Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
19:48 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General FIDE Album 2010-2012 |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Saturday, May 18, 2013 22:42] | FIDE Album 2010-2012
In the announcement is written the following rule: "A composer may send to each section no more than 30 compositions published in the defined three-year period, or up to 3 times the number of points he/she had in that section the last time he/she participated, whichever is greater."
Let's assume that one composer (A) sends the maximum number of 30 compositions in a certain section.
Questions:
1. What happens if B decides also to send another bunch of 30 compositions created solely by A in the same section? Is this explicitely forbidden? (This could be an intentional violation of the rule)
2. How will the director of the section proceed in the case when other composers will send their joint compositions with A, hence causing him/her to pass the threshold of 30 compositions? Which compositions will be given priority? (This could be an unintentional violation of the rule)
3. How can a composer make sure (s)he will be not penalized for passing the threshold?
| | | (2) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, May 19, 2013 09:08] |
You just underline how stupid is this "numerus clausus".
| | | (3) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Sunday, May 19, 2013 10:51] |
QUOTE
1. What happens if B decides also to send another bunch of 30 compositions created solely by A in the same section? Is this explicitely forbidden? (This could be an intentional violation of the rule)
You have probably not noticed in the announcement the sentence right after the one you quoted: "Anyone entering compositions by another composer should obtain the agreement of that composer beforehand."
QUOTE
2. How will the director of the section proceed in the case when other composers will send their joint compositions with A, hence causing him/her to pass the threshold of 30 compositions? Which compositions will be given priority? (This could be an unintentional violation of the rule)
The limit of maximum 30 entries (or 3 times the number of points that a composer "A" had in this section in the last album that he participated, whichever is greater) applies to the number of compositions that the composer "A" includes in his own PDF file that he is sending. Therefore if another composer "B" includes in his PDF file some joint compositions with the composer "A", these compositions count for the limit of composer "B" and NOT for the limit of composer "A".
QUOTE
3. How can a composer make sure (s)he will be not penalized for passing the threshold?
Your question is not clear, but it is probably answered by the replies under points (1) and (2) above.
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 20, 2013 13:54]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-05-20] |
Harry,
I really should avoid this issue entirely (if not this entire forum); but, I'll try to limit myself to helping clarify the question...
Where can we find a clear and detailed description of the new policy, and any punitive action which may be incurred by it?
Frankly, the question seemed quite clear -- no need to stall, simply provide the full wording, as approved by the delegates.
Surely, this would clearly elaborate any penalty scenario.
For example, consider the following hypothetical...
Suppose Kim Poser submits (or approves the submission of joint problems), to one of the 9 sub-Albums, in a quantity exactly meeting WFCC's new arbitrary maximum.
Further suppose that a co-author seeks permission to submit an additional joint composition.
What are Kim Poser's options (including any options which might incur a penalty)?
What punitive action would be incurred, by Kim Poser (and/or any co-authors), should the additional submission (exceeding WFCC's arbitrary maximum) be approved? Furthermore, how is this penalty altered, if the additional submission was sent without explicit approval?
Would judges toss out all of Kim Poser's submissions?
Might they toss out anything received beyond the maximum? (if so, according to what order?)
Here's the key points:
1) Any penalty incurred, by Kim Poser, might unfairly impact his co-authors.
In other words, prolific output might punitively compromise the submission opportunities (if not title opportunities!) for co-authors.
Note: the infrequency, at present, can not be considered a justification for this corrupt policy.
2) This policy suggests that a composer has boycott rights, over all co-authors (in the interest of avoiding an unspecified penalty).
If so, are these rights limited to the avoidance of said penalty?
Does WFCC now assert that the republication of a chess problem affords each co-author with an option for prior restraint, or is this limited exclusively to the sub-Albums?
3) If the purpose of this limitation policy is to reduce submissions, the intent is nullified by an apparent absence of any clear penalty.
If WFCC simply restricts individuals to an arbitrary maximum number of points per sub-Album (read: an upper bound, without penalty), then no entrant need observe the new restriction.
In other words, the policy would actually burden the judges with more work (to search for excess points, and apply reductions where necessary).
Therefore, to achieve the desired result, some penalty is necessary, regardless the unfair impact this may have on co-authors.
4) Why would WFCC want to penalize a prolific composer?
I submit that this arbitrary policy was a very poorly considered effort to reduce the frequency of some obscenely embarrassing imbalances (which can be primarily attributed to corrupt influences).
I suspect there was very little discussion/consideration -- even as to whether the limitation should apply to points, or problem submissions (which is, as you know, different for Studies).
The delegate gang rides again...
Why should anyone trust this organization?
Suggestions are unwelcomed, and "members" have no capacity to enact improvement.
What value was there in preserving autonomy (from FIDE), when members have no vote in this so-called "democratic" institution?
| | | (5) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, May 20, 2013 14:15]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [13-05-20] |
This is what I understand:
I can submit 20 of my problems and 10 joint problems. In addition to the above Bala can submit 30 of our joint compositions which will be counted for the limit of 30 problems that Bala can submit to the Album. My friend Narayanan can submit 30 of our joint compositions which will count against his limit of 30. In effect 90 of my problems will be submitted to the Album. Since three different composers are involved each has not exceeded his limit of 30.
