation tester for one of those tourneys with pinned stalemates some years ago (or maybe it was correctness tester), that was officially by the masters of this theme, Kekely & Hlinka, I have necessarily looked into the task and seen that five pinned pieces in a midboard stalemate are very rare, if done before at all.
So where will that leave me? The play is trash, the task deserves a prize. It leaves me with a special prize, out of competition. It simply is not oomparable. Yes, some people have the idea that all studies can participate under the same criteria, but is that really the case? The first AUW studies had trash play but the super task as well, and they deserved prizes. But this is a special task, one that is very special, but nonetheless objectively observable. It can't be said this study stands on top of x other studies, or below them. It does not belong into the tourney, or in any tourney, to be judged together on the same lines as normal studies. The flas is obvious, but the achievement as well. If there is no justification for a "special" distinction here, then there never can be one.
Or to put it into sports terms:
I don't care if Toni Piispanen looks like the strangest athlete trying to run the 100 meters, and then he takes over 21 seconds. The fact that he does it before everyone else he can be compared to deserves a gold medal! He just can't be compared to Usain Bolt because he is so different.
| | | (11) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Mar 14, 2016 23:45] |
There are records and silly records.
| | | (12) Posted by Steffen Slumstrup Nielsen [Tuesday, Mar 15, 2016 11:41] |
I agree with Siegfried. Stalemates with multiple pins don't appeal to me. I simple don't find them aethetic and more importantly the play leading up to them tend to be too far removed from over the board chess.
I am also not a fan of special prizes, special mentions and special commendations. But this is one of the rare cases where it may be in order. To me it is fairly similar to the five knight promotion task in a pawn endgame. It is not really an endgame study. It is something else. A mix between a chess problem and study.
It is surely an accomplishment to create a stalemate with five pinned pieces. I believe Martin Minski was right to award the special prize.
| | | (13) Posted by Frank Richter [Tuesday, Mar 15, 2016 12:17] |
Sergiy:
Records are different and humans too.
Fortunately ...
| | | (14) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, Mar 17, 2016 10:50] |
An interesting situation we have here - somebody disagrees with a judge's conclusion and sets up a poll, the intention of which must surely be to muster general affirmation of his own opinion.
But to what end?
Has there ever been an award where everybody agreed with the judge's placings?
We all know the answer to that question, but we don't make a big deal of it.
We know what a difficult job judging is, with all kinds delicate decisions going into producing the final result, and in the end, even if we can't agree with the judge we appreciate the time and effort he's put into the task.
This poll will have no effect on the award, however the judge in question might think it's not worth the trouble taking on such duties in future - and who would blame him?
And all those who went along with this charade and placed a vote should ask themselves if this is the way they want their assessments to be treated when it comes their turn to produce an award.
| | | (15) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Thursday, Mar 17, 2016 12:51]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [16-03-17] |
Neal, my answer to your conclusions, scares and assumptions is wrong, wrong, wrong.
For example, Mr.Garcia is the most criticised judge by me, but the more I tell people that he is a bad judge and composer, the more tourneys he tries to judge. Another example is Mr.Minski who is the judge in the Olympic tourney. You might be very surprised to learn that he appreciates my critical articles which help him to become a better judge and composer.
So, please, don't make hasty simple conclusions like the ones you've just made.
| | | (16) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Mar 18, 2016 07:13] |
There seem to be many people who agree with Neal's comment and have similar worries. See, for example, the relevant excerpt from the Ostroda WCCC minutes:
"The committee dealt also with Sergey Didukh’s continuous criticism in his blog, often using unacceptable terms for judges and composers. The spokesman wondered if Mr Didukh, although the current world champion and an acknowledged expert, would be a sound choice for a WCCI judge as he may turn out to be biased. He also asked if any measures can be taken to protect the problemists. Marjan Kovacevic confirmed that Mr Didukh assured that he will act professionally in the WCCI and he suggested that the judge is not replaced. The president regretted that this is not the first time the assembly has to deal with the offensive behaviour of Mr Didukh. The issue is considered serious by many study composers and could possibly discourage them from judging in the future. The president informed the assembly that he discussed the matter with the Ukrainian delegate and they agreed that Mr Didukh’s behaviour is not appropriate. However WFCC cannot take any disciplinary measures as there are no applicable rules.
The assembly decided that a working group should be established in order to elaborate a set of rules for similar cases. Harry Fougiaxis, Mike Prcic and John Roycroft were nominated as members of the task force team. It is planned to agree on the wording of rules and establish a committee on ethics in the next congress."
Of course, Mr. Didukh and his supporters disagree, as another poll of the same kind has shown. Criticism can be constructive and useful, but apparently, this is not exactly how it is performed in this case. Unless, of course, the problemists who were upset with Mr. Didukh's ways are all too sensitive and fail to appreciate his good intentions.
| | | (17) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, Mar 18, 2016 10:55]; edited by Neal Turner [16-03-18] |
Putting aside Mr Didukh's methods I'd like to discuss his agenda.
I'm sure Sergiy will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to be the case that he's waging a crusade against mediocrity with the aim of improving standards.
This seems to be very commendable, but I'd like to argue that not only is it futile, but also mistaken!
Why is it futile?
That's easy - I refer you to Sturgeon's Law: "Ninety percent of everything is crap".
And of course 'everything' in this case includes chess problems and there's no way this is going to change.
But does it really matter? The good stuff receives accolades, is quoted in magazines and articles and appears in anthologies, while the rest just fades away.
This is all quite natural - it happens with everything else, why should chess problems be different.
Why is it mistaken?
If every problem was a perfect well-polished gem then the whole field would be sterile - how can perfection be improved? - how could there be any development?
In order for our art to evolve it needs a dynamic environment encompassing the whole range of ideas, styles and yes, quality.
The good, the bad and the ugly are all required to be part of the mix, as even a flawed problem can contain the germ of an idea which might prove fruitful - the most famous example being the Indian Problem which changed the course of problem history.
So we need as many contributions as possible to keep the meme pool replenished and let natural selection do its job.
Any attempt to impose standards is doomed to failure - and rightly so.
| | | (18) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Friday, Mar 18, 2016 15:21]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [16-03-19] |
1.Why is it futile?
Why are you living if you are going to die anyway?
2.Why is it mistaken?
Why do you hope to go to Heaven if you don't want to live in a perfect world? Go to Hell.
| | | (19) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, Mar 18, 2016 19:32] |
Perfection is a chimera, but if you ever did reach it you'd find it's just a dead-end and there'd be nothing to do but turn back.
'Go to Hell'!? If I was one of those sensitive souls I might take offence, but as it is I just assume it's your way of conceding the argument.
| | | (20) Post removed [posted on Friday, Mar 18, 2016 19:57] |
This post is removed by administrator due to inappropriate content.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General Public call for voting about my study, Olympic T. Baku 2016 |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
