MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

19:53 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album election- change the rules
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
(21) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 12:17]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [17-08-21]

 QUOTE 
I assumed the winner of the WCCT is the world champion of general composing, and of the WCCI in the world champion in individual composing?

WCCT is a tournament for teams, not for individuals. Any individual results in WCCT have only statistical meaning.

Years ago (before the establishment of the WCCI) it was suggested (I think by the late Byron Zappas who was very keen and successful in composing for WCCT) that there should be some link between WCCT and the Album. After discussions for a couple of years, it was finally decided that the 1st place composition in each section qualifies automatically for the album.

If you wonder why the 1st place of WCCT-9 (by Didukh) is not included in the 2013-15 album: Sergiy does not want his compositions included in the album and has explicitly written to us that we should respect his wish. We do so, except for joint compositions.

[Edit]: I think I did not answer to your question

 QUOTE 
Why was there (in general, not in the particular case of binding it to the Album) any need for a separate title when the WCCT were already running for many years?

I suggest you read the minutes of the 1997 and 1998 meetings.

http://www.wfcc.ch/1999-2012/mnts97/
http://www.wfcc.ch/1999-2012/mnts98/

In the period of 2007 to 2011, a proposal (submitted by Austria) re. the automatic qualification of WCCI 8+ points entries to the album was discussed each year. In the end a decision was taken in 2012, see http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/minutes2012-Kobe1.pdf
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15869
(22) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 13:32]

Everybody's getting in on the act, so here's my take for what it's worth.
It seems to me that these mid-level scores 2,2.5 = 'maybe' are a cop-out.
It's a judge's job to decide 'yes' or 'no'.
So in that case there would only be two scores: 0 or 1 - with those problems getting 2 or more points from the three judges included.

Now we no longer need to concern ourselves about 'suspect' scores (4,2,2),(3,3,1) as a single judge wouldn't be able to override the majority.
Also it would lighten the burden on the judges - now they have the knowledge that if they do misjudge a problem, there's a good chance that the others will make up for it.
And if it turns out a judge is being too mean or too generous he can be asked to review his scores for the whole set - not for individual entries.

This seems to me to be nice and simple, but I'm quite prepared to be educated on why it's naive and simplistic.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15870
(23) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 15:54]

@Neal

That was almost exactly the "old" system, that was in use before current "points" system was introduced. (I do not know the reason for this change, probably to have the number of selected problems in advance was considered not good.).
That old system allowed to select exactly the required number of problems (calculated in advance by percentage, or something).

1. Two judges receive N votes, where N - the number of problems to be selected. Each one of them selects exactly N problems as Album candidates.
2. If the problems received two votes, it is selected; if it have received 0 votes - it is discarded.
3. The problems with exactly 1 vote go to the third judge who selected a half of them for inclusion.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15871
(24) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 16:11]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [17-08-21]

Your idea, Neal, is indeed nice and simple. After all, it used to be ([EDIT] almost) like that up to the 1977-79 album. (Thanks, Georgy, for the correct description!)

The following will not answer your question, they are only some random thoughts of mine.

Starting with the 1980-82 album, the scoring system of YES/NO was replaced with a system based on points that was in principle very similar to the old system: if a judge considered that an entry should be in the album, he would give 3 points (very good, ought to be in the album) if not he would give 2 points (good, could be in the album). The scale also included 0 points (worthless), 1 point (mediocre) and 4 points (outstanding). In parallel, limits on the number of selected entries were canceled and the layout of the book was redesigned.

After one or two albums with the new system, it was decided that also half-points should be allowed. Frankly speaking, I cannot remember why (I was not even a delegate at that time). Maybe judges asked for it, maybe the album committee thought it would be nice to give more options to the judges, I don't know. Unfortunately minutes of those early meetings are not available. With half-points introduced, the scale slightly changes (0 to 2 points means NO, 2,5 points means MAYBE and 3+ points means YES).

