Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
13:31 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Limit on number of entries for FIDE Album |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 | | (41) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Saturday, Nov 3, 2012 16:39] |
Kevin,
@1: An efficient identification of spam must lead to the elimination of the problem BEFORE it gets to be analyzed by the FIDE Album judge.
Based on this interpretation, I totally agree with Georgy there is not way to identify spam remotely.
Also Jacques puts it simple: no elimination can be a priori justified without looking at the composition.
@2: Subjective interpretation of chess problem value is inherent, even when we are speaking about experts in the field.
I know personally a high class composer who told me he is unable to distinguish among his problems, because he loves them all:
"My problems are like my children: I can not say I love more one than another".
As long as getting problems in the FIDE Album remains the only way to get an international title in chess composition, spamming can not be avoided.
I am afraid that Marcel proposal, although it is very interesting, will not contribute to a reduction of number of problems submitted to FIDE Album.
| | | (42) Posted by Neal Turner [Saturday, Nov 3, 2012 20:28] |
There's been too much emphasis in this discussion with regard to titles and the FIDE Album, especially as nobody's actually identified the 'spammers'.
Maybe it is those with title aspirations who are submitting the most entries - but it should remembered that it's the best composers who are usually the most prolific.
For most composers titles are not the main concern, indeed the majority would be happy just to have ONE of their problems appearing!
| | | (43) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Nov 3, 2012 23:32]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-04] |
Well done Neal,
To speak of 'spam' is not nice. I think it is a shame.
The number of submissions is not big enough.
If the judges have too much work, perhaps it is possible to add another team of judges or to organize the work in another way...
I think also useful to recall that only a few sections have judges that may feel 'overloaded'
Have a look at the list of authors sending problems and at the number submitted by each, I think you will be surprised, as I was, by the weak participation, all in all.
I would like to encourage people to send more and more problems and not to be intimidated by any accusation of 'spamming'.
| | | (44) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Sunday, Nov 4, 2012 03:48] |
Though I do regret the term "spam", perhaps a definition of it would be an unremarkable problem that shows nothing new (or possesses constructional and/or thematic flaws) and was unawarded in its respective tourney? Granted, I know of myriad unawarded problems (including some of my own!) that were well-constructed, original, but misunderstood or unappreciated by their judge: I am not talking about these; and I believe novices should be given some leeway.
Personally, I think the best solution to the flood of submissions is in future to have the Albums cover a two-year period instead of three years - since there is now such a proliferation of fine problems, arguably more than ever before. That way, the Albums' ostensible goal of documenting high-quality work over a specified period may be maintained without compromise.
| | | (45) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Nov 4, 2012 08:17] |
Although I disagree, the consensus seems to be that there should be no limits on number of entries. The next consideration is: how to alleviate the burden on judges? There have been two ideas offered:
(1) switch from a 3-year to a 2-year cycle
(2) have two or more teams of judges per section
Before deciding that, the more fundamental question is: What is our "target range" for the number of entries to review per judge? Method (1) would (arbitrarily) reduce the 2000+ sections to 1300+ which, IMHO, is still too high. I'd like to see a target-range of 600-800 entries per judge, which is best achieved by option (2).
The number of judging teams for the next cycle can be determined by the volume of entries for the previous (current) cycle. We may end up with 3-4 teams of judges in some sections, but volunteers will be easier to find because the burden is more reasonable. We could also change from 3-judge to 2-judge teams, with an Album cutoff of 5 or 5½ points based on overall section results.
Another "plus" for option (2) is that we could (in most cases) avoid having judges review entries from their home country (including their own). Special rules might be needed for joint problems.
| | | (46) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Nov 4, 2012 09:00] |
There is also perhaps a new task nowadays...
The specific search for anticipations can be done systematically before the judging process.
It might be done with result classified - completely, partially, almost, self- anticipated.
This might be done by another team of juges. There are at least 2 good databases that can be used : WinChloe and PDB.
I think that it'll be possible to get such teams of (hard) workers and that it'll be a great help.
| | | (47) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Nov 4, 2012 20:43] |
Good point. Due to another Kobe decision, anticipation search could be shared by everyone:
Electronic submission of entries (pdf) will be required.
