Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
15:13 UTC
| |
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 | | (21) Posted by Martin Minski [Friday, Jun 30, 2017 12:04]; edited by Martin Minski [17-06-30] |
Dear Michal,
I greatly appreciate you as a composer, but you write here things that are wrong.
Again: You have only one single study in the FIDE Album 2007-09. This is D145 with the scores:
Kovalenko: 3 points, Minski: 2,5 points, Akobia: 3 points.
This study was your # 6 at WCCI 2007-09. I can prove it!
See here:
http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/wcci41.pdf
The score of this study at WCCI: Akobia: 3 points, Kovalenko: 2 points, Minski: 2 points.
Kovalenko also changed his score.
There is no study, which I first evaluated with only 1 point, later with 2.5 points.
By the way, the WCCI studies were only included in the FIDE Album since 2010-12.
There are percent statistics, for example in the FIDE album 2004-06.
The percentages fluctuate. That is normal.
You justify your protest with statistical arguments. I can not understand that.
The director has changed because the old director has resigned for personal reasons.
Siegfried Hornecker has done this job competently and completely correctly.
There are some composers who are disappointed. I understand that.
I sent about 40 prize studies (with co-productions) as candidates. There are many of my prizes (even 1st prizes) which are not included in the Album. There is no guarantee that a prize study is automatically in the FIDE album. I have full confidence in my judges Richard, Ladislav, and Siegfried. They have decided that some of my studies are failing. I accept this to 100 percent.
Perhaps the constellation Becker, Minski and Salai is somewhat stricter in the sum than the constellation Aliev, Pervakov and Gurgenidze. That is possible. But that is no reason to question the overall result.
I have the presumption that some composers sometimes can not properly assess their own studies. Other composers might be unlucky because a study has just failed. I think everyone who earns a title will get it. Sooner or later. Happiness and bad luck are balanced out over the years. It doesn't depend on the decision about one single study or one problem.
The FIDE album is an excellent project.
I will continue to participate in this project.
I especially thank Harry, who has been coordinating all the work for many years.
Maybe we can improve the system.
I read that there are good ideas.
We will certainly discuss that in Dresden.
I like studies.
I like the homepage of ARVES.
I'm happy about tournaments like the Polasek & Vlasak 60 JT, which has been organized excellently!
I'm happy about young study composers like Alexey Popov!
I'm happy about the interesting articles of Siegfried Hornecker on chessbase.com.
The study genre is on the up.
We should not argue, but rather work together constructively.
| | | (22) Posted by Neal Turner [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 12:31] |
Slightly off topic, but now that study composers have access to powerful game playing programs as well as tablebases, isn't it time for the anomaly of them receiving 1.67 points be scrapped?
| | | (23) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 17:32] |
Neal, please read an old discussion at http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1498921673&app=forum&act=posts&tid=1218&fid=gen&page=0 and you may end up wishing you never asked this question.
| | | (24) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 18:03] |
As a summary I recommend post no. 102.
| | | (25) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 18:08]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [17-07-01] |
Here with the post marked that Marcel Tribowski means.
http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1498925089&app=forum&act=posts&tid=1218&pid=10198#n10198
| | | (26) Posted by [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 20:20] |
Dear Martin.
In that my study I had mistake in my archive - sorry.
Though my idea was judge can change his initial scores - you did it.
Why now not? Existing scores is not good. we could tolerate it in a few cases.
Statistics must be for demonstration something. You wrote percents change - it is known. But it needs publish more data not incomplete - else reader is disorientated and it is manipulation.
Next you wrote to be GENTLEMAN...
Yes we want and what about judges? We want only fair scores. Also organizers of Album want the same. Therefore there is possibility director ask to judges if big differentials. He do it twice but judge was not as Gentleman.
Rules are old - from first Album. It is time for change and not to defent.
It is enough only to publish individual scores without names of judges.
For example 2,5+2,5+2=7 points. And we see differentials are small. Such form is still anonymous
We protest cause we are Gentleman!
Michal Hlinka
P. S.
Nobody is unerrant. Life teachs us it needs to do compromises. It is not late. GEN UNA SUMUS. In family problems can be solved so that nobody will be winner or loser.
M. H.
| | | (27) Posted by Martin Minski [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 20:44] |
Dear Michal,
We analyzed the studies for over a year. Each of the three judges has given his scores to the best of his knowledge. In the end, we were able to make some changes about too big differences. This process has also been fully and thoroughly completed. The scores are now final.
