Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
4:30 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General FIDE Album election- change the rules |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (41) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 01:18] |
Neal Turners original proposal for change FA election- 3 judges give marks 0,1 or 2, for enter in Album must be sum min.4 points. Voting is about thus proposal- for or against? (I gave possibility for extend with suffixes + and - because better determination problems,special at minimum quote 14% if would be retained)
| | | (42) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 07:57] |
Considering Neal's proposal, we may simply request, that if the problem has received two marks of 3 or more, than it is included with any 3rd mark. (7.5 rule may be dropped in this case.)
| | | (43) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 08:42] |
@ Georgy:
With the current 0-4 scale system, if a composition gets 3+2,5+2,5 is selected.
With Neal's suggestion, if a composition gets 1 'yes' + 2 'maybe' (aka 2 + 2 x 1 = 4 points) is selected.
How is such a combo covered by your suggestion?
| | | (44) Posted by Mario Parrinello [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 09:57]; edited by Mario Parrinello [17-08-24] |
@ Harry Fougiaxis, President of WFCC
Harry, perhaps I have not expressed very clearly my proposal, sorry; thus now I will explain it providing more details. I apologize for the prolixity but I do think the topic has to be explained in full.
Along with the discussion on which type of scoring system (0-4 scores, yes/no, 1-2-3, yes/maybe/no and so on) has to be choosed, the judges' work is one of the crucial and tricky point of the entire FIDE-Album 'system'. I mean that judges have little time available to select the worthy entries among literally thousands of problems. It's a matter of facts: each judge has to study thousands problems (for example 1524 submitted entries in the fairy section of the 2010-12 FIDE-Album) in less 20 months! What a titanic task...We must thank all the judges involved until now for their excellent and titanic efforts!
It is really very hard to be lucid and evaluate deeply all the entries (purity, construction, possibile anticipations, timely and not sporadic communications with the other judges and so on); I must tell that every judge has rights but also great responsibilities: they have to select the entries which are really worthy to enter the album. But to do that they do need TIME! I was several times one of the FIDE-Album judges and must confess to have been scared by the need to properly complete the task despite the time pressure. That's why I think many judges (including myself) are reluctant to accept this work.
Hence the need I think to improve the method in order not to make 'perfect' what is not perfect but to do at least something in this direction.
My proposal.
The current system requires that after the end of the three-year period, the 3 judges receive all the entries and after, say, about less than 20 months they have to submit all the selected problems to the director.
Why don't start immediately studying the problems? The principle is as follows: the judges should not receive ALL the entries at the end of the relevant period, but they should select them year by year.
To make clear my words, the following theoretical schedule (Jean-Marc, thanks for rightly interpreting what I have suggested in my tread n.30!) for the 2016-18 album will surely explain that principle (it's too late, of course, but that's only indicative):
-Closing date: March 1st 2017 (for the problems published during the year 2016), March 1st 2018 (for the problems published during the year 2017), March 1st 2019 (for the problems published during year 2018)
-Submission of entries to the judges: July 1st, 2017 (for the problems published during year 2016), July 1st, 2018 (for the problems published during year 2017), July 1st 2019 (for the problems published during year 2018)
-Reports by the directors and announcement of results: February 1st, 2021
Submission of selected entries to the editor: April 1st, 2021
-Indexing, typesetting and printing: October 1st, 2022
If we can apply this schedule to the 2019-21 FIDE-Album, then the following timetabe could be as follows:
-Closing date: March 1st 2020 (for the problems published during the year 2019), March 1st 2021 (for the problems published during the year 2020), March 1st 2022 (for the problems published during the year 2021)
-Submission of entries to the judges: July 1st, 2010 (for the problems published during the year 2019),
July 1st, 2021 (for the problems published during the year 2020), July 1st 2022 (for the problems published during the year 2021)
-Reports by the directors and announcement of results: February 1st, 20224
Submission of selected entries to the editor: April 1st, 2024
-Indexing, typesetting and printing: October 1st, 2025
As you may note, I have specified the various closing dates, but of course they are only indicative. Moreover, in regard to the topic whether the judges are to be always the same for the three-year period or they may be different, I think it's only a detail. Personally, I think that it would more realistic and pragmatic that the three-year period entries were selected by the same judges, but of course that's only my personal opinion.