If these PDF entries can be posted online, the general public could be asked to "please advise" of any predecessors. This mitigates another burden on judges, and taps into our full knowledge-base (i.e. not just PDB, WinChloe, etc.). Everybody wins.
| | | (48) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 08:56] |
@Vlaicu,
You said:
>"An efficient identification of spam must lead to the elimination of the problem BEFORE it gets to be analyzed by the FIDE Album judge."
Lousy assumption -- completely false.
I can eliminate email spam before it hits my inbox, quite simply: by penalizing any email which the receiver judges to be spam, I will have discouraged spammers from daring to send me commercial ads.
If I trust my judges, this is a particularly effective anti-spam mechanism.
Whereas the current proposal is NOT effective (it does nothing to police spam, and nothing to overcome the incentive to send spam).
If you care about titles (and/or statistical measures) -- and you would not self-nominate your own works if you didn't! -- a penalty for excessive spam would clearly force you to think twice about sending inferior works.
Thus, spam is greatly reduced, before it ever reaches any judge!
This entirely refutes your first argument.
Furthermore, I can go beyond refutation.
The present system provides an incentive to send spam, because it inflates the sub-Album quota.
Most composers have high integrity, and they self-regulate -- as a result, they may be punished.
Admit it, that incentive is still present under the new proposal; and, the only difference is, composers are limited to an arbitrary number of problems.
So, as an anti-spam policy, the proposal is a demonstrable failure.
Whereas my suggestion absolutely does offer a mechanism to remove spam, prior to it reaching the judge.
>Based on this interpretation, I totally agree with Georgy there is not way to identify spam remotely.
Your interpretation is demonstrated to be incorrect (see above); and, so goes Georgy's claim!
>Also Jacques puts it simple: no elimination can be a priori justified without looking at the composition.
That's why submitted spam must be judged, and penalized (if it falls below an arbitrarily established threshold).
>2: Subjective interpretation of chess problem value is inherent, even when we are speaking about experts in the field.
>I know personally a high class composer who told me he is unable to distinguish among his problems, because he loves them all:
>"My problems are like my children: I can not say I love more one than another".
This is a pointless diversion.
You have established no relevance to the discussion.
If your point is that a composer can not be tasked to judge their own work, then you have only demonstrated that the limitation proposal fails.
Presume the following:
1) You compose x problems (for some sub-Album, over a 3 year period), and
2) The proposal limits you to y submissions.
If x > y, then your friend IS tasked to chose a favorite among his/her children.
Therefore, you can not claim that this proposal has any remedy for this situation.
The proposal Georgy advocates does NOT allow a composer a mechanism to avoid using good judgement, to filter entries.
Furthermore, if you wish to pursue this point, I can make a strong philosophical argument why a composer MUST be responsible to selectively judge their own works.
FYI: I'm sure I've expressed an identical sentiment to your friend. However, if I felt tasked to make selections for a FIDE Album, I would have no difficulty in discerning which problems should be considered (luckily for me, I don't feel any need to engage in such self-promotion).
>As long as getting problems in the FIDE Album remains the only way to get an international title in chess composition, spamming can not be avoided.
Wrong. You have, yet again, made no credible argument to support your claim.
You asked me to suggest an anti-spam mechanism, and I did (one which DOES avoid spam).
If algorithms exist to minimize/avoid email spam, certainly it is far easier to minimize/avoid self-promotion spam (which serves the purpose of quota inflation).
You seem unable to make the case that spam can't be avoided -- instead, you (and Georgy) continually resort to restating your unsupportable conclusion.
You are not offering a logical argument, here.
>I am afraid that Marcel proposal, although it is very interesting, will not contribute to a reduction of number of problems submitted to FIDE Album.
Marcel's proposal is very interesting.
I would only make two points:
1) I don't see that he has a need to alleviate your every fear, and
2) We might agree that a better outline of his proposal (if it is a serious proposal, he intends to offer for consideration) is necessary -- until then, it is difficult to discuss whether it is feasible.
| | | (49) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 09:27] |
@Neal,
> There's been too much emphasis in this discussion with regard to titles and the FIDE Album, especially as nobody's actually identified the 'spammers'.
There is no FIDE Album.
There is a collection of sub-Albums; but, not even a single one of these are Albums (in the sense that they are intended to collect the best problems, of a given period).
