Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:53 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General WCSC etiquette |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Michael McDowell [Monday, Oct 1, 2012 12:46] | WCSC etiquette
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave solved as a member of the French team in the
WCSC, knowing that he would have to leave after the first day. Obviously
his compatriots were glad to have his contribution, especially in the
studies round, but is it not devaluing the most important event in the
solving calendar, having someone intentionally withdraw after half the
rounds? Shouldn't there be a requirement that you should only start the
event if you intend to complete it (withdrawal through illness is a
different matter, of course)?
| | | (2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Oct 1, 2012 19:42] |
If John Nunn is able to participate for only one day, will be British Team use his services or choose a weaker solver for the whole event ?
| | | (3) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Oct 1, 2012 21:20] |
I see no problem in this approach. After all, the team still consists only of 3 members and thus the second day 2 remaining team members are left to pile up their own contributions of points.
The most important event? Undoubtedly, but this just point how much it is important in fact in the flow of all world events. How is that possible that almost randomly emerging otb players of sufficient quality are able to outscore substantial portion of seasoned solvers on the first day and even in the whole competition with using only points from 3 rounds?
Rather than MVL's sin it is a serious reality-check to the whole solving community. And the hint to many teams with bad results: motivate your otb GMs to do some solving training and bring them to WCSC. The miracles will come. I dare to say the top ten can be very different, if not medal places.
(Actually, the idea from the previous paragraph is not new at all. Just in my view it is not sufficiently applied yet.)
| | | (4) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Tuesday, Oct 2, 2012 03:56] |
I see no ethical or any other issue in MVL's participation in half of the WCSC. The only problem is that his solving rating (2311 in the new list) does not correspond to his real strength, but if he is OK with that, I see no problem.
I agree with Juraj, that very strong players would be strong solvers, at least of studies and directmates. I have met many "common" otb GMs who can solve very fast. The question is how to motivate them to be interested in solving. Not with money, I presume.
| | | (5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 3, 2012 21:04]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-03] |
How to motivate OTB GM's to participate in Solving contests (without money)?
OK, here's the best idea that comes to my mind:
Ask FIDE to grant the World Solving Champion a (slightly elevated) berth into the OTB World Championship contest.
If not that, perhaps to some other important OTB contest (something like Linares A Group).
Obviously, the WSC would have an opportunity to decline participation; but, in the interest of a more cross-disciplined competition, accepting would likely provide great sporting fun!
This encourages a bi-directional intermingling of OTB Play & Problem Solving (rather than only our way).
It would be quite interesting to see how well the "crossovers contestants" do (from both directions).
And, it provides enthusiasts of distinct disciplines (Players & Solvers) more reason to be interested in what might otherwise seem a detached contest.
I'm not so naive to expect that a WC Solver will provide strong competition in the other direction, however, only one solver would have the option of going that direction (whereas numerous titled OTB players might take up solving)!
Finally, this "cheap-fix" idea might bridge a growing rift, between Problemists & Players.
Full Disclosure: I hope to see Kostas versus Magnus, someday. :-)
| | | (6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Oct 3, 2012 21:20] |
@Kevin: Aw c'mon, that will surely become a massacre :P
(Kostas, are you this player? http://ratings.fide.com/card.phtml?event=4200390
In that case, leave Magnus to me - I have only marginally more ELO but a long
record of scaring GMs to death :-)
Hauke
| | | (7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 3, 2012 21:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-03] |
@Hauke
hehehe, OK, I will trust your slightly higher ELO, to vanquish Carlsen. :-)
But, honestly -- what's the worst thing that can happen (Steinitz versus von Bardeleben)?
Heaven forbid, we might all get a wonderful brilliancy out of this -- at least it would be more educational than modern GM play.
And, sure, these lessons are at the WC Solver's expense.
But, these are not hard lumps, given that the WC Solver gets a shot at the title (maybe even a Rocky Balboa movie).