The merits of this proposal are in my opinion:
1)the main merit is that the judges do have more time available to study and select the entries, even in the very likely case of huge number of submitted problems
2)the fact that the judges have more time allows them to make a more aware selection of the entries
3)into our small community, choosing the judges for the next albums would be, I think, easier; in effect, many reluctant judges would be more willing to accept such work, well knowing that they are not under time pressure
4)the limit of 30 compositions could and should be SLIGHLTY increased.
5)the director's work would be also slightly simplified
6)maybe the printing time of the album could be slightly accelerated
I do think the judging process is one of the critical point of the FIDE-Album system and it should be as effective as possibile, thus it is important to reconsider how the judges are compelled to work when selecting the entries.
I look forward to knowing your opinion.
| | | (45) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 10:16] |
Georgy is essentially right.
Neal's proposal says: in order to get selected you need minimum 4 points.
4 points can be obtained in two cases:
a). At least two "Yes"
b). One "Yes" and two "Maybe"
Translating these cases into the current system:
a). At least two marks of 3 or more --> problem gets selected, regardless the third mark (NOVELTY).
b). One mark of 3 or more and 2 of 2.5 --> problem gets selected (already in place).
There is still one more cases to be discussed: 2+2+4.
- In the current system, a problem gets selected.
- In the suggested system, the problem will be discarded. (NOVELTY)
I think therefore Neal's proposal enforces the democracy, as it completely eliminates the minority vs majority wins from the current system.
| | | (46) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 11:06] |
My idea was to keep 4+2+2 problem in album, allowing one judge to "force" the problem into album, if he feels that other judges may be in doubt. Mainly applicable to rare ideas, non-standard intents, non-traditional fairy conditions, etc.
| | | (47) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 11:15] |
@Mario, Harry...
Again I fully support the Mario’s proposal, which is a rational way of working (and when there are “big data” to manage, rationality becomes mandatory).
May be another topic should be opened, because this proposal is a little bit out of this one (which is “finding another system of grading”), but the discussion seems to me quite important.
I would like to explain more clearly what I meant by “yearly management” in (30). The Mario’s proposal is efficient if the judges work continuously since the beginning; indeed, the attitude of people in front of a heavy task (or a big deal of tasks) can vary a lot; there are for example people who prefer beginning to work when the deadline gets close... I know many people like that, and, younger, I was like that.
In the schedule-example Mario gives for FA2016/2018, if 1 of the judges begins his work let us say in 2020, the real profit of the proposal is lost, and the risk of a delay for the publication becomes higher (if, for example, this judge has underestimated the real workload). So I think the schedule should be updated like this (I take the fictive basis of FA 2016/2018 given by Mario, but of course it’s too late):
- Report of the judges to the director for problems published in 2016: September 1st 2018
- Report of the judges to the director for problems published in 2016: November 1st 2019
- Report of the judges to the director for problems published in 2016: December 1st 2020
Of course, this is just an example. Notice that the delay for judging seems satisfactory because there are 3 times less entries to judge each time.
Moreover, I think, in this case that the Director could (should) provide a yearly report, with the following schedule (again example):
- Report of the director for problems published in 2016: November 1st 2018
- Report of the director for problems published in 2017: January 1st 2019
- Report of the director for problems published in 2018: February 1st 2021 (the date chosen by Mario)
This also would reduce the workload of the Director, who of course reports 3 times, but with 3 times less entries.
This way of managing seems to me rational (it’s what I called above yearly management), and has also 2 merits (which have to be added to the merits explained by Mario):
- Composers who are highly sensitive to points or titles would be rewarded earlier (in the above example, points for problems published in 2016 would be granted in 2018, today composers have to wait until 2021!)
- Risks of abnormal delay of publication are much lower, I would say almost divided by 3 (this occurs for example if a judge has to be replaced for any reason: today this implies additional delays for finding another judge, and the new one to provide his judgment)
The examples above are fictively for FA2016/2018, because it’s too late. But as I said above, a transitional schedule could be find for 2016/2018 (allowing to begin the work of judging soon), the target schedule being to be applied for 2019/2021.
| | | (48) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 11:21] |
QUOTE
Along with the discussion on which type of scoring system (0-4 scores, yes/no, 1-2-3, yes/maybe/no and so on) has to be choosed, the judges' work is one of the crucial and tricky point of the entire FIDE-Album 'system'. I mean that judges have little time available to select the worthy entries among literally thousands of problems. It's a matter of facts: each judge has to study thousands problems (for example 1524 submitted entries in the fairy section of the 2010-12 FIDE-Album) in less 20 months! What a titanic task... We must thank all the judges involved until now for their excellent and titanic efforts!