The present purpose of these sub-Albums is entirely to function as a measuring device in the titles/points competition (which spills over into the full collection of sub-Albums, none of which have any proper delineation).
This may be an uncomfortable truth, but that is the truth.
This thread is debating a proposal to fundamentally alter this title contest -- nothing more, nothing less!
Proponents want to alter your opportunity to enter, based upon a multiplier of your previous performance.
And, they have offered to provide special case exceptions (presumably for favored composers).
This proposal does not offer a fair system to award individual titles.
As such, it further erodes the credibility of this art form -- even for those who refuse participation in what was already a poorly designed title contest.
>Maybe it is those with title aspirations who are submitting the most entries - but it should remembered that it's >the best composers who are usually the most prolific.
The most prolific composers are not always the best.
The best composers are not always the most prolific.
I submit that your presumption is based upon a poor system, which awards according to your very assumption!
>For most composers titles are not the main concern...
Yes, but when it comes to submissions to the FIDE sub-Album Collection, titles and points are the entrants ONLY concern.
After all, they have self-nominated their work to a title/points pageant.
>...indeed the majority would be happy just to have ONE of their problems appearing!
It starts with wanting one. Then you'll want 12... 25... 70... soon, you'll want to be the richest man on Earth.
Make a ruler, and humans will run around it forever.
The problem is, this ruler is crooked... and, people want to bend it further.
| | | (50) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 11:50] |
"The present purpose of these sub-Albums is entirely to function as a measuring device in the titles/points competition"
If this were true then composers would stop submitting problems once they'd received the GM title.
The fact that they don't throws doubt on your assertion.
| | | (51) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 12:38] |
Sorry, I couldn't resist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE
"How about SPAM, eggs, sausage and SPAM? That's not got much SPAM in it..."
| | | (52) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 13:24] |
And now for something completely different:
It's not only Kevin who nails down the title hunt to be the ulterior
source of the problem (I once translated an article by Gerhard Josten
coming to similar conclusions and tend to agree).
But just curious, is there anything that a problem title can buy you?
As OTB player, I'd love to have a title, saving me the Open fees,
alas, I'm a few ELOs short of an IM. So, here I would at least have
an incentive to get one. But problem chess...either my problems speak
for themselves or not. (I never submitted to the Album. I'm probably
not worthy anyway. Aaaand I don't do "letters" :-)
It would be interesting to hear the view of some title holders on
the board what their title means to them.
Hauke
| | | (53) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 13:43] |
Opening statements:
The decision of WFCC to limit the number of entries of any composer can send to FIDE Album section to max(30, 3*his latest points in his latest participation in the section) is a good try, in my opinion. The decision of WFCC to automatically include in FIDE Album problems participating in WCCI awarded with more than 8 points in WCCI is bad one in my opinion.
Background for decision of limit 30:
I am saying that as FIDE Album judge with some experience under the belt (in fairy section, judge 1998-2000, 2007-2009, director 2004-2006) as well as active participant with my own compositions.
Actually, I have sent more than 30 fairies to at least 3 Albums, may be even four, but I have always weighed their chances to be selected for the Album and always only minority of my published problems were in my submission. I was trying to avoid boring judges with many similar problems or problems of clearly sub-standard quality.
As a composer submitting my problems to FIDE Album, my foremost wish is to have my problems in FIDE Album because I deeply respect Albums as a book with one of the highest quality/quantity ratios among all chess problem publications. (One can argue that a few books-selections of some of great problemists have even higher ratio, I do not disagree.) Being an author of a part of problems in such book is something I value quite highly. Even if there were no titles, I would like to have my problems in appropriate numbers in selections of the high quality problems.
Now there are titles for composers. For some people they are very important (especially if there is money incentive in whatever form), for others they mean nothing, for most people it is somewhere in the middle. Being IM since 2010 I can say: it is some honour, a brief moment of pride (http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/im_jl_cre.jpg), but in everyday life it is really worth nothing, even in the life of composer. But at least titles and counts of points give some eye catching titles or food for statisticians.
