MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

6:15 UTC
ISC 2020
 
  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-Apr-2020

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
(1) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Friday, Aug 18, 2017 12:32]

FIDE Album election- change the rules


The rules for selection compositions in FIDE Album must be changed. Actual system with only 3 judges, and 7.5pts ,,to be or not to be,, rule is not good. Now I open discussion about proposals for change rules for FIDE Album election. All members who want to participate in creation of proposals for changes are wellcome, exluded provocator Darko Saljic . My email for contact is: draganstojnic050@gmail.com
 
(Read Only)pid=15843
(2) Posted by Martin Minski [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 10:24]; edited by Martin Minski [17-08-19]

5 judges are unrealistic. Then we need 18 more judges. So many (good) judges don't exist, especially if you want to change them every three years.
I think the rule with 7.5 points can remain so. The only critical case is 3 + 3 + 1.5, thus twice "yes" and once "no". But there is the counter-example at 8 points 2.5 + 2.5 + 3, so twice "maybe" and only once "yes". Somewhere is the limit. I think 8 points (in general) is ok. Or 2 + 2 + 4, twice "maybe" and only once "yes". I want to say: We have the "point rule". We can not then argue with the "yes-no rule", otherwise we would have to exclude 8-point studies.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15845
(3) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 10:36]

In fact 20 more judges are needed.

Nevertheless, this is not a new idea. It was discussed in the album committee at least twice in the recent past and was abandoned as unrealistic.

Let's not forget that in 2018, we should also find 40 judges for the WCCI and 40 judging countries for the WCCT.

The resources of our small community are limited.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15846
(4) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 11:22]

You make me think to the sentence of Maréchal Lyautey. A superb oak tree had been destroyed. He asks to replant it. Somebody objects : "But Maréchal, it will take 100 years". Then he replies : "One more reason to begin immediately !"

I offer myself as an additional judge for studies (not of course about my own entries).

Still missing 19.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15847
(5) Posted by Evgeni Bourd [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 11:51]

I feel that 8+ points -> Fide album and 3 judges are decent rules, changing those is rather radical IMO.
There are few formal things that might be useful, some are already enforced by some directors.
One that comes to mind is marking "suspect marking", where a single judge is forcing the problem 'in' or 'out' of the album.
These marks will include - (4,2,2) , (3,3,1.5) , (3,3,1) , ( 3,3,0.5) , (4,1.5,2.5) , (4,2.5,1) ... it can be formally declared what is a 'suspect mark'.
(2.5,2.5,2.5) for me is not suspect mark, and an indication the problem should NOT be in the album in most cases.
This will be done in order to find out why a single judge thinks the problem should or should not be in the album differently from the other judges.
This might also avoid bias against certain themes or composers.
It might also be possible the judge simply missed a unique execution or found a bad fault which was missed by others ( or he just has a different opinion! )
There is a 'suspect judge' ( or 2 in some cases ) in each of these grades and he will have to comment on his grading ( as a part of the process )
If the director will find the comment acceptable, The other judges will consider changing their marks, and if no changes are done the marking will stay.
Otherwise the director might intervene and mark the problem himself instead of the suspect judge.
This of course might be insulting to some judges, so other actions are also possible in these cases.
In any case I think that strong analysis by the director is also required in many cases, instead of a somewhat passive organizing role.
As an example I think that marks like (4,3,0),(4,4,0),(4,4,1),(3.5,3.5,0.5) ... cannot be kept as they are and must have a strong intervention by the directors.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15848
(6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 13:47]

Of course, there is always the Josten option (after Gerhard Josten,
the avid proposer): Throw all this title vanity completely out
of the window. If it's art, let time (and reprint) sort em out.
(Personally, I couldn't care less if I'd make it to the FIDE album
or even get a title. *I* know I'm brilliant, that's all that matters :-)))

P.S. It's not only that we have so few art critics, but also so many
art items. Compare with the workload of, say, the Kassel Documenta.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15851
(7) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 14:24]

I think Evgeni's post about "suspect marking" sounds very reasonable. I also understand that it is difficult to get more than three judges to do such a heavy workload (big respect to everyone who has taken on that duty!). But is it possible to do something in between, and have three judges plus two "reserve" judges who will only judge the problems that get a "suspect marking" from the other three judges (e.g. 3-3-1.5 and 4-2-2)? I don't know how many problems will be affected by this, but I assume it will only be a minority of them. So the workload should be much less for the two extra judges.

This way, you will get five opinions instead of three on the problems that are difficult to judge. My Valladao study with AUW comes to mind as an example. In the WCCI, the five judges gave five different marks. Which is understandable because the study has obvious flaws, so it all depends on how much weight you put on the achievement on the theme versus the negative sides. For such cases, it makes more sense to have more judges.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15852
(8) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 14:25]

 QUOTE 
I offer myself as an additional judge for studies (not of course about my own entries).