The example of the fairies section that you quote is the only problematic case at the moment (refer to my post [40] answering to Vlaicu). As I wrote, the album committee is of the opinion that an album judge should be able to handle comfortably 1000 entries in a period of 16 months. Most of the album committee members (including myself) have repeatedly acted as judges, directors, indexers so they are well aware of the work involved.
QUOTE
Moreover, in regard to the topic whether the judges are to be always the same for the three-year period or they may be different, I think it's only a detail. Personally, I think that it would more realistic and pragmatic that the three-year period entries were selected by the same judges, but of course that's only my personal opinion.
It's not a detail. The only realistic approach is to have the same set of judges doing the work every year.
QUOTE
The merits of this proposal are in my opinion:
4)the limit of 30 compositions could and should be SLIGHLTY increased.
I would appreciate if you write in detail what you propose.
QUOTE
5)the director's work would be also slightly simplified
Not necessarily.
QUOTE
6)maybe the printing time of the album could be slightly accelerated.
I don't think so. You mention that the editor would receive the selected entries by April 1st, 2024. This is the same date that he would get the problems under the current 3-years judging system.
QUOTE
I do think the judging process is one of the critical point of the FIDE-Album system and it should be as effective as possible, thus it is important to reconsider how the judges are compelled to work when selecting the entries.
I shall forward your suggestion to the members of the album committee after I get your answer to point (4) above. The album committee has not so far considered (not discussed at all) a system of splitting the judges' work per year. We have been working (a bit slow, I admit) towards the direction of splitting the problematic section(s) in groups.
| | | (49) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 11:23] |
Mario Parrinello's proposal makes a lot of sense to me, as it might significantly reduce the FIDE Album judge efforts without needing to create more sub-sections or adding more judges in the process.
My three questions related to this proposal are:
1. Why should we appoint the same judge(s) to do the selection work for three consecutive years?
As the selection cycle might be easily reduced to one year, it is theoretically possible to appoint other judges in each year.
This adds more flexibility to your proposal, as a commitment over a 3 years period of time might be quite difficult.
I would only say in this case the reporting could perhaps be done earlier and not only at the end of the 3-years cycle.
2. Why should we maintain the 3 years pace for producing the FIDE Albums?
Once we admit we can have a year-by-year selection and judging process, we might be able to produce yearly FIDE Albums as well in the future.
However, for the time being, the topic of the publishing frequency of the FIDE Album should be disconnected from the main topic (i.e. the selection rules)
3. Why we should impose a limit in the number of entries?
In case of a year-by-year selection process, it doesn't make any sense to restrict the number of entries that can be submitted by a composer over a three years period.
This limit was introduced only as a mean in order to protect the FIDE Album judges from receiving too much annoying SPAM (sorry for using such a harsh word).
I am not sure this measure had enough positive effects in order to preserve it for the future FIDE Albums.
Thank you.
| | | (50) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 11:32]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [17-08-24] |
@ Jean-Marc, Mario [EDIT] and Vlaicu: It seems that essentially you suggest the same system, but implemented differently.
I would appreciate if you exchange some emails and then submit to me (by email) a common proposal.
| | | (51) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 11:34] |
As for your second question, I don't think the FIDE Album printing is very lucrative, and if it would appear each year then most likely much less people would be willing to buy it. Maybe a paid online version then should be made (for example "Kindle Edition" or similar)?
But maybe Peter Gvozdjak can tell us numbers?
| | | (52) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 12:16]; edited by Jean-Marc Loustau [17-08-24] |
@Harry,
Well indeed the spirit of our (Mario, Vlaicu, myself) suggestions is the same; may be some differences in implementation, but at this step this is still a detail; may be, as you suggest, we will try to provide a concrete common proposal.
Just some answers to your (48):
- I was co-judge with Vlaicu; here is my feeling: 1000 entries for fairies in 16 months is not “comfortable”; it’s surely “acceptable” but definitively not comfortable. I remember I have provided my judgment quickly, but it’s because by sheer coincidence I was not working at this time. Also the work needed is not the same for each section; if you have to judge 1000 orthodox helpmates, it’s probably comfortable, if it’s 1000 studies, I think it’s crazy if you do well the job; about the fairies, no one knows in-depth all the existing fairy elements, and to provide a fair judgment you need not only to understand the problems, but to deeply understand the characteristics of the fairy elements, and this needs work.
