MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:51 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 2013-15 - section D - studies - protest against result
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(1) Posted by [Tuesday, Jun 27, 2017 20:38]

FIDE Album 2013-15 - section D - studies - protest against result


Michal Hlinka, Ľuboš Kekely and Oto Mihalčo – Slovakia,
Jaroslav Polášek, Emil Vlasák and Stanislav Nosek – Czech Republic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr.
Harry Fougiaxis
President of WFCC
loyaldragong@mail.com
Matter: Album FIDE 2013-15, section: D – studies - protest against result

We protest against result and call for his reevaluation. If in more cases was great differentials in evaluations of studies, it is obvious this was fault.
Reasoning and doubts:
In section D director was changed from personal reason. When result became known there is possibility that this personal reason is his disagreement with that result.
Comparison with previous Album we attach. From table is clear that problem is in below standard evaluations. We believe study is not in crisis. Per contra we think study is in big boom.
From WCCI 2013-15 here is 41 studies with min. 8 points therefore number of selected studies directly from judges of Album is even smaller. Interesting is comparison of studies from WCCI with 7,5 points and which gave now less. For example one such study (Hlinka, Ke3/Kg2) gave in this Album only 5 points. We suppose that under the same evaluation already in WCCI only less than 20 studies should be selected do Album directly.
Also in past cases was with rigid judging. But here already it overruns of margin. We know judge has own opinion and true. But in this extraordinary case it is needed extraordinary solving. Status quo of this results should be bitter irony for endgame world and for a lot of study composers.
In name of all protestants
Michal Hlinka, international judge of FIDE and international master of FIDE hlinkamichal55@gmail.com.
In Košice, date:............

Attachment: table with comparison of results Albums 2013-15 and 2010-12
FIDE Album - Spokesman: Harry Fougiaxis, loyaldragongmail.com
Studies - Spokesman: Yochanan Afek, afekchessgmail.com
Gentlemen!
Please, pay attention to the table bottom.

Album FIDE 2010-12 Album FIDE 2013-15 status
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
judges Aliev, Gurgenidze, Pervakov Becker, Minski, Salai jr.
entries 745 834 + 12 percent
selected 122 (>= 8 points) 107 (>= 7.5 points) - 12 percent
selected authors 45 33 - 27 percent
>= 4.5 points 641 580 - 10 percent

Obviously something is wrong. Michal Hlinka requests publication of judges’ scores for all entries. Yes, it is necessary step to analyze this situation, but it is not all.
If the scores should be balanced, it looks like a deep crisis of the study composition. But we do not believe that. It is enough to scroll through the last few EG magazines to see a good development in this area.
The second explanation is non-standard scores of some judge, which harms to the whole area of EG study. Then it would be necessary to re-judge the Album or use math methods to eliminate this difference. And also measures are needed for the future to prevent such a crazes.
Yours
Emil Vlasák, Czech Republic, international judge, emil@vlasak.biz
Jaroslav Polášek, Czech Republic, international judge, jaroslav.polasek@brouzdej.net
June 14, 2017
___________________________________________________________________
P. S.
At the same time we ask to study composers which agree with this protest to connect and notify to us as soon as but before 15th of July 2017 to address: hlinkamichal55@gmail.com. After this term we shall send list with supporters to Mr. Harry Fougiaxis.
 
(Read Only)pid=15594
(2) Posted by Martin Minski [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 11:30]; edited by Martin Minski [17-06-28]

I think this protest is absolutely unnecessary.
There is no reason to doubt the results in any way.

What should the statistics tell us?

FIDE Album 92-94: 77 studies,
FIDE Album 95-97: 87 studies,
FIDE Album 98-00: 96 studies,
FIDE Album 01-03: 84 studies,
FIDE Album 04-06: 78 studies,
FIDE Album 07-09: 153 studies,
FIDE Album 10-12: 122 studies,
FIDE Album 13-15: 107 studies.

I see normal fluctuations. Nothing special.

Ladislav Salai, Richard Becker and me, we have worked hard for over a year and we were very responsible and conscientious.
Only the best studies will be included in the Album and only if all three judges agree. Everyone knows the rules. There will always be disappointments among individual composers. You have to live with it.