Traditionally the studies committee prepares a list of tentative judges and directors of section D, discusses it in the next congress and proposes the qualifying names to the album committee.

Please contact Yochanan Afek.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15853
(9) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Saturday, Aug 19, 2017 23:48]

 QUOTE 
I feel that 8+ points -> Fide album and 3 judges are decent rules, changing those is rather radical IMO.
There are few formal things that might be useful, some are already enforced by some directors.
One that comes to mind is marking "suspect marking", where a single judge is forcing the problem 'in' or 'out' of the album.
These marks will include - (4,2,2) , (3,3,1.5) , (3,3,1) , ( 3,3,0.5) , (4,1.5,2.5) , (4,2.5,1) ... it can be formally declared what is a 'suspect mark'.
(2.5,2.5,2.5) for me is not suspect mark, and an indication the problem should NOT be in the album in most cases.
This will be done in order to find out why a single judge thinks the problem should or should not be in the album differently from the other judges.
This might also avoid bias against certain themes or composers.
It might also be possible the judge simply missed a unique execution or found a bad fault which was missed by others ( or he just has a different opinion! )
There is a 'suspect judge' ( or 2 in some cases ) in each of these grades and he will have to comment on his grading ( as a part of the process )
If the director will find the comment acceptable, The other judges will consider changing their marks, and if no changes are done the marking will stay.

I agree with your interpretation, the examples you provided are reasonable. I understand that you would not consider a 3+2+1,5 as debatable combination, as the problem needs 1,5 pts. to reach the magic 8. On the other hand I would consider a 3,5+2+1,5 combo as debatable, would you? At the moment this procedure is described in the duties of the director and judges and it is followed in all sections.

 QUOTE 
Otherwise the director might intervene and mark the problem himself instead of the suspect judge. This of course might be insulting to some judges, so other actions are also possible in these cases.

This is a new idea that might be considered. As you acknowledge, there may be complications. Nevertheless, the current policy in general favors the judge's opinion (from the instructions: If the average score of any one judge is much higher or much lower than that of the other two, the director may suggest that the judge in question should adjust his scores accordingly. However, each judge alone decides on his final scores.)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15854
(10) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 01:00]

Of course I would feel offended if somebody wanted to change my marks, just because they do not fit the numerically expected average. I'd most probably say - sorry, trust me that I do my best or do not invite me to judge. Everybody is bound to make some mistakes but that is why the judges should be contacted by director and they can have a second though, with knowledge of general opinion of his colleagues. Yet, the views may still differ.

There is a well known quotation from the Czech film, by local physician and his nurse, free translation:
P:"They do not like too much in reports. The do not like too little reported. So the next time we will just make up the average for reports."
N:"You will be general practitioner like a boss!"

On the other hand, I totally understand the need to have as objective results as possible, and I have no problem with system like in WCCI where two marks are crossed out - max and min. My problem is with arbitrary replacement of my marks just because somebody considers it right in some instances.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15856
(11) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 19:52]

In a liberal society it's impossible to force a particular judgement. Where it is possible, we call it "dictatorship".

And it's a mistake to believe that a larger number of cooks automatically increases the quality of the food.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15858
(12) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 21:16]

After all large number of people vote and elect their leader (President !) who later prove to be useless !!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15859
(13) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 21:55]

But the food is already prepared. The question is not "a larger number of cooks" but a larger number of tasters.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15860
(14) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 23:03]

We have ranking at WCCI based on sum of 3 average marks. for me it is non-acceptable to 2/5 judges jury would be ignored. I present two examples: n1- 4+3+3+2.5+1.5 and n2-3.,3,3,3,1.5. In actual rules the first problem have score 8.5 (of total 14), second 9(of total 13.5). It is absolute non-realistic to problem 2 have better score compare to problem 1! If we look better, in both cases lowest mark(1.5) is most different in comparation with other 4. In order with decision the most of judges jury, to calculate 4 the most harmonic marks, score for problem 1 is 12.5 and for problem 2 is only 12!! Next example n3-3,2,2,2,1.5. In this case highest mark is the most different in comparation with opinion of other judges and real score is 7.5. example 4- 3,2.5,2.5,2.5,2. Now we have equal difference between highest and lowest marks, and in this case average mark must be eliminated. Then score is 10. Conclusion- For my reason this is many better system for ranking at WCCI and WCCT and Album FIDE respectively. I have solution for problem where are need many judges if for Album use 5 judges also . Here is possible integration WCCI in Album and thereby only 5 judges is need (instead 10 for both separate). For WCCI would be calculated 4 the best marked compositions in Album judgement for all 8 sections. For enter in Album FIDE can be calculate average of 4 marks at least 2.666(or maybe 2.5?). With calculation 4 marks is avoided to only one men can to manipulate. Dear chessfriends, You are on moves...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15861
(15) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 23:20]