You keep repeating that we should change something. But why?
The current rules, which have all been respected, apply to the Album 2013-15.
You can make suggestions to improve rules, but only for the next Album.
| | | (28) Posted by Martin Minski [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 20:55] |
There are some studies with 7 points, which have just barely failed. There are also some of my own studies. This is a pity but not to change. This also happens in other sections, but there nobody is protesting because this is absolutely normal.
| | | (29) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Saturday, Jul 1, 2017 21:48] |
Quoting a post from page 1:
"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."
As a relatively new composer, I would just like to add my voice to this point. I don't really know what level you have to be on in order to reach the album. Maybe some of my entries fall into the category above, but without seeing the results from previous years, it's impossible to know. Whether this argument is strong enough that the current practice should change, I don't know. But what is certain is that the current practice makes it harder, especially for new composers, to judge which problems should be sent to the album.
| | | (30) Posted by Per Olin [Sunday, Jul 2, 2017 19:14] |
1) The original issue
The WCCI precedes the FIDE Album process and highly ranked problems in the former are automatically included in the latter. The scored points of the individual judges in the former are public (at least in WCCI 2013-15), which is not the case in the latter. Is there a need for a uniform judging process, open or secretive?
2) Off topic; post 22 and further
Many have been the discussions about the higher points endgame studies receive in Albums. In post 24 is a reference to the historical summary and words of wisdom by Uri Avner, which ends by: 'So, the idea of equality between genres was partially put aside, who knows for how long. Apparently, we are doomed to live with this amount of counter-autonomy until the end of time...' - The answer to the question 'for how long?' is 'until something is done'.
Long ago I have composed a problem, that has remained unpublished due to self criticism. The problem consists of two mysterious numbers and when now published in this context, it is evident what the numbers refer to.
Mathematical chess problem / original:
1.67 1.00
Two solutions, two thematic tries
- - - - - - -
The numbers 1.67 and 1.00 refer to FIDE Album points awarded to endgame studies (1.67) and all other problems (1.00). If a scaling is needed, it has been done only partially. Scaling criteria can be possibility to generate problems by computer, availability of computer checking, difficulty of composing, closeness to the game of chess etc.
The two solutions are:
- Award all selected problems equally, whereby 1.00 is to be selected. Thematic try is to award 1.67 to all problems selected.
- Make a scaling for all problem genres based on appropriate scaling criteria of today. Thematic try is to use scaling criteria valid one half of a century ago.
- - - - - - - -
The problem has already (!) been commented by a person, who wishes to remain anonymous and who obviously aims to become a judge in chess composition: The idea is presented with minimal force. The analogue solutions accompanied by excellent thematic tries form a harmonious setup. The problem will apparently be appreciated by anyone who can count to 1.67. A clear winner candidate, especially if there are no further entries.
| | | (31) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jul 27, 2017 22:45]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [17-07-27] |
This is just to let you know I also think changes need to be made, but as a director I will need to remain neutral on the current album. I have done my job as necessary, and am not responsible for the judges' decisions - where there were discrepancies, they were asked to re-evaluate, as the rules say, but - no offense - I had no influence on their actual decisions, and if they decided to keep their scores - or to change them - I have to accept that.
I feel that there was, as you say, too few points given in general, and that many great compositions were left out. But there is nothing I could do about it. For this I hope you can understand that I am also interested in improving this system, as we are all in the same boat, we are all lovers of the art. But I think it more effective to send concrete ideas to the local delegate - or to Harry, as you do with the protest.
So for political reasons I will not join the protest, but I share the view that the current system in unsatisfactory. But I also believe there is nobody to be blamed personally here.
Please note that this is my personal opinion, not a statement as director.
Best regards,
Siegfried
(This is an open letter which has also been sent to Michal Hlinka and the people receiving - not signing, although I would welcome if he forwards this - his protest.)
| | | (32) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Sunday, Aug 13, 2017 21:42] |
when dr nenad petrovič founded FIDE Album he try to make project which will included the best chess compositions arround the world in 3-years cycles. What we have today? Is FIDE Album really selection the best compositions? Many outstanding achievements are not inluded in Albums, often because subjective opinions one or two of judges or his personal reasons. Actual judging system with only 3 judges is not good and it is need change. If we have 5 judges on WCCI and WCCT , why then for Albums project wellknown as the most important composers contest it is not case?? In my opinion FIDE Album with 3-judges evaluation is dead. At least 6 last FA were many mistakes at judgement processes. Important changes at judging process are need urgent, for next cycle 2016-18, as only possibility for real selection the best compositions
| | | (33) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Aug 13, 2017 22:36]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [17-08-13] |
Many great problems, such as by Dieter Kutzborski, are not included because they are not sent to the album.