In 2007 and starting with the 2004-06 album, a new decision was taken (with a vast majority): a second chance was given to entries with 7,5 points provided that the 8+ pts selected entries are less than 14% of the entries with 4,5+ points. The idea was in general welcomed by the composers. Of course this idea has also a serious flaw (to my opinion): judges can now manipulate a section. They could give 1,5 point to problems that they would normally be graded with 1 point, so that the entries with 4,5+ points increase and the ratio (8+ entries)/(4,5+ entries) gets lower. In fact such an attempt happened in the past at least once, but it was stopped by the section director.

It is true that nobody would doubt a YES+YES+NO score, but many would start complaining when they see 3+3+1 or 3+3+1,5. This was probably the reason that Marjan Kovačević had suggested in the past that we revert back to the simple YES/NO. His proposal was discussed in the album committee (after many years of delay), but most of the members thought that now judges are used to the 0-4 scale and the system works well in general (we should not forget the adjustment phase).

By the way, I am aware that others (Loustau & Aschwanden, Tribowski) have proposed that the composers should get as many album points as their problems get (a composition graded with 10 points is of higher quality than a composition with 8 points). As you can see, opinions can vary a lot.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15872
(25) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 20:21]

Indeed I'm unable to understand why a 8-mark and a 12-mark both lead to a single fide point. My own suggestion is to allow 1 point for a 7.5 problem till 10 points for a 12.0 problem. With of course a re-evaluation of the number of fide points necessary to get titles.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15873
(26) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 21:15]; edited by Neal Turner [17-08-21]

With the points system we're asking the judges to give their opinion of the quality of the problems, and to assign a rating based on that opinion.
Now this would be appropiate if it was some composing tourney where we were trying order the entries for the distribution of Prizes, HMs, Commends, but that's not what we're doing.
What we're doing is deciding whether a problem should appear in the Album, which is a simple yes/no question.

As I understand it the current method attempts to combine the points based rating system with the yes/no situation so that we have:
- 5 ways to say 'no'
- 1 way to say 'maybe' = 'I can't decide, I'll let the others do it for me.'
- 3 ways to say 'yes'
All with the possibility of outlying scores having a disproportionate effect on the outcome - a single 'no' can override two 'yes' votes.

It would be interesting to have somebody from the committee explain the merits of this system.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15875
(27) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 23:03]

Sorry if because practical reasons WCCI and Album must to going separate, but however WCCI is second-tier competition without many of western chess composition stars. The most eminent chess composition project is FIDE Album. If president ment to 5 judges are overdone, then I hope to 4 judges are optimal solution? As possible method of evaluation I get new idea- if 3 the best of total 4 marks have sum at least 8 poins, problem enter in album! Practical- 3,1.5,3,2 is sufficient for enter in album(3+3+2). At all I ment to it is the best of possible options for evaluation. With additional forth judge we solve problem at big distances between marks (3,3,1.5; 3.5,3,1; 4,2,1.5 etc). But it required without intercommunication between judges, to avoid manipulations! Are you sure with such proposal - 4 judges for FA evaluation ?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15876
(28) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Tuesday, Aug 22, 2017 00:26]

@ Neal: I admit I cannot myself explain the oxymoron, some other older member might be able to do.

By the way, changing to yes/no for the album does not necessarily break the link to WCCI. We would simply keep asking for 8 points from the WCCI qualifying entries.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15877
(29) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Tuesday, Aug 22, 2017 11:54]

There are also other options to consider when changing the rules for the selection of compositions in the FIDE Album.

As a judge in the FIDE Album 2007-09, I was quite comfortable with the current marking system (0-4).
I felt slightly overwhelmed by the huge number of entries to be analyzed: there were more than 1000!
My main fear was I won't be able to perform a proper quality assessment of compositions due to the participation quantity.

In an attempt to make FIDE Album judges' life easier, there was introduced a rather controversial limit of 30 entries / composer.
As we can see in the number of entries from FIDE Album 2013-15, there are still too many compositions to be analyzed in certain sections.