One correction, exuse me please. Average score for enter in Album would be 2.625 (minimum sum 10.5 points, 10.5/4). Example - 3.3,2.5,2,(1.5 eliminated)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15862
(16) Posted by Branislav Djurašević [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 01:04]; edited by Branislav Djurašević [17-08-21]

If I well understood Dragan's proposal there are two big news. First, reintegration of the WCCI competition into FIDE Album judging process (especially because it covers the same period) with the same judges.
Second, only one of five marks will be eliminated (the one that is the most distant from the average marks). For this we also need a Director who coordinates the judging process, also as another judge who observes the judges problems, as it is usual now. Authors need only to target their 4-6 problems for WCCI. In total 5+1 (director + judges). Is it reasonable!?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15864
(17) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 08:29]

A radical proposition: Don't send in your own composition for inclusion, send other people's compositions. That way you have possibly hundreds of judges instead of 3. There probably should still be three final judges to avoid nepotism, but the number of compositions a judge needs to check will be much smaller, and the 'crap-to-gold' ratio will be better.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15865
(18) Posted by Petko Petkov [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 09:39]

I think this suggestion is interesting, but it is not acceptable. It is obviously that WCCI and Fide Album are two quite different competitions. Their unification is not acceptable for many reasons.
First: In WCCI, we have 5 judges, but the scores of two of them are eliminated - the highest and lowest scores. Here, the director who is the lead of this team, is mainly one administrator who performs technical work. This, of course, does not appear to be quite logical at first glance, but it is inevitable in fact - it is practically impossible for the five judges to have a collective discussion - for example: a minimal change with 0.5 points of one old score can be the price of a world title - which judge would have agreed to take such a risk?!
Second: there is no any contact between the five judges in the WCCI. Therefore, nobody judge knows the argumentations of the other judges for the scores which they give. Therefore, there is some justification for applying of the principle: elimination of the highest and of the lowest score.
That is why I think that the current system in WCCI must be preserved, but whit an other, very important change: to observe the principle in the collective of 5 arbitrators to have only judges with the rank of "International judge" exact in this section! For example (my proposal): from 5 judges, it is permissible only one to be without international rank - if no other decision is possible!
Otherwise, it makes no sense to have the title of "FIDE International Judge"!
I think that Dragan`s proposal is not acceptable in logical and mathematical aspect. If a score of 4 or 1.5 is butaforous, unreal and malicious, then to what extent can be real and acceptable the average score of this problem??
From other side, I`m sure that if the Dragan`s proposal would be accepted, the unreal scores 4 and 1.5 will almost disappear, and unreal 3.5 and 2 will appear in their place - but hardly any of they will be slightly eliminated using the Dragan's system.
I think that in every sport and in every creative system there must be stability of the basic rules and criteria.
Wherever changes " a la perpetum mobile" are made, the result is only one - chaos! That is why my call is - when we make changes, not to rush a lot and think more!
In recent years, WFCC works well and creatively solves problems. In this respect, the role of the President Fougiaxis is very positive and active.
In conclusion :The rules for WCCI and Fide Albums may not be optimal, but for now they should be retained! But I repeat: the selection of the judging teams must be improved! And I hope WFCC will do that very soon.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15866
(19) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 10:03]

 QUOTE 
I have solution for problem where are need many judges if for Album use 5 judges also. Here is possible integration WCCI in Album and thereby only 5 judges is need (instead 10 for both separate).

The idea of re-integration of WCCI into FIDE Album is doomed to fail miserably for several reasons. Two of them:

1. Too many competent composers and judges are not interested in (or they are even against) the principle of WCCI. One may say that composers, when submitting their entries, could indicate that they wish their compositions to be evaluated only for the album and not for WCCI. But what about judges? The so far experience shows that many qualified judges do not want to be involved in WCCI at all, while they have no objection for the album. Furthermore at Dresden, the WCCI committee suggested that "As the top places in the WCCI are dominated by Russian and Ukrainian composers, to avoid complications that arose in the previous championship, the presence of judges from these countries should be minimized." It seems you have forgotten the heated discussions and turmoil of 1998 at St. Petersburg; see http://www.wfcc.ch/1999-2012/mnts98/ for the minutes of meeting.

2. The WCCI is meaningful as a championship if the results are available shortly after the closing date. Re-integration of WCCI to the album selection process means that the WCCI results will be known at least two years after the closing date.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15867
(20) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Aug 21, 2017 11:42]

Excuse my possibly stupid sounding question as someone who is not around for 20 years to actively follow the decisions (instead, only since 2004/2005 for studies, and two or three less years for the general WCCC decisions).

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?
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?

Afterwards, please return to the topic again.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15868

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

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