If we want to make it an album as intended, then there should be a selection made by professional selectors, not only based on the entries sent in but by all compositions, something like I assume was done for the album 1914-1944.
Also, if we want to make it an album as intended, we should do away with titles being bound to album points.
And yes, I agree at the 5 judges, in fact I also proposed it, but unfortunately it seems impossible to do as there would not be enough judges found apparently, as I was told at the Studies Subcommittee meeting. So yes, we need a change, but what is realistic? How can we do something?
(This post is my personal opinion, not as director.)
| | | (34) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Sunday, Aug 13, 2017 23:55]; edited by Dragan Stojnić [17-08-14] |
Concerning the study protest about judging process for Album FIDE 2013-2015 I would add some of my personal statements. First of all, I also signed the protest for moral reasons. Second, I do not know anything what was discussed about it on the 60th Congress, so maybe this letter comes too late to change the situation. Or maybe not!? It would be fair if the authors (who think that they have been wrong estimated) were allowed to present additional evidence to the Director of the study section. This evidence should confirm that the particular study should have been valued better. The evidence could for example be one of the following: The Study of the year award, other awards, valuable reproductions with strong commendable comments, important competition awards, etc. Then the Director would list all studies and send them for revision to the judges with the supplied evidence.
This business with the protest to the Congress is a pure failure. What do the authors have out of a mere reproach to the judges? It means that the authors only admit that the judges were right even if they judged too strictly. But nothing is done to amend the mistakes! I suggest that authors send a demand to the Director who should set a deadline of one month or so in which time the authors could give their objections. Then the objections should be forwarded to the judges for consideration.
That's the only fair thing. Why did Director and study judges have to hurry with the decisions anyway? There are colleagues (judges in other sections) who haven't even made their decision yet in 3 sections: helpmates, selfmates and fairies.
It means there is still time for the study judges to take another look. When I judged the Album FIDE 2007-2009 (mate in two section), a month after the judging was over I received a letter from the Director to reconsider over 100 problems in which there had been found considerable differences in the marks. At the end, I had to correct more than 400 problems (1/3 from the total number) in order to provide more realistic estimate.
Dragan Stojnić, IM of chess composition and international judge of chess composition
| | | (35) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Monday, Aug 14, 2017 11:21] |
Bravo Dragan (32 & 34).
| | | (36) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Tuesday, Aug 15, 2017 10:53] |
Extremely hypocritical comment by my countryman, especially after seeing his dealing with mathematics as FIDE Album judge and montage of the average by scoring change, just to be sure that every of his "masterpieces" with 7,5 pts enter in FA.
| | | (37) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Tuesday, Aug 15, 2017 23:42] |
Only complete idiot as Saljic can to have such imagination
| | | (38) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Aug 16, 2017 06:49] |
Gentlemen... please... while we can disagree among ourselves, we can argue, we can even feel misunderstood, I'd like to enjoy the board free of personal attacks. They do not help anything.
| | | (39) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Wednesday, Aug 16, 2017 14:41] |
After such attack on my honesty I must to reply adequate. It is my principle from my start 20 years ago I ment to all compositions with score 7.5 points(included WCCI) must to be included in FIDE Album also! Average score 2.5 is higher over 50 percents (2 is 50pcts), because all such compositions must to enter in Album. Why in some cases(sections) compositions with score 7.5 cannot to enter in FA when have same quality as such compositions which enter in FA in other sections ?? It is ridiculous. Hlinkas protest is the first step in process necessary changes for election in future FIDE Albums, included next FA 2016-18. As first I propose to we which support protest found committee for revision FIDE Album election. It included possibility for second-chance evaluation too. Soon I will present a lot of ideas but also each good propose by other member is wellcome. We now have historical chance to create new more objective system for future FA elections.
| | | (40) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Aug 16, 2017 15:04]; edited by Frank Richter [17-08-16] |
More than 50 percents isn't necessarily equal to high quality.
In my opinion NO problem with 7.5 points shall be/should have been included in an Album. This rule is an unspeakable loophole to push more problems into the selection.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album 2013-15 - section D - studies - protest against result |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