I have never received 10 points in one fairy section in spite of being among more prolific composers and also composers with reasonable quality (in fairy section of WCCI since 1998 till 2009, i.e. in four periods, I have got places in fairly consistent sequence 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th) Thus I can well imagine limiting my own submission to 30 problems now and in the future as having more than let's say 20 Album-eligible problems in a section in the opinion of 3 judges is highly improbable. It would require some consideration on my side, but well, I can understand that as a judge.
In all three instances when I was involved in the FIDE selection process there was more than 1000 fairies to be judged. It is huge amount and as far I can say, all judges have their very own specific way to cope with such workload. The structure of submitted problems is usually very similar:
- a lot of composers send only a few problems, they would not be hit by WFCC decision in any way (by the way this bullet shows that composers are reasonable and mostly refrain from flooding the FIDE Album with sub-par works and even if they send relatively weak compositions, at least they are not so many),
- few composers send a lot of very similar compositions of debatable quality, most usually some of them are Album-worthy in my opinion, but it is difficult to look for them in the heap and boredom of this time-consuming task is now partially transferred to authors' shoulders,
- and finally there are a few composers sending a lot of problems of above-average quality where going through their submission is a delight for the judge. If they manage to get more than 10 points, great, if not, never mind, 30 is enough.
Have anyone asked about the probability of total newcomer to produce high quality compositions such that 30 problems in section are a real stop limit for his abilities? Personally, during my career (21 years) I do not remember anyone bursting to scene with tens of Album-worthy compositions from the beginning. And if he was able to produce so good output, most probably he would even be able to distinguish better works from the worse ones.
To conclude these remarks, I think there were other possible approaches to the matter and some suggestions from the discussion would be also good ideas. WFCC has got the decision and we will see how it works. However, purely economical arguments (motivation to use all slots available to maximize number of problems in to use quota) somehow do not work as most composers have common sense.
Exclamation once again:
The decision of WFCC to automatically include problems participating in WCCI awarded with more than 8 points is bad one in my opinion.
Reasons:
1. Many of the best problems would not be judged by FIDE Album judges, stripping them of some delight they might get from studying such problems. Remember that overall, judging task is paid mostly by delight from provided problems, otherwise any other benefits are minor compared to hours spent.
2. Judging process for WCCI and FIDE Album is different! WCCI now 5 judges with marks discarding, FIDE Album 3 judges. Also, personally, I would award more 4s in WCCI than in FIDE Album simply because in WCCI it would be possible to use fully whole scale 4-0 for the sake of ordering of compositions, while in FIDE Album selection marks have their specific meaning – 4 = composition must be in Album, 3 = should be in Album, 2 = can be in Album, 1 = should not be in Album.
3. Compositions sent to WCCI with less than 8 points will have "second chance" in FIDE Album selection, again with unwelcome consequences regarding level playing field for compositions (e.g. joint compositions come to mind).
I am fairly surprised that relatively uncontroversial (for most composers) decision about limit 30 is discussed in such lengthy discussion, while much worse WCCI -> FIDE Album decision is ignored.
Conclusion:
By chance, not knowing that the rule joining WCCI and FIDE Album would be introduced in Kobe, I have agreed to participate in WCCI 2010-2012 as judge in fairy section. Now I will have to apply my FIDE Album judging approach even for WCCI, thus I will have to consider suitability of the problems for FIDE Album.
P.S. Please, excuse any mistakes in the text above. Also maybe I have not used some words or collocations well, so I can explain if anything is unclear or wrong. But I do not plan to argue indefinitely over any points, I have read the whole debate and it leads nowhere overall, so I have just stated my opinion and that's it.
| | | (54) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 13:55] |
A problem speaks for itself, but a title speaks for the composer. The fact that there are no fringe benefits is irrelevant. I do hope to achieve IM status some day.
| | | (55) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 14:21]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-11-05] |
@ Kevin
'...That's why submitted spam must be judged, and penalized...' ?? no kid ?
Not enough with judging problems, you want now to judge also problemists ?
| | | (56) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 07:00]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [12-11-06] |
The solution provided by Abdelaziz Onkoud is an excellent one!
For a long time I found titles meaningless since they could never be compared to old composers. Awarding classical composers like Dr. Mandler and Dr. Kostal (Havel) makes a good start, but while I probably would be FM in no time (read: less than ten years) I lack the motivation of participating in a competition that does not give me anything except a title and being included in the album, if that means excessive work for me.