My proposal is to further reduce the number of compositions by introducing sub-sections, where necessary.
This approach worked particularly well for the helpmates, where there is already in place the split between h#2 and h>=2.5.

Suggestions:
In direct sections (e.g. two-movers): the total number of pieces (e.g. less than 16 pieces and >= 16 pieces).
In the endgames: the stipulation (e.g. win and draw).
In the fairies: (1) no fairy pieces and no fairy conditions (which can be called heterodox), (2) with fairy pieces and no fairy conditions and (3) with fairy conditions.

I think the pre-selection of certain entries to the FIDE Album, as a consequence of the WCCI results, helps a lot in making judges' life easier.
That's one of the main reasons I would prefer to preserve the same marking system in both WCCI and FIDE Album.
Of course, I am aware there are (or might be) some entirely different opinions.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15879
(30) Posted by Mario Parrinello [Tuesday, Aug 22, 2017 17:00]; edited by Mario Parrinello [17-08-22]

Very interesting discussion and I wish to suggest a proposal.

The current FIDE-Album scoring system is of course not perfect (nothing is perfect) but it is “the lesser evil”, I do think. Different methods of evaluation, in numerical term, of the submitted problems are unrealistic, unless someone does find a “perfect” system.
But I don't want to discuss neither on the scoring system nor on other unperfections (such as different ways of evaluation, possibile manipulations etc).
I would like that our small community does take into consideration one of the crucial point in the FIDE-Album selection: WHAT IS THE MAIN TASK OF THE JUDGES?
The answer to this question is obvious: they have to select problems for the relevant Album. BUT this needs time, in order to properly evaluate all the entries.
I was several times a FIDE-Album judge and was very afraid every time by the huge number of problems to be evaluated, I mean I was afraid not so much by the number of the problems but mostly by the relatively limited available TIME to complete the task.
With the current system, the judges receive the problems after the end of the relavant period, for example for the last published Album (2010-2012), the announcement did appear at the beginning of 2013.
Hence my proposal: why don't start immediately from the very first year of the relavant three-year period, in the previous case at the end of 2010? In this way the judges do evaluate the problems year after year and that allows them to have more time at their disposal. Of course the maximum number of submitted problems should be slightly increased (say, 15-20/year), since that allows the composers to submit all their best problems even though the current limit of 30 problems is surpassed.
The main merit is, in my opinion, that the judges have more time for their task. I think it does obviate at one of several reluctances when accepting the FIDE-Album judge's task. Personally, I would be more confortable if I knew that the time at my disposal is, say, 36 months instead of 18! It is very likely thus that we can find judges much more easily.

Of course, all the above is just my personal opinion but I wished to contribute to the discussion hopefully in order to improve the selection system.
I look forward to knowing your opinion.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15880
(31) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 09:33]

 QUOTE 
Hence my proposal: why don't start immediately from the very first year of the relavant three-year period, in the previous case at the end of 2010? In this way the judges do evaluate the problems year after year and that allows them to have more time at their disposal. Of course the maximum number of submitted problems should be slightly increased (say, 15-20/year), since that allows the composers to submit all their best problems even though the current limit of 30 problems is surpassed.

I have not quite understood what you suggest. For each three-years period, will the judges be the same in each year, or will they be different?

 QUOTE 
Personally, I would be more confortable if I knew that the time at my disposal is, say, 36 months instead of 18! It is very likely thus that we can find judges much more easily.

I'm totally confused now. Could you please provide a tentative schedule for the 2016-18 album, so that I understand your proposal?

Check http://www.wfcc.ch/fide-albums/fa1315sl/fa-duties-directors-judges/ Annex 3 for the 2013-15 album.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15887
(32) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 10:21]

To my opinion, the limit of 30 problems by author/section is probably the worst decision the committee has taken since the Fide Album exists. The big joke is that it appears that it had no positive effect since it is applied (almost 2000 entries for the “fairies” in Album 2013/15... Just crazy)!