No permission is needed from the joint composer to submit my joint compositions (I presume my joint composers do not have the power of veto in this regard). The question of permission to submit another composers problem will arise when that composer is sick or otherwise unable to submit his problems.
In case I submit 100 of my problems ignoring the ceiling, I presume the maximum penalty can be that the Director will ignore problems 31 to 100, and send to the judges problems 1 to 30.
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, May 20, 2013 14:32]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-05-20] |
>In case I submit 100 of my problems ignoring the ceiling, I presume the maximum penalty can be that the Director will ignore problems 31 to 100, and send to the judges problems 1 to 30.<
Presumptions are dangerous -- let's not make them.
Instead, let's get the exact wording approved by the delegates.
If you have 100 problems of roughly equal value, you may as well submit them all... and see what happens (maybe nobody notices, and 30 are accepted).
If the maximum penalty is to toss (randomly) 70 entries, it is not necessarily a penalty enforced upon the individual exceeding the rule (though it may randomly penalize some co-authors).
Furthermore, what you describe certainly suggests that the new policy does not actually limit your submissions, at all.
You are, after all, free to invent a new co-author identity.
In effect, submissions would not be limited to 30, instead, the new policy would only diminish the point-value (those exceeding 30 would be worth half).
Note: the remaining credit may go to an invented fictional character, or perhaps to a friend (who might return the favor, in less prolific periods / less trammeled sub-Albums).
This is no remedy... this would actually encourage further corruption!
At best, this provides only an artificial subsidy to encourage the incorporation of highly prolific composers (especially those with alternate sub-Album interests).
Beyond that, it attempts to artificially boost the present generation (and freeze the present hierarchy). This is a disgrace -- the success of which would require the eternal incompetence of delegates.
| | | (7) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Tuesday, May 21, 2013 22:06] |
Thank you very much for the answers, Harry!
I have many joint compositions for which I gave my consent to be sent to the Album before counting my own entries. I will make sure my own PDF submission will NOT pass the number of 30 entries, as stated in the announcement and confirmed by you.
As far as I understand the primary reasoning for setting a certain limit per composer was SPAM avoidance. Although I agree in principle with the idea, I am afraid this rule won't actually stop the FIDE Album spammers. Instead, some potentially good compositions created by prolific composers will be not sent.
So, my next question: is it possible to reconsider this rule during the next WFCC meeting in Batumi? If so, then I am willing to send an official request to the proper subcommittee.
In this moment, the only idea I have in order to somehow reduce the current burden on FIDE Album judges is to reduce the scope of the published compositions from 3 years to 2 years. Of course this won't solve at all the spamming issue, but I think it is definitely better to let them escape unpunished than penalizing in a way or another some rather "innocent" composers.
| | | (8) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Wednesday, May 22, 2013 13:26] |
QUOTE
As far as I understand the primary reasoning for setting a certain limit per composer was SPAM avoidance. Although I agree in principle with the idea, I am afraid this rule won't actually stop the FIDE Album spammers.
You are right that spam was the reason for establishing a certain limit. We tried other alternatives in the past (e.g. recommendations that composers should submit their very best works only, should rank their entries in order of preference, etc.), but nothing really worked. They were still composers submitting 80-100 entries (or even more sometimes) to a section with an eventual "success rate" of less than 5% (i.e. 2 or 3 entries only selected). And this was happening, even if they had to submit huge parcels with 5 paper copies of each problem; one can easily guess what could happen now that the submission system changes to e-mail. We analysed in detail how the rule would affect the figures of the previous 2007-09 album and I can confirm that the rule will decrease the spam. At least this is what Excel shows.
QUOTE
Instead, some potentially good compositions created by prolific composers will be not sent.
During summer of 2012, we did an extensive statistic analysis of the 2007-09 album. It was obvious that prolific composers are not spammers of course, that's why in Kobe we decided to add the alternative criterion of 3 times the points the composer got in the last album he had participated. This alternative criterion easily accommodates the majority of the prolific composers without any side effect.
All the directors' spreadsheets were not available in Kobe, so delegates asked the album committee to continue the analysis and make any adjustments before the announcement in January 2013, as and if necessary.
We did so and we found out that there may be a couple of prolific composers who could be affected in the way you described. They are either new composers who are very good but they don't have a high number of problems in the previous albums, or composers who had a very prolific period in the past but they meanwhile stopped being active so their very recent results are not high.
The album committee members exchanged a lot of emails and opinions on this matter before the announcement. We considered various options and some of us even made very specific proposals in cases that a composer believes that even the "3 times the points" limit is too low for him and he would like to ask for an exception. Personally I thought that one of the proposals was simple to understand and easy to implement and we could agree on that.
Unfortunately, the album committee did not reach to an agreement. At the end of 2012, it was clear that there was no more time for discussions as the album announcement should be released by mid of January 2013. So, we concluded that for the 2010-12 album we should "stick" to what was decided in Kobe.