Yes, I see why people want to be included in this - it is indeed an album of the highest quality and a pleasure to read - but I still prefer specialised books, text, opinions of the authors of the books, in-depth explanations of studies. This is one of the reasons why - even though it undoubtedly is a great book - I never really read "Im Banne des Schachproblems" again, or why I browse through that kind of books only once or twice and then only if I'm bored.
The possibility of PGN submissions goes very much in the right direction for submission. It was just a pain to prepare physical copies on DIN A5 and then I also had to invest not only lots of time but also some money to send those in. Fortunately one could directly send it all to a single director. Maybe it was for WCCI and not the album. But PGN really at least gives me some motivation to actually submit studies, not because I would want a title or need to see it reprinted, but just to reach a wider audience that might actually enjoy the studies, i.e. because _they_ need to see it reprinted.
My apologies if someone is offended by the overly personal and surely not neutral opinion. Or as they call it, by the canned precooked meat.
| | | (57) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Nov 8, 2012 22:28] |
@Neal,
I said:
>"The present purpose of these sub-Albums is entirely to function as a measuring device in the titles/points competition"
You offered the following counter:
>"If this were true then composers would stop submitting problems once they'd received the GM title. The fact that they don't throws doubt on your assertion."
My original statement clearly shows the error in your argument.
I did not say the sub-Albums function only as a measure of titles -- I said they function to measure "titles/points."
A multi-millionaire does not lose all incentive to earn money, once they crack the Forbes-400 list.
Most want to reach the top of the list, and the one on top wants to stay there.
Similarly, many who have earned the Grandmaster title in Chess Composition will have an incentive beyond the title -- an incentive to win the points race.
That this is important is not some imaginary claim -- you should be aware that Petko Petkov has often been introduced as the overall leader in cumulative sub-Album points (and those following him are often introduced by their ranking on this points list).
In fact, your counter-claim could not be more wrong...
One chess composer did quit, immediately after achieving the title of Grandmaster (note: he was from a country which offered a financial incentive for any citizen achieving said title).
The original purpose of the Album was to provide a collection of the best problems, from a given period.
If you have any doubt that this purpose has been corrupted, ask yourself:
1) Why are the vast majority of submissions generated from a self-nomination process? and
2) Why would it be missing scores of sterling problems by prominent non-contributors (like Chris Feather)?
I don't think anybody would seriously deny that the purpose of the FIDE sub-Albums is anything other than what I had originally expressed (see line 1 in this post).
And, your argument certainly throws no doubt on this.
| | | (58) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Nov 8, 2012 23:24] |
@Hauke,
>"But just curious, is there anything that a problem title can buy you?"
Please note: it is not my intent to advertise here, but in order to answer your question, it cannot be avoided.
Long ago, the commercial chess server, Internet Chess Club, began providing free membership to OTB Grandmasters.
I successfully lobbied their Vice President, several years ago, to extend this benefit to Grandmasters in Correspondence Chess, Problem Solving, and Problem Composition.
To my knowledge, that benefit still exists (though, very few -- if any -- appear to have any use for it).
ICC claimed to share my enthusiasm for chess problems, but, despite my many proposals, never made good on promises to provide opportunities for rated online solving.
I had hoped to provide a more inclusive atmosphere -- with more problem exposure, and opportunities for more interaction between players and problemists.
In hindsight, I believe ICC's business model failed to recognize that problem chess (and variant chess) would have retained members, by providing opportunities beyond their blitz chess server; but, the opportunity persists (perhaps especially for some non-commercial start-up).
| | | (59) Posted by Dan Meinking [Friday, Nov 9, 2012 01:19] |
If you strip away points and titles, people will still want to see their name associated with the Album. At least this composer would. Thus removing points and titles will not eliminate SPAM.
| | | (60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Nov 9, 2012 01:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-11-09] |
@ Jacques Rotenberg,
I said: "...That's why submitted spam must be judged, and penalized..."
You asked: "No [kidding]? Not enough with judging problems, you want now to judge also problemists?"
I apologize -- I may not fully comprehend your question.
Is your question: Do I now want to judge problemists?
If so, I really have no interest in this aspect.
It is the cumulative points earned in all FIDE sub-Albums which casts a measure (and judgement) system, over all problemists -- not me.