I had long exchanges with some friends about this rule, and one of my “unofficial” proposals to reduce the workload of the judges is exactly what Mario writes: smoothing the judge’s work on 3 years. The only difference with Mario’s proposal is that I think a full yearly management should be done (except of course for the publication of the book itself), meaning the present process runs 3 times, but of course each time with 3 times less of entries (mainly for planning management, risk management, and others too). But of course I fully support this proposal.

To answer to Harry:
Example of schedule (of course already too late for 2016/2018):
- The announcement (sections, judges...) of the FA (n/n+2) occurs the year n (or even n-1)
- Each year (n, n+1, n+2), composers send their entries not later than March 1st of the next year (ie: entries published year n are sent before March 1st n+1, and the same for the 2 followings years).
- The present process (running for 3 years) runs 3 times: Director manages each year the entries, and judges have 1 year (or a little bit more, to be specified) to make their judgment.
The output deadline for the Album would be exactly the same as today.
It’s too late to apply this for FA 2016/2018, but may be a transitional process could be defined (ex: 1st deadline for year 2016: 1st January 2018; 2nd dead line for year 2017: September 1st 2018; 3rd deadline for year 2018: May 1st 2019).

If it’s the same judges for the 3 years, or if it’s different judges for each year, it’s a detail, which of course should be defined accurately, but this is not so important to my opinion, the spirit of smoothing the tasks is a basic practice of “project management”.


Out of this topic, but still about FA:
I think since many years now that each FA should be managed as a “program”, divided in 8 projects (= sections) plus side-projects (indexing, publishing...). That means that all the best practices of program/project management should be applied to FA. Today it is partially the case: there is some planning management, although not very strict (I remember the time when there was not even a formal planning), but several of the usual tasks of project management are not done (and specifically the tasks which should be in the “design phase” of the FA program, including pre-evaluation of the number of entries).
Smoothing the work, particularly the tasks which are on the critical path, is an elementary “best practice” and a completely rational one.

Today we are a very little community; my first thought is “it’s sad! it would be so wonderful if we were significantly more numerous”. But when I see the mess just for managing the production of just some hundreds of composers, what would be the status if “by misfortune” we were let us say 10 times more, some thousands (still very few in fact!): may be a limit of 3 problems by author/section???
Probably we should think not only which rules have to be changed for the FA, but also, first, how to work to define the changes (a kind of change management process), a process allowing a high adaptability to the context which changes fast...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15888
(33) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 11:58]

It's interesting that now we're getting posts from people who've actually been involved in the process, to see that their concerns go much further than the question of points allocation.
But I'll stick to that topic because I don't know anything about the other stuff.
I was thinking that after the luxury of having nine possible scores to choose from it might be too radical for it suddenly to be reduced to just two, so I suggest a compromise.

We'd have three possible scores:
0 = 'no'
1 = 'maybe'
2 = 'yes'
with a problem needing 4 points to be included.

On the plus side:
- it's still quite simple
- the judges keep the convenience of the 'maybe'
- there must be at least one 'yes' to get in
- a minority score can't override the majority - important!

On the minus side:
- too simple, it would leave nothing to argue about.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15890
(34) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 12:51]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [17-08-23]

 QUOTE 
I was thinking that after the luxury of having nine possible scores to choose from it might be too radical for it suddenly to be reduced to just two, so I suggest a compromise.

We'd have three possible scores:
0 = 'no'
1 = 'maybe'
2 = 'yes'
with a problem needing 4 points to be included.

Nice suggestion, Neal. I like it. I'm taking note and I shall convey it to the members of the album committee for further discussion during the year. Of course any change would be effective starting from the 2019-21 album.

This means that the 14% special rule (for the 7,5 points entries) would have no meaning any more and should be canceled (which is a good thing in my opinion, as it would stop any attempt of manipulation by a judge).