I would like to repeat: the number of composers who could be affected (in the way you described) is very, very low.
QUOTE
So, my next question: is it possible to reconsider this rule during the next WFCC meeting in Batumi? If so, then I am willing to send an official request to the proper subcommittee.
Of course. We would be glad to receive not only your request, but also your proposal!
QUOTE
In this moment, the only idea I have in order to somehow reduce the current burden on FIDE Album judges is to reduce the scope of the published compositions from 3 years to 2 years. Of course this won't solve at all the spamming issue, but I think it is definitely better to let them escape unpunished than penalizing in a way or another some rather "innocent" composers.
The main problem with this idea is that it is not so realistic. It is very hard to find directors, judges, indexers, and so on. Reducing the cycle to 2 years will make the process even more tight.
| | | (9) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Thursday, May 23, 2013 09:50] |
Let's try first to come with an agreement on the definitions.
FIDE Album potential spammer: a composer who sends more than 30 problems at one FIDE Album section, but fails to accomplish a 10% selection score out of his own submitted problems.
FIDE Album spammer: a composer who repeatedly sends more than 30 problems and fails to achieve the 10% selection score of his own submitted problems.
The sketch of the proposal I have in mind is the following:
1. At the end of the selection process, each section director must create the list of FIDE Album potential spammers and send it to the WFCC FIDE Album subcommittee.
2. Once the results of the selection process become definitive, the WFCC FIDE Album subcommittee publishes the list of FIDE Album potential spammers and FIDE Album spammers.
3. The section directors and the judges are entitled to completely reject the assessment of the compositions from FIDE Album spammers.
4. The section directors are entitled to warn the potential FIDE Album spammers of the consequence of another submission of a batch of more than 30 compositions and ask them to review their selection.
I think this rule is more fair than the current one, for the following reasons:
- Each composer may send how many compositions he wants --> no limit for prolific composers of high quality problems.
- First time when the composer fails to reach the threshold, (s)he receives only a warning --> raise awareness of the importance of preliminary selection process.
- Second time when the composer fails to reach the threshold, (s)he is excluded from the competition --> severe penalty applies only for spammers, but not for the other composers.
Of course, the actual figures (30 compositions and 10% threshold) may be discussed and agreed based on each section specific situation, after a thorough analysis.
| | | (10) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:20] |
Many thanks, Vlaicu, for your input.
It is interesting that your ideas are, in certain points, quite similar to the mechanism that some of the album committee members had thought in the period of September to December 2012. I would not like we discuss it here, as I may misinterpret something you have written, or others misinterpret something I have written. I would prefer that we discuss it via email. I shall send to you the statistic analysis we've made, as well as the ideas that the committee had. You should have to wait for a couple of days, as at the moment I am pretty busy with the 2010-12 album (being director of the h#2 section) and with the WCCT-9 (the deadline for the awards is in a few days).
Trust this is OK to you.
| | | (11) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Saturday, Jun 1, 2013 18:17]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [13-06-01] |
Hi - I am just finalizing my humble submissions for this, which I hope to send off in a couple of hours phew. But I am confused by the requirements. It's one composition per page. But what happens if the necessary full solution exceeds 1 page? Should I use a tiny font? Both sides of the page? Or just not worry about it? A quick response would be very helpful.
Thanks,
Andrew.
| | | (12) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Saturday, Jun 1, 2013 19:22] |
Continue writing the solution to the next page.
The requirement not having two entries on the same page is because the director will have eventually to extract the selected problems from each composer's file and merge them in a single PDF that he will send to the editor.
| | | (13) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, Jun 1, 2013 22:19] |
Can I put a veto on judging any composition of which I am a co-composer? If someone sends in a composition where I am a co-composer he has done so without my permission.
| | | (14) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Jun 1, 2013 22:31] |
A joint composition belongs to both the composers. A veto is an unfriendly act. Generally a request with specific reasoning should work well. If the result was unsatisfactory or unworthy of your stature, it is better to remove your name before publication of the problem.
| | | (15) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, Jun 1, 2013 22:34] |
From the rules (http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/fa1012.htm): Anyone entering compositions by another composer should obtain the agreement of that composer beforehand. I do not give my agreement.
| | | (16) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Sunday, Jun 2, 2013 10:02] |
"should" is not the same with "must".
| | | (17) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Jun 2, 2013 10:24]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-06-02] |
Moreover, a joint composition is not a composition by another composer.
| | | (18) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Jun 2, 2013 13:27] |
I agree. A joint composition cannot be considered a problem by another composer. I think the necessity to get the permission will arise only when I submit the problem of another composer (not a joint composition) because my friend was sick, too busy or out of network connection.
| | | (19) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Jun 2, 2013 16:28] |
According to the German copyright law, all authors must agree to a publication. I think it should be similar worldwide. So the FIDE album judges should NOT include that composition for judging.
| | | (20) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Jun 2, 2013 16:59] |
Sigfried, supposedly a joint composition was already published with the agreement of all authors. Reprint of a chess composition is the other thing and that should be relevant for your point of view .
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General FIDE Album 2010-2012 |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