- As I said I don’t see why it’s the only realistic approach to have the same judges for the 3 years... Even this could help to find judges more easily... It’s a detail of implementation, and as writes Vlaicu, it’s absolutely possible. The frequency of 3 years for the Album is just (or “was”) adapted to the ratio number of problems/book; but of course (as also says Vlaicu) this frequency should be adaptable...
- About the Mario’s point 6: “maybe the printing time of the album could be slightly accelerated”; indeed there is no evidence of that (“may be” writes Mario), but my deep conviction (based on professional experiences) is that the printing delay will be significantly accelerated; I don’t think we could save 1 year, but 6 months would not surprise me at all.
About the topic “limit in the number of entries”... Of course I deeply agree with Vlaicu, but it’s another topic. I received a mail yesterday, and I suppose there will be a formal proposal in this way.
| | | (53) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 12:18] |
To 42.
Sorry, I intended this as an additional condition. So, the problem is selected if at least one of the following conditions met:
1. The sum of points of given by three judges is at least 8.0.
2. At least two judges have given 3.0 or more to the problem.
So, all currently selected problems are still selected, but those like 3+3+1 are also included.
| | | (54) Posted by Mario Parrinello [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 18:02]; edited by Mario Parrinello [17-08-25] |
Very interesting discussion indeed!
My thanks go to Jean-Marc and Vlaicu whose points of view are similar to my proposal, despite obvious and expected divergenses, but I think similarities are the vast majority.
We all are in fully agreement that the FIDE-Album judging work must be simplified.
Harry, the judging work is a titanic effort and confortably is an adverb which does not fairly describe that process.
I can recall that, when acting as FIDE-Album judge, I did analyze on my chessboard all the entries and did verify construction for every entries from the 'maybe to be in the album' to the truly masterpieces; moreover I did provide to the othe judges possibile anticipations not to mention other examples on the particular idea. That does need time and studying thousands problems in 16 months is not just confortable, I would say. Another memory: I can recall a picture provided by Juraj Lorinc showing his room literally entirely full of thousands of paper sheets of the FIDE-Album entries: a nightmare!
When I suggested my proposal, which I have it in my mind from several years, I thought that the FIDE-Album judges should start their work from the very beginning of the three-year period.
As I mentioned earlier, this proposal has in my opinion several merits.
By accelerating the entire process, be it splitting the process per year or be it the three-year period (but with the judging process starting immediately as suggested), perhaps would speed also the director's and editor's work. Of course, when I suggested the date of that timetable, I did not want to move the time pressure from the judges to the director and editor; hence I proposed a soft dateline for director/editor.
Anyway, Jean-Marc, Vlaicu and myself will provide you a detailed common proposal.
FIDE una sumus.
| | | (55) Posted by Petko Petkov [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 22:54] |
@ Mario Parrinello
I strongly support the ideas of Mario, Vlaicu, Jean-Marc, as well as the comments of Juraj Lorinc and Miodrag! They are my colleagues and friends, as well as eminent experts in the world chess composition. In this sense, I argue that their ideas should be the basis for some new changes if such can and should be done in the FIDE Albums!
To all these positive voices I would like to submit for approval some of my suggestions, which supports the cited ideas and in my opinion can be useful in their practical realization:
1. It is absolutely necessary for our Federation WFCC to create a special subsidiary body (committee) which exists in all sports federations:
ARBITER`S COMMISION (ARB)
For example, this is one of the most important helpdesks in the FIDE (Chairman-Nicolopoulos Panagiotis, 22 members! ), who resolves all issues related to the judiciary. If we had such an authority so far, we would not have any difficulty finding the best judges for our main races! In our case, this committee should contain no more than 7 of our colleagues.
2. 1. It is absolutely necessary for our Federation X to create a special subsidiary body (committee )
COMITEE FOR FAIRY CHESS
There is no need to prove the extraordinary necessity of such an organ, due to the complexity of the fairy composition and many of its unresolved problems that have been commented on for years on websites and magazines, but clear and useful solutions are not yet available!
As soon as we have a Studies comitee why exist not such a helper for the Fairy composition? This is just a big omission in our previous work!
3. I can continue this series of suggestions (I hope is useful ) but I still reserve the right to limit myself to these two ideas! But I would like to say that I am always ready to provide our WFCC with detailed projects for the realization of my proposals. Unfortunately, long ago, when our leader was the late president Uri Avner, I have been completely isolated from all help bodies by our federation!? I have also no right to vote in the congress hall (our delegate is Diyan Kostadinov) though I am a honorable member of WFCC! But it was just a sentimental departure from the main topic here ...