Edit: Obviously during the adjustment phase the director will ask the judges to further review entries with a total score of 3 points (1 NO + 1 MAYBE + 1 YES or 3 x MAYBE) like it happens now with the 7,5 points entries.

No change in the automatic qualification of WCCI entries with 8+ points is needed.

 QUOTE 
On the plus side:
- there must be at least one 'yes' to get in

Right. 2+1+1 (YES+MAYBE+MAYBE) is the same as the present 3+2,5+2,5.

 QUOTE 
On the minus side:
- too simple, it would leave nothing to argue about.

LOL :)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15892
(35) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 13:41]

Interesting propose by Neal (0,1,2). It is better solution in comparation with actual method but it maybe destroy tradition. Nobody have not comment about my previos proposal - 4 judges for FA election, scale 0-4 as actual, no intercommunication between director and judges, sum best 3 of 4 give final score (example: judgement 2,3,1.5,3, sum best 3 of 4 is 2+3+3=8)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15893
(36) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 14:02]

@Dragan(35)

I think that adding one more judge is bad. It's tough to find judges even in a current system. Adding one more judge will slow down process and selection of problems.

Also I do not think that communication between judges should be forbidden. If I am a judge and I find anticipation for some very good problem I should let other judges know that. Otherwise they may give a high mark without knowing that problem is anticipated.

I think that whatever system we come up with it will not be a perfect system. The main problem in my opinion is that there are no clear rules what is a good problem and what is a bed problem. At some point I started sending all of my problems published during the three year period. That's because there are bunch of my problems that I thought will make album for sure but did not. Also there are many problems that I thought are not enough good for album but they did make it. I started sending all problems when I saw some very bad problems in album (of course this is my personal opinion). Like for example there are bunch of twomovers selected for the album with a letter themes where there are some basic problems rules violated (duals, cook tries etc.). Just because some made some new letter combinations it does not means that problem is good. By the way this is happening all of the time and it will never change. And by the way I did make a many problems showing some letter combination (reciprocal changes, Lachny etc.). However at some point problemist started composing pseudo problems (I do call them this way). The letter theme problems are good as long as black defenses are same between phases. However at some point people started composing pseudo Le Grand problems and if I remember well about 17% of all twomovers do satisfy this theme. However many judges threated them same way as "Le Grand" theme that is not easy to achieve. I do not see how that can be changed because chess problems are like an art. You either like it or not. And it happens in all groups.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15894
(37) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 19:38]

General remark.

Some of you might have heard about Arrow's impossibility theorem (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem) that is characterizes one kind of difficulties when trying to come up with final ordering of some elements by aggregating individual votes. While classical Arrow's theorem is strictly defined and its setup is not totally in line with our situation, there is whole class of similar results that simply say that it is difficult/impossible to come up with generally acceptable approach to aggregation without any adverse (counterintuitive, unwanted) situations. As Arrow himself has put it: "Most systems are not going to work badly all of the time. All I proved is that all can work badly at times."

This teaches us an important practical lesson. Once we have a stabilized proposal for judging approach and its aggregation (it is irrelevant who proposes it and puts it into reasonable closed form of specific suggestion to WFCC), before voting in WFCC session it should be put to some kind of public discussion, where interested souls (devil's advocates, in fact) could look for adverse situations and shortcomings of the suggested system. The proposal should not be put to vote without such opponency, as it could be easily overlooked something wrong and we might end up with worse system than is the current one.