Gentleman, you have to compose better studies!
Then they will be included in the Album.

There will be no publication of the individual scores. This would be against the rules. There are certainly good reasons for this ...

Martin Minski
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15596
(3) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 13:24]

Why not publish the scores of any study, like it was done for WCCI.

It would be very instructive : we could learn to, next time, compose... much better studies !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15597
(4) Posted by Valery Gurov [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 15:59]

Я судил альбом два раза и мне было безразлично, опубликуют все мои оценки или нет.
Если кто то против такой публикации, то, видимо, ему есть что скрывать :-)
I judged an album two times and was indifferent for me, will publish all my points or not.
If someone against such publication, then, probably, to him is what to "hide" :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15598
(5) Posted by Martin Minski [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 19:15]

I was also a judge for the WCCI. There were all the scores published. I have no problem with this publication.



However there are other rules for the FIDE Album.

I haven't invented these rules, but I have to respect them.

These rules are clearly formulated:

http://www.wfcc.ch/fide-albums/fa1315sl/fa-duties-directors-judges/



Anyone who has suggestions for changing the rules should formulate them in Dresden.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15599
(6) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 20:58]

When some parts of the rules are stupid, the main thing is to change them.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15602
(7) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 21:08]; edited by Frank Richter [17-06-28]

The main thing is quality, not quantity.
Looking through last Albums you may discover problems without clear theme, with non-economical material usage etc. etc. This is a dangerous and terrible trend.
Im my opinion it cannot be the right way to cry for more Album points. It would be necessary to develop a more critical view to the quality of Album applications and the current chess problem world in generally.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15603
(8) Posted by Torsten Linß [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 22:05]

I totally agree with Frank.

@ Luboš and friends: You should discuss issues like this with your WFCC delegate who then can launch a formal complaint.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15604
(9) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 22:07]

„Interesting is comparison of studies from WCCI with 7,5 points and which gave now less.“ [1]

It's no secret that WCCI level is much lower than the Album's. Comparing contributions of leading 11 WCCI participants in #n section 2013-15 for example, who sent at least 3 identical entries to the Album section C later, shows that these 53 same problems received an average of 6.85 points in WCCI and 5.85 points in Album judgement. This means that the same problem exactly got one point more on average in WCCI rating than in the Album's.

The consequence of this fact cannot be to adjust the Album level to the lower one of the WCCI. Rather it should be examined carefully whether a WCCI 8+ problem really belongs to the Album.

The whole discussion about automatical WCCI inclusion already took place at http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1498673354&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=1185 .
No conclusions have been drawn since by WFCC.
 
(Read Only)pid=15605
(10) Posted by [Wednesday, Jun 28, 2017 23:25]

Dear Martin.

I suppose that you have information about scores other two judges. Is it right if there are many big differentials in scores?
One from directors wrote us that twice he sent to one judge notice about differentials but that judge changed nothing.
Please it needs to read our protest carefully.
Every judge has big responsibility. He must evaluate all studies fairly not only those with his favourite themes. And if later see that his colegas consider some studies as excelent he could re-evaluate these studies - strict staying on own opinion hurts to studies and to authors.
One example from your judging:
- in WCCI 2007-09 one my study received scores 3+3+1 - last score (1) was from you
- in FIDE Album 2007-09 that study received 3+3+2,5 - last score (2,5) was from you
- but no director wrote to you - therefore I want say thanks to you additionally.

Best, Michal Hlinka
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15606
(11) Posted by Martin Minski [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 01:29]

Dear Michal,

I guess it's about study D145 in the FIDE Album 2007-09, Michal Hlinka, 1st prize Olimpiya Dünyasi 2008.
I gave for this study 2,5 points in the FIDE Album.
In the WCCI 2007-09, I gave for the same study (your study #6 in the WCCI) only 2 points (but not 1 point!).
In general, I don't change my score.
This was an exception because I have considered certain positive nuances for this study later.
I don't quite understand what you want to say with this example.