Plus, there will be plenty of lumps the other direction (OTB players are hardly less afraid of selfmates).
btw: an alternative would be to guarantee an exhibition match (between the OTB/Solving WC's), in both disciplines.
But, for a variety of reasons, I don't really see that happening.
| | | (8) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Oct 4, 2012 01:13] |
@Hauke
Yes, that's me. Now I would be even weaker than that, so Magnus is all yours, if you want him.
@Kevin
The closest to a mixed (for players and solvers) solving competition was the study solving contest in Wijk aan Zee. See here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=5212 and here: http://www.chessbase.com/newsprint.asp?newsid=7001
A good opportunity for solving competitions have been the chess Olympiads in many occasions. However, these solving tourneys never attracted the top players.
There have been many successful solving tourneys during junior championships in countries like Serbia, Romania, Georgia, etc.
An interesting (even if arbitrary) tie-break criterion in a championship, would be the places the players had in a solving competition, held during the tournament. This would force all players to participate, or even prepare for solving.
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Oct 4, 2012 07:43] |
After further reflection, I need to concede that my idea is somewhat naive.
It do not honestly believe that an active GM can expect to place 1st in the WCSC, against top solvers.
Even a super-GM with incredible solving skills can't expect to walk away with the title of Solving World Champion.
Therefore, my suggestion is not likely to provide an honest incentive for an active OTB Grandmaster.
However, I still believe there is merit to my suggestion.
So, I'd like to propose a slightly revised version:
Instead of giving an OTB Tourney berth to our WC Solver, offer this berth to the active FIDE-titled player with the best result in the WCSC.
Ask FIDE to establish which OTB Tourney the berth would be given into (but ideally, it should give OTB GMs a real incentive), and to provide whatever minimum qualifications are necessary (e.g., activity/title/rating requirements) to obtain this berth.
This way, active OTB players compete strictly with one another, in the WCSC venue, to gain entry into an OTB tourney.
This could provide an honest incentive for GMs to compete in the entire solving tourney.
Plus, the cross-competition would benefit both contests.
I expect most problemists would watch the OTB tourney with greater interest, having problem solvers in the events.
And, this does provide more problem exposure (especially from a solving perspective) to OTB players.
@Kostas,
Thanks for the links.
Using solving contest results to determine tie-breaks would certainly seem an interesting alternative.
Either way, FIDE's involvement is key.
But, since FIDE would stand to benefit on all counts (OTB, Solving, and Composing all fall under their umbrella), it shouldn't be difficult to sell them on this noble endeavor (helping the WCSC provide top OTB players more tangible incentives).
So, why not?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think, the tie-breaks route might require more direct involvement with the tourney organizers (not always consistent).
It might be easier to limit the involvement to FIDE, directly (as in determining a contestant in a Grand Prix type event).
I don't know... but, if I were a WCSC organizer, I'd want to talk to FIDE.
@Aside: I noticed that in Kobe, 4 titles were awarded for "FIDE Solving Judge."
I wasn't aware of this title before (it does not appear in the list of titles for FIDE Composing Judges) -- is this brand new?
If not, can somebody please refer me to a list, which shows me who earned this title (and when)?
Thanks.
| | | (10) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Oct 4, 2012 10:23] |
QUOTE
I noticed that in Kobe, 4 titles were awarded for "FIDE Solving Judge."
I wasn't aware of this title before (it does not appear in the list of titles for FIDE Composing Judges) -- is this brand new?
See http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/statutes2011e.htm#annex3d paragraph (e)
| | | (11) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Oct 4, 2012 16:24] |
Thanks Harry.
I don't see any list of these titles on the WFCC website (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/titles.htm).
Under the "International Judges" section, I see only titles for Composing Judges.
Can you refer me to a similar list of FIDE Solving Judge Titles, anywhere?
ps: if anybody from FIDE happens to be reading this, I'd like to see similar lists for IMs, FMs, WGMs, WIMs, Arbiters, International Arbiters, International Organizers, etc (any OTB title that is conferred, whom it was awarded to