Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:01 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Prize names |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Apr 6, 2024 22:07] | Prize names
(For instance) Olive allows to enter the standard "prize", "hon. mention" and "commendation",
with the option of entering "special" or an ordinal. This captures 99.99% of all judge verdicts.
Now in "The Enjoyment of Chess Problems" by Kenneth Howard I ran into a "Highly Commendation".
What does that actually mean? (Note that YACPDB 10890 lists it as "special".)
Do you know other "nonstandard" verdicts?
(Please don't mention the SCHWALBE informal where I was judge :-)
| | | (2) Posted by Jakob Leck [Saturday, Apr 6, 2024 23:41] |
(All of the following seem to be rare...)
"Superpreis":
https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P0514090 and others
"Sonderpreis": (although I think this is more or less the same as "Special prize" in English)
https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1060536 and quite a few others
"Schwalbe-Ehrenpreisträger":
https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P0500000 and others
"Auszeichnung":
https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1301476 and others
(search with AWARD="..." in pdb)
| | | (3) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Sunday, Apr 7, 2024 00:22] |
List of award types extracted from WinChloe:
------------------------
Prize
Honorable Mention
Commendation
Place
Mention
Citation
Winner
Extensions:
-----------
_ e.a.
Special _
Very special _
Super-_
Fun-_
Highly _
Extraordinary _
| | | (4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Apr 7, 2024 09:04] |
THX, Viktoras and Jakob. "ex äquo" is a standard extension. (Olive has an additional
text field where this and other could be entered, so a GIT request seems superfluous :-)
It still interests me to see a superduper prize and how the judge justifed it.
| | | (5) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Sunday, Apr 7, 2024 21:24] |
I think most non-standard award extensions are analogous to "special". "Highly Commendation" was used in old tournaments.
In Winchloe's database, such awards date from 1878 to 1981. Most of them were in 1932-1934.
| | | (6) Posted by Jakob Leck [Sunday, Apr 7, 2024 23:30] |
"Highly Commendation" sounds like a grammatical error. In the pdb you can find two problems noted as "Highly commended", which would be fine (and, weirdly, three with "Highly Lob" :D).
| | | (7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 04:48] |
High Lob. LOL.
Sounds like the congeniality award in a cow patty tossing (for distance) contest.
I know one judge (I will not name names) awarded a recently passed problemist with a lifetime honor (which was attached to the problem entry).
There are judges who refuse to acknowledge the limitations of their authority.
Problems are submitted to be judged against ALL other entries (within the given genre division laid out by the chief editor).
It is improper to subdivide entries into categories not provided by the chief editor (and that's exactly what these "special" terms are designed to do).
I say that knowing full well these "special" divisions are often intended to render a just verdict in certain categories plagued by inherent biases.
That's not justice. Separate judgement is inherently unequal judgement.
Therefore, these terms render the judge a party to (if not an advocate for) continued injustices.
In these instances, I would call upon the judge to render an undivided judgement which castigates the chief editor for failing to provide a fair/coherent genre division.
If you can't do the job (where all entries are judged against the other), you should (at a bare minimum) have the courage to explain why some problems within the genre division provided can not be fairly compared against others.
Of course, this kind of courage is rare, and the reason is obvious: if your goal is to earn awards and titles (a legitimate goal of many problemists), you'd be a damn fool to render an honest judgement.
Much easier (read: no retribution) for the lazy* judge to improperly assume they have full authority to subdivide troubling entries into "special" genres.
*note: it is not my intention to disparage any judge with the term "lazy."
In fact, I am many years overdue on a promised judgement, so I'm hardly in a position to throw such stones.
It is fair to say I have been lazy in using this very term (a better word eludes me), but it conveys no animosities harbored.
Finally, please note carefully that there are other divisions not seen (and these are a far more sinister erosion of the integrity of a journal's categorization).
For example, I won an award in an orthodox directmate category because the judge carved out a miniature category.
I've also won awards in a Proofgame and Retro category because the judge carved out four separate categories (Orthodox Retros, orthodox PGs, Fairy Retros, and Fairy PGs).
We can debate whether (or when) this is warranted (I would boldly claim the judge has no such authority), but there is no debating that this subdivision undermines the integrity of the chief editor's categorization.
If a chief editor's category has four 1st Prizes one year, but only one 1st Prize the previous year, the chief editor's categorization integrity has faltered.
Almost every "special" award (and every subdivided award) may be counted as a silent (and timid) vote of no confidence in the chief editor's genre categorization.
Here's the relevant point: if your intent is to properly relate the full measure of an award (and that should be your intent), you have a duty to report any subdivisions employed by the judge. Realizing that necessity, hopefully everyone can appreciate (or begin to appreciate) why subdivided judgements only burden those tasked with accurately reporting their awards.