Everyone who sends studies or problems to the Album knows the rules. It is not common to discusse publicly about individual studies or problems later.

The process of discussing differences about the scores between the judges and the director was strictly adhered. I can assure that.

I find your demand for "reevaluation" very strange.

Everyone who was judge knows how much work it does to evaluate over 800 problems or studies...
I have already done this work twice. I think the composers should show more confidence and more respect to the judges.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15607
(12) Posted by Rajendiran Raju [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 05:48]; edited by Rajendiran Raju [17-06-29]

Duration Period may be reduced to two calender years ! It would be reduce Judges burden.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15608
(13) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 08:37]; edited by Juraj Lörinc [17-06-29]

Raju, it would also help to reduce judges burden, if composers would not send problems that clearly "should not be in FIDE Album", i.e. those that judges have to award with 1 point only. Comparing own's production with problems from previous Albums would be helpful in this respect. Mere boom in quantity in some fields of our hobby does not ensure increase of number of good and excellent compositions. So comparing numbers is not totally correct.

Also, I think that WFCC decision to limit number of problems that could be sent by one composer into FIDE Album section to max(10, 3*number of problems in previous Album) has actually encouraged some composers to send full 30 even if some of these compositions are crap, just because "they can send 30". Previously, there seemed to be some self-restraint in them...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15609
(14) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 18:36]

I read the link given by Martin above (5th intervention). Maybe I missed something, but I did not find why it should be forbidden to present the points given to each study, selected or not.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15616
(15) Posted by [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 19:32]

Dear Martin.
I do not want solve old problems but new.
Only I wrote that you achieved your previous score to change (I appreciate it) although director did not write to you.
Yes it is study 145 but your score was as I wrote that means 1. If you gave to it 2 points then it received 3+2+3 = 8 - mark of excelent study and it did not need re-evaluate this.
In that Album was another study - 144 Hlinka+Kekely: 3+2+3=8, but cause of co-author it was not in WCCI - maybe did you write about it?
Martin I respect of judges - formerly also I judged of Album FIDE.
Please you can understand to me and others which support our protest - if there was big differentials in scores then assurance can be disturbed.
P.S.
You made statistics how many studies were in the past Albums.
We present in our table also how many there were all studies sent to Album and also how many received min. 4,5 points.
But wrong deduction is from your sheet. And reader will be at fault.
We do not know from which number is 77 selected studies - how many percent it was? If there was fewer studies, then 77 can be 20 percent or more.

Michal Hlinka
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15617
(16) Posted by [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 19:39]

Dear Alan.
Long ago we good know that in rules
http://www.wfcc.ch/fide-albums/fa1315sl/fa-duties-directors-judges/
is nothing about secret of scores.
Mr. President Harry Fougiaxis wrote to us that this is policy of WFCC without existing of rule.
Ľuboš Kekely
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15618
(17) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Thursday, Jun 29, 2017 20:18]

Thank you Ľuboš.
So I was wrong when I talked (without reading) about "stupid rules". I should have said "stupid customs" !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15619
(18) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Jun 30, 2017 10:11]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [17-06-30]

Dear Alain,

it is against the policy of the albums, from since they were established, to publish all scores, so unfortunately it is impossible for me to provide you the requested total scores of all studies. Please submit a request to the WCCC in Dresden so it can be discussed there if it should be allowed.

Thanks,
Siegfried
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15628
(19) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Friday, Jun 30, 2017 10:35]

I would like to add to Siegfried's post that if a composer would like to know the total score of each of his entries, he may write to Siegfried and ask for this piece of information.

In fact some composers (incl. those who protest) have already asked him and he provided the information.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15629
(20) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Friday, Jun 30, 2017 11:06]

Thank you Siegfried & Harry.

I take note, even if I find this rather funny, even hypocritical. I remember that Denis Blondel published 4 or 5 very interesting books entitled "Annexe" (to album FIDE) containing problems and studies scored 7 & 7,5 points. So he knew the scores. This is what we call in french "un secret de Polichinelle".
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15631

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

MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album 2013-15 - section D - studies - protest against result