As for the process and the project management view to FIDE Album productionas described by Jean-Marc, it is quite healthy approach, but resource-demanding and requiring quite a disciplined actions by many involved, that is sometimes an issue in our small community.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15902
(38) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 21:14]

Neals propose(with marks 0,1,2) is the most similar or almost identical as proposal which I use when 2011/12 was run project SERBIAN ALBUM. I suggested marks as symbols +,=,-. +(for album), =(neutral mention) and -(not for album). Dear chessfriends, now we can to open VOTING about proposal by Neal Turner which I support as real and president Harry also agree with him idea. VOTING FOR or AGAINST Neals proposal to new rules for selection in FIDE Album would be based on 3-marks system(marks 0-,0,0+,1-,1,1+,2-,2 and 2+) start now and will be open to next 30 days. I vote FOR
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15904
(39) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 22:09]

Excuse me, but wasn't the main stumbling block of the current system the situation where too few problems are 8+ and too many are 7.5 (hence 14% rule, hence recent protest against the result in studies, etc)?
I fail to see how Neal's suggestion - {0, 1, 2} - addresses it, it's still possible to have few 4+s and many 3s.
Even the old system described by Georgy in post 23 makes better sense in this respect.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15905
(40) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Wednesday, Aug 23, 2017 22:23]

 QUOTE 
I felt slightly overwhelmed by the huge number of entries to be analyzed: there were more than 1000!
My main fear was I won't be able to perform a proper quality assessment of compositions due to the participation quantity.

An album judge should be able to handle comfortably 1000 entries in a period of 16 months. I compared the number of entries of the two recent albums. The current figures show that:

1. There was an increase in twomovers (1100 in 2010-12 and 1290 in 2013-15)
2. Threemovers, moremovers, studies had no serious change and they are under or at 1000
3. Helpmates in 2 had a slight decrease from 1150 in 2010-12 to 1025 in 2013-15
4. The old (combined) h#3-n section (1400 entries in 2010-12) was split in two groups and it is now manageable (870 h#3 and 680 h#n in 2013-15)
5. There were 1000 selfmates in 2010-12, I don't have the data for 2013-15
6. Outstanding increase in the fairies: 1520 in 2010-12 and 1900 (!!) in 2013-15
7. Slight decrease in retros, from 400 in 2010-12 to 340 in 2013-15

 QUOTE 
In an attempt to make FIDE Album judges' life easier, there was introduced a rather controversial limit of 30 entries / composer.
As we can see in the number of entries from FIDE Album 2013-15, there are still too many compositions to be analyzed in certain sections.

My proposal is to further reduce the number of compositions by introducing sub-sections, where necessary.
This approach worked particularly well for the helpmates, where there is already in place the split between h#2 and h>=2.5.

Suggestions:
In direct sections (e.g. two-movers): the total number of pieces (e.g. less than 16 pieces and >= 16 pieces).
In the endgames: the stipulation (e.g. win and draw).
In the fairies: (1) no fairy pieces and no fairy conditions (which can be called heterodox), (2) with fairy pieces and no fairy conditions and (3) with fairy conditions.

I think the increase in #2 section is not alarming and there is no problem in the studies section. Currently the issue is in the fairies section.

We had been discussing about re-forming sections from 2015. In Ostróda it was agreed (with a vast majority) to split the helpmates section to three groups and to apply the 30-entries limit for the whole section. Eventually we managed to keep a reasonable number. In Ostróda the suggestion to separate the helpselfmates from the fairies as an individual section (not a group of the fairies section) was discussed a lot in both the album committee and the assembly. The suggestion was rejected, but in fact opinions were divided (9-11-3).

We should have continued discussing about the fairies section. In 2016 no progress was achieved. In 2017 we discussed it only briefly, but we did not enter into details about the split of the groups. The album committee will discuss during 2018 and we hope we will be ready with a proposal of how the groups should be split. We shall try to collect opinions and data for sure. If a decision could be reached in the assembly of 2018, there would be enough time to implement it in the next album. Of course potential judges should be found well in advance (which is not so easy if you don't know in what groups you're searching for judges...)

 QUOTE 
I think the pre-selection of certain entries to the FIDE Album, as a consequence of the WCCI results, helps a lot in making judges' life easier.
That's one of the main reasons I would prefer to preserve the same marking system in both WCCI and FIDE Album.
Of course, I am aware there are (or might be) some entirely different opinions.

What's your opinion on Neal's idea (about album only)?
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15906

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4

MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album election- change the rules