In purely informative and practical terms, I would suggest to President Harry, on the FIDE official page, to announce not only the leaders of our assistive committees but also their members! Let's take an example from FIDE - please, pay attention to how accurately and thoroughly are represeted all members of the FIDE - comissions - we see their phone numbers, addresses, and even their pictures! At present our "anonymity" is a bad sign...
MY OPINION ON THE IDEA OF NEAL: ABSOLUTELY NOT!!
My arguments are as follows:
1. I claim that there is no judge (in the chess composition or in any other sphere of life in the world) who can make an arbitration decision "maybe". The judge is obliged to pronounce a categorical decision and if he can not do that, he just does not work as a judge!
2. It is wrong to place a sign of equality between an "assessment" called "maybe" and a rating of 2.5 points according to the current system of selection!
When a judge is required to assess the quality with points, according to a specific scale of numbers ( now it is in FIDE-ALBUMS 0 - 0.5 - 1 - 1.5 - 2 - 2.5 - 3 - 3.5 - 4 ) each his rating (from 0 to 4) is a categorical opinion, but not "maybe". Consequently, evaluation 2.5 reflects the quality of the task. This is not a rating that expresses the subjective opinion of the judge whether the problem must be included in the FIDE album or not. There is such a sense in any other assessment, for example 1.5 - 2 - 3, 3.5 and even 4. None of these assessments gives full assurance that it will remain until the end of the awarding process in the section by the Album! For example: I gives a score 4, but the other two of my colleagues - judges, give
3. In the collective discussion of the results there is almost a 100% probability that I will be morally and collegialy obliged to lower my initial assessment 4 because the director and the others two judges claim that my initial assessment is unrealistically high. As a result, I can reduce to 3, which means that the task does not go into the album! As you can see, under the current system, which can not be called flawless, of course, it is practically not possible rough to manipulate an assessment because there is a collective control.
BUT IF WE SPEAK FOR MANIPULATIONS, THE "NEAL - SYSTEM" DOES NOT GIVE ANY PROTECTIVE WARRANTY BECAUSE AN EVALUATION "YES" HERE IS NOT REMOVED TO THE END!
COLLECTIVE DISCUSSION IS NOT POSSIBLE ON THE VARIANT "YES" - MAY BE " -"NOT". THERE ISN`T A LEADING OPINION , AS IN VARIANT 4-2-2, FOR EXAMPLE… And so on, and so on ….
PETKO A.PETKOV
Sofia August 24th 2017
| | | (56) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Aug 24, 2017 23:11] |
I checked the spreadsheets of the finished sections of the running album.
For the calculations I considered that the threshold were 8 points in all sections (incl. studies even if it was lowered to 7,5).
Using either Neal's suggestion or Georgy's version we would have in total 7 additional compositions selected with a score of 3+3+1,5.
There are no compositions graded with 3+3+1 or 3+3+0,5.
Using Neal's suggestion 13 compositions would not have been selected: eleven with 3,5+2,5+2 and two with 4+2+2.
| | | (57) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Friday, Aug 25, 2017 00:14]; edited by Jean-Marc Loustau [17-08-25] |
I understand that Neal’s system is attractive, because it is very simple; generally simplicity is the best answer to a problem, but in some cases the simplest is not necessarily the best one.
I noticed the enthusiasm aroused by Neal’s proposal.
But we should take into account the various warnings:
- Mario’s (30): "The current FIDE-Album scoring system is of course not perfect (nothing is perfect) but it is “the lesser evil”"
- Juraj’s (37): « 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. »
- Implicitly Georgy (53): « all currently selected problems are still selected, but those like 3+3+1 are also included. »
- Last but not least Petko (54): see above.
And now, there is mine too.
For such a change, to my opinion it’s very important to consult the “users”; and the users of the system are the judges. So the opinion of present and past judges of FA should be seriously taken into account, and the fact Mario, Juraj, Georgy, Petko (and myself) have already experienced the heavy task of judging a big amount of problems (what is extremely different from judging an informal tourney, for example) seems to me important.
The point 2 of Petko’s post is very significant: here we see someone who really acts as a FA judge. I fully share what he says; judging is not binary (or ternary in this case), things are never so clear as “must be in the album”, “must not be”... In fact, they are clear for some problems, but not for the wide majority.
Also a point of history: the system of notation (0 -> 4) has been applied for the 1st time for FA 1980-82; at this time there was no half-point (only 0, 1, 2, 3, 4); but just after 2 albums the system has been changed, and from the FA 1986-1988 the system with half-points has been applied until now. Why? Just for the love of complexity??? Of course not. Before making any change we should know the answer to this question “why”. To my opinion the answer is clear: a 5-level scale was not adapted, because translating the variation of levels between the problems (which in this case are very numerous) needs a scale with more levels (so 9 levels today (0, 0.5, 1, 1.5... 3.5,4)).
So coming back to a scale at 3 levels (0, 1, 2) seems intellectually attractive in theory, but practically, for the judges themselves, it seems to me not very realistic. At least, for my mental way of working, I think I would not have been able to provide a valuable judgment with such a scale . On the contrary I felt at ease with the present 9-level scale.
Also the meaning of “may be”: I agree again with Petko; when I was judge I have never thought “I give 2.5 points, because... “May be”, we will see what will say the other judges”, I have given 2.5 points because to my opinion it translates the value of the problem compared to the others, on a scale from 0 to 4. “May be” is not a mark, it sounds like “I don’t know what to think”, what is not very serious...
The present system seems indeed not perfect; but I cannot find better words than Juraj’s: “we might end up with worse system than is the current one”.
| | | (58) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Friday, Aug 25, 2017 09:51] |
A comment about "maybe".
There is a big difference between WCCI and Album, even if the scoring system looks almost the same. The difference is in goal. By rating the problems in WCCI the judge gives points to the author. By rating the problems for Album the judge selects the problems which should be included.
So, when judging for the Album, the judge _has_ to think how his mark will affect the fate of the composition. He may give the problem 2.5 points, thinking that it is worth 2.5 points, but he must understand that this in practice means that _other judges will decide the fate of it_. This is an objective fact which should be taken into account for correct judgment.
I think, I have already written it once, but I repeat it here. Under current system, when the judge assigns a mark, he really casts a vote for (or against) the composition.
The marks correspond to following votes:
4.0 - I request that the composition is included.
3.5 - I am sure that the composition should be included.
3.0 - I want the composition to be included.
2.5 - I abstain (I am not sure, but will accept the opinion of other judges).
2.0 - I am against this composition, but will accept the opposite opinion.
1.5 - I am strongly against this composition.
1.0 and below - I forbid the inclusion of this composition.
If the judge does not think along these lines, he may easily not be happy with final result.
| | | (59) Posted by Per Olin [Friday, Aug 25, 2017 12:21] |
An interesting discussion, to which I have a comment and a main additional contribution:
- The selection system (mainly points versus YES/NO) is the main issue here, but very important and essential questions have been asked in post 49; well worth reading again.
- The original idea is that an Album reproduces all the best problems of the period in question. This is not the case as very many composers chose not to send their problems to the Album competitions. A composer, who publishes problems, must be prepared that her/his problems are reproduced without a separate consent. An Album could include two types of problems: 1) problems sent by their authors 2) problems sent by anyone. Title points can still be calculated as presently, anyone who does not wish to have title points just informs so (mainly type 2). The FIDE / WFCC Album 2019 can cover all the best problems of that year, which should be its main function, without any disturbance to title points calculations. Now it seems as the main function is album points calculation and the consequence, as there are composers not interested in album points, is that we have an anthology covering only part of the best problems. Better, in my opinion, would be covering all the best problems of the period and maintain the album points system, for those interested, as a consequence.
| | | (60) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Friday, Aug 25, 2017 13:20]; edited by Marcel Tribowski [17-08-29] |
I fully agree with Jean-Marc [57] . The proposal for simplification by replacing the present regulation with a yes-no evaluation system would be a relapse into the early eighties.
So far, the whole discussion has been about curing symptoms: the workload on judges is growing unbraked, despite a limited number of entries per author. The allowed maximum is exhausted now because it has been approved "officially".
It would be time to look for the main reasons of this development: it's an overrating of the quantitative, and the connection with titles.
In the allocation of titles, just the sheer number of reproduced problems is important. Here we see nothing else but the yes-no principle [8 points: yes], without any further qualitative evaluation.
Meanwhile judges have a tool of fine-tuning which remains unused.
In addition, WFCC publishes a list with a volume of these points per author [ http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/album-points-current-list-2017-06-24.pdf ] . It's no wonder when this serves as an ideal, and judges have to bear the consequences.
The album once had been intended as documentation but is currently driving into another direction.
PS: Just editing the surface (limiting the entries, stretching the deadline, even dividing each album etc.) isn't enough - a structural problem has to be solved at its roots. A too hot potato?
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album election- change the rules |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