When we see an award from a specific journal, we tend to assume the category.
We also tend to assume the approximate number (and average quality) of competing problems.
When the judge's subdivisions are hidden, it undermines the integrity of all judgements for that specific category within that specific journal.
Maybe the time has come for composed problems to receive an ELO rating (read: judge problems on their own merit, rather than their relative merit, measured against an unseen group).
| | | (8) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 06:33] |
I was with you until the last sentence - PLEASE NOT RATINGS!
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 06:50] |
@Neal,
OK, maybe an ELO-based measurement system isn't the best idea (I concede, this would provide a false analogy to an objective measurement of skill).
But, why not simply employ some kind of quantitative system?
Why should we measure your problem relative to other entries?
Why not value your problem on its own merit?
If your problem is 2700 level, and you happen to be judged by comparison with several 2800 level problems, hasn't the relative judgement failed to convey the value of your entry?
| | | (10) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 08:17] |
Art should not be measured.
| | | (11) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 10:00] |
@Joost: But it will be - at least by the "Nachwelt". (Who isn't the best judge either.)
Chess always was a special case being sport, science and art at the same time.
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 16:49] |
If we are not to measure art, we have no basis to offer prizes, honorable mentions, commendations, or titles.
Art need not be competitive, but an appraisal of art's value is unavoidable.
Some appraisal mechanism is required to recognize remarkable works (and to recognize composers who have contributed a number of remarkable works).
I have no interest debating whether our appraisal system should remain competitive, I only suggest this might be a good time to alter our relativistic appraisal mechanism (where the recognition for a problem is determined specifically in contrast to other art works appearing at the same time).
Why is our artform the only one appraised by a temporal methodology?
What does this say about us (and our artform), when our appraisal methodology falsely implies that the value of our art is only temporal.
If any of your art works are meant to endure, you must object to judging anyone's work relative to other works which share a time stamp.
Already, we see a need to repair the current judgement format (to properly convey the award received, we'd need to vastly expand the possibilities, to include any subdivision that any judge might adopt).
If we're going to consider repairs to our broken award system, it's a good time to reconsider its underlying philosophy.
| | | (13) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Apr 8, 2024 21:15] |
Reading the discussion honestly makes me wondering – if as a judge I am guilty of so many sins described by Kevin and others, why I am getting so many invitations to judge tourneys? (My guess: I understand fairies quite well to be in position to make reasonable awards, I am willing to take up the task and I make them within reasonable timeframe.)
List of some of my sins already mentioned:
- I refuse to acknowledge limitation of my authority (if I am judge of the tourney, it is my job to make award and it is my responsibility to make it to the best of my knowledge and conscience, even if this means committing some of the following sins) – however I openly admit that any other judge would be free to make the judgment differently, if he was asked to do the award
- Sometimes I divide the submitted problems to subsections due to various reasons – however sometimes not, even if I am allowed
- My awards are plagued by inherent biases (my own views on chess problems, sometimes different from majority consensus, my favourite genres, areas, specific effects, themes, some of them I know better than the other)
- Sometimes I award special awards, with explanation or without, even unusual ones
- When I reproduce problems from awards with subdivisions, mine or of other authors, I often omit subsection designations as it is not important in my view
- Number of awards problems, prizes, HMs, commendations, is not strictly related to number of competing problems, nor average “absolute” quality, but it is quite dependent also on other factors and in different time this would be different
Some other sins:
- Some of my awards did not stand test of the time – e.g. while the 1st Prize is forgotten, some of the following problems have turned out to be much more popular in wide sense of the word
- I do not always respect usual ordering of problems in the award
- In informal tourneys, names over diagrams have influence on my judging (I am not aware of any systematic bias here, just I realize I consider names, when I know them, you know that different feeling from anonymous tourney)
- Sometimes I really overlook some important elements of the problems, giving them less prestigious award than deserved
- Often, I fail to find possible constructional improvements that other judges could find
- Usually, I am rather strict in tourneys where points are awarded (WCCI, Album FIDE, WCCT, national albums), giving on average less points than other judges (for good reasons, at least in my view)
Kevin, I disagree with many your statements. I am especially startled by sentences like “Problems are submitted to be judged against ALL other entries (within the given genre division laid out by the chief editor).” No matter how many capitalized words you use, the sentence is not generally valid statement, just your own opinion.
| | | (14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 00:56] |
@Juraj,
I capitalized one word (which I will repeat here): a composer submits their entry with the expectation that their problem will compete against ALL other entries (in the classification division laid out by the chief editor).
Can you imagine if the chief arbiter decides to break up the "expert" group (into two, three, maybe four sub-groups), after all games of an over-the-board chess tournament have ended?
Can you not appreciate that would be reckless? Can you not appreciate how that would be damaging to the integrity of the tournament director?
What kind of fairness can we pretend when our judges think they have authority to change the rules of the contest (by imposing whatever subdivisions they like) after all entries in the contest (and all respective entrants) have been provided to them?
This is an indefensible sham, and we should ALL be honest in calling out this policy of overt injustice.
Further, the audience has an expectation that an award given in a specified genre classification will retain the integrity of that journal's classification system.
It is telling that you want to describe your actions as sins (I never used such a term).
You are evading any acknowledgement that imposed divisions are damaging to the integrity of the chief editor's divisions.
One year, that genre division has one 1st Prize. Another year, two problems earn 1st Prize (and it's not even marked as shared 1st Prize). Some years, four problems may earn 1st Prize in the very same genre classification (again, none are marked as "=1st-4th").
Face facts, my friend. That erodes the integrity of the chief editor's genre division system (and it must be counted a vote of no confidence in their genre divisions).
Further, you have evaded any acknowledgement that these imposed divisions place an undo burden on those tasked with properly conveying the scope of such awards.
To properly convey your awards, the databases now need to acknowledge whatever divisions a judge carved (according to their whim).
A judge is hired to judge ALL problems in the chief editor's classification system, not to carve out sub-genres on a whim.
You want to pretend I've called your behavior sinful, so that you need never consider the consequences.
It is not sinful; simply misguided.
I would encourage you to ponder the implications of these actions more carefully.
ps: In case you haven't noticed, there is an increasing reluctance to serve as judge in these contests. Be careful not to assume repeat offers to serve as judge are an indication of confidence (this is hardly baseball, where the bad calls of umpires may be scrutinized -- indeed, anyone who offers a contrary opinion is treated as if they are a sinner casting stones).
Ask yourself -- who would complain that a judge has awarded four 1st Prizes (none of them are marked as shared) in a single genre section?
Four composers can all pretend they've won 1st Prize. Four can pretend they won 2nd Prize (and that goes right down the line). Why would any of them complain?
You're giving away free cars, but you never bother to ask the question: "who pays the bill?"
The bill is paid by database developers (who must now provide for all manner of divisions, in order to correctly reflect the award), and by future generations of problemists (who must go back and correct the misrepresented awards in databases -- which hide an imposed subdivision carved out by a judge who acted on a whim), and by the chief editor (who lacks the self respect to insist that judgements must adhere to the classification system provided -- that the rules of their contest must never be unjustly altered after the fact).
The bill is also paid by the one composition that merited the singular 1st Prize (but nobody can say for sure who is the injured party here -- thus, all parties are content to pretend they have won the 1st Prize, so long as the databases conspire to hide the true measure of the award).
I'm not casting stones at you (or any other judge). I am merely asking judges to consider the consequences of their actions.
Too long have databases kept hidden these imposed subdivisions (and in doing so, they have failed to convey the full measure of the awards).
At some point, the problem community will be burdened to go back and correct how those awards are misrepresented.
Of course this is my opinion, but if you have a counter opinion to offer, make a logical argument why it's OK for a judge to burden the database developers (with an unlimited amount of imposed subdivisions), who are charged to properly convey the full measure of the award.
If you have a logical case to make, make your case (without resorting to the melodrama of feigning the injury of an innocent who has been slandered as sinful -- that's just a desperate attempt to evade an honest discussion).
It's not good enough to pretend I've cast you a sinner (I have not), and disregard the consequences of this misguided behavior.
It is never my intention to shame any judge for engaging in a misguided behavior (which happened a hundred times before they were born); my intention is to suggest ways we might remedy a judgement system that has lost integrity (and to see that the full measure of awards are correctly conveyed to the audience, such that subdivisions imposed by a judge are no longer hidden from view).
I do not even presume malice. Quite the contrary, I presume judges who resort to this behavior are simply ignorant of the costs.
You would know the costs if your favorite database added imposed genre subdivision fields, and allowed you to search these fields (read: if they accurately conveyed the full measure of a judgement rendered, rather than concealing that information from the viewer -- which amounts to a dishonesty).
Nobody's judging you. I am simply asking that this community (especially judges and chief editors) consider the consequences of continuing this reckless behavior.
I think most everybody is aware the integrity of this system has collapsed. That's not only my opinion (I have found this view is widely shared, across all genres of chess composition).
Maybe that's why so many walk away from offers to serve as judge.
Lastly, there's a much larger point you're not addressing: why is our art community judging works in a temporal/relativistic fashion?
If your art is meant to endure, you must see how this appraisal method only cheapens works in our artform.
This system inevitably requires a major remedy (and it might even be wise to delay that upheaval, until we all fully appreciate the scope of the problem).
I simply suggest a careful reexamination of the underlying philosophy of temporal/relativistic judgements.
If there is a good case to be made for continuing this practice, I (for one) am ready to listen to differing viewpoints.
But, I'm still wondering: why has nobody made that case?
| | | (15) Posted by shankar ram [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 02:30] |
Some related stuff here: https://matplus.net/start.php?px=1710218118&app=forum&act=posts&fid=xshow3&tid=1381
and here: https://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1712624240&app=forum&act=posts&fid=it&tid=1187&pid=9565&mark=yes&#n9565
Vaux Wilson (MoE), Oleg Efrosinin (arbitr - an excel spreadsheet for judging!) , Azlan Iqbal (Chessthetica).
| | | (16) Posted by shankar ram [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 02:48] |
And Harri Hurme's comments as judge of his own 70JT (2017):
"I consider that the weakest link in our chess problem art is the level of awards. I admit that sometimes some fine awards are written, but too often they are very odd in my mind. Considering the widely different point scores from different judges in FIDE album and WCCT for the same problems we do not need any addition proof on my claim. Also my award is subject to this same critique, of course. Actually my own opinion changes from day to day, so it cannot be right on every occasion. I am convinced that a more or less automatic algorithm can be developed for judging chess problems. This is of course very demanding task. Some decades ago most ”experts” were convinced that a master level chess playing program would not be possible. We now know how that claim has failed. In past Mr Vaux Wilson proposed his ”Method Of Evaluation” for chess problems. This MOE was very automatic but it failed because he had ignored totally the meaning of ”Unity” which is one of the basic requirements of a good chess problem. This attempt should not prevent us from trying to enhance the level of awards. Unfortunately I do not see any major efforts going on in this field."
https://www.tehtavaniekat.fi/wp-content/uploads/hurme70.pdf
| | | (17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 03:02] |
@Shankar,
That's a very interesting point.
At some point, I have no doubt that artificial intelligence will render better judgements (more objective, more fair, less temporal, less relativistic).
Maybe that's what the Terminator referred to as "Judgement Day," (lol).
While that day may not transpire in our lifetime, it is no less certain than a sunrise in the future.
Before that can happen, an artificial intelligence will first need to demonstrate superiority in composing (across many genres).
This is no easy task -- especially considering their rivals (human beings) use composers as a composing tool.
I have little doubt this dominance could happen in the next year -- but chess problem composing is an endeavor that computer engineers don't yet deem worthy of conquest.
In fact, our broken judgement system might be the ultimate poison pill.
Why would an AI trust us (flawed humans) to judge their works fairly?
Even masquerading as a human composer, with a human shell constantly exhibiting political correctness, the AI may flounder in a system lacking an objective measure of progress.
It would be interesting to see if an AI would later admit the value of their works were diminished in their mission to dominate a flawed human judgement system.
If a dominant neural network composer can (without any biased programming) determine the value of problem themes, and find new themes, human judgement becomes moot.
At some point, we will ignore entirely the human judgement, and rely entirely upon a quantitative AI rating of the problem.
| | | (18) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 04:05] |
Once computers compose, whatever we compose will perhaps be mediocre (by comparison) eliminating the need for judging.
After reading Kevin I wonder whether or not I should divide my 75-JT award into two sections
Miniature -- Others
(Slightly edited)
| | | (19) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 06:59] |
LOL. Spite has no emotional equal in motivating self destruction.
Honestly, I feel honored.
Thanks for sharing, and happy birthday!
Other than desperate emotional states, and melodrama, can anybody provide a sincere, rational argument in favor of judges who change the rules of a contest after all entries have been gathered?
If so, please also provide a scheme for problem database creators (which covers all possible sub-divisions a judge may fairly impose), or explain why the judge's fancy must remain unbounded.
After all, that is the purpose of this thread.
Kindly inform the database creators what are the limitations of the judge's authority to sub-divide a problem category.
In the interest of conveying the full measure of an award, might the database creators be required to provide for astrological divisions?
Until that is proffered, I will consider the absence of such an argument to be a damning concession that this position is entirely indefensible (subdividing a contest is simply an unfair and dishonest act, and everybody knows this -- even those who may benefit from it).
Nobody knows this better than the database creators, who can not hope to accurately convey a judgement imposed by such a sloppy, unfair, and dishonest mechanism of fanciful subdivision.
I expect this concludes my participation in this informative thread.
| | | (20) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2024 10:13] |
Quoth Kevin: "Can you imagine if the chief arbiter decides to break up the "expert" group (into two, three, maybe four sub-groups), after all games of an over-the-board chess tournament have ended?"
Yes: Rating prizes. Prizes for juniors, seniors, women. In all fairness, these are mostly announced
pre-tournament, but it *has* happened that (due to over-average interest for the tourney, leading
to a flood of entrance fees) they were thrown in "on the fly".
A judge might split (or merge) a tourney for exactly the same reason. (Just stating, not judging :-)
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General Prize names |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