I submit no problems to this process, and would refuse any title generated by it.
I do not consider it fair to problemists, nor beneficial to the art of chess problem composition.
Regardless of my preference to entirely avoid judging problemists, I still consider the process (and proposals to modify it) -- to the extent that it reflects upon the overall art form -- highly relevant, for everyone.
We all have an interest in voicing opposition to unfairness/favoritism (whether existing or proposed).
What is the purpose of this limitation proposal?
It has been billed, in this thread (and others), as a remedy for "spam."
For clarity, I submit the following definition for this term:
Spam - submissions to any FIDE sub-Album which had no real opportunity of winning points, but serve to increase the quota of acceptable problems.
If we all can agree on this definition of the term, there is no question that the limitation proposal provides no incentive to prevent spam.
The proposal limits the opportunity of prolific composers (for a given sub-Album, over each defined time period).
It makes no effort to even identify spam -- thus, it does not limit spam, any more than it limits masterpieces.
Both Vlaicu and Dan have hinted at another possibility:
Perhaps the purpose of this limitation proposal was to remedy an excessive number of submitted problems (regardless of quality, and with not intent to filter spam).
There is a good case to be made for their suggestion -- the issue of excessive entries is not likely to be the result of excess spam.
More likely, there is an increasing number of quality submissions, due to other factors:
1) The quantity of active composers is higher today, than at any other time in history.
2) Emergence of output driven titles/points provides each composer greater incentives to produce.
3) Computers today aid the composer in a number of ways, which greatly reduces turnaround time.
If we accept the premise, clearly, the limitation proposal does offer a remedy for excessive productivity (no argument here!).
However, we may still question whether this is ideal/fair.
If you desire a system to measure the talent of composers, based upon their cumulative self-nominated output, subjectively judged to be above some quality threshold...
The ideal system would:
1) encourage submission of all worthy entries (for consideration),
2) discourage submission of all spam,
3) lighten the judge's burden, from an accelerated productivity of worthy entries, and
4) provide a mechanism to shield composers (especially newcomers) from harsh anti-spam punishments, which might otherwise result from judgments which often prove highly subjective, and wildly divergent.
5) establish statistical mechanisms to test itself, particularly against bias/favoritism.
Beyond that, the sub-Albums would:
6) provide clearly defined, time-invariant divisions.
7) establish an objective determinant for both expansion (new divisions) and contraction (collapsed divisions).
8) award points equally (e.g., studies deserve the same points, whether orthodox or fairy).
9) not be influenced by quotas.
For a variety of reasons (perhaps a few I've neglected to mention), the current system is not ideal.
The proposal offered is definitely not ideal -- it fails on the very first point, by limiting worthy entries.
I don't consider this fair, and Georgy's suggestion (to provide special exceptions, for favorite composers) would make matters much worse.
Personally, I don't prefer to judge a composer's talent by subjective judgement of their cumulative works -- I would prefer to independently judge their works.
How can I respect their title, knowing that it may depend upon any number of points earned from problems later proven to be unsound?!
I have a high regard for the vast majority of composers who have earned titles, due to a familiarity with some of their most outstanding works.
This is not influenced (either way) by their lesser works (appearing in a given sub-Album), nor by the points awarded per accepted sub-Album entry, nor by the specific quota afforded by the competition, nor by subjective favoritism of the judge (beyond my own), etc.
I don't see why a system designed to measure the talent of various composers is not based upon a more familiar criteria (e.g., how we problemists spot talent)!
And, I don't see why we should be encouraged to produce multiple problems, above some quota-driven minimum threshold.
No composer is in pursuit of a dozen good problems (let's say: the 8-pointers) -- either we chase for a single masterpiece (let's say: the 12-pointer), or we chase for our next single masterpiece.
Any system which measures a composer's talent should recognize, and encourage, our natural pursuit: toward the one masterpiece, above all else.
I would encourage the governing body to reconsider the very purpose of the FIDE Album, the divisions in the sub-Albums, and the biases of the present title system.
Worry about the challenges of an upheaval (especially for those occupying ladders for title advancement), later.
Their first duty is to design a fair contest (as close to ideal as possible).
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net Forum General Limit on number of entries for FIDE Album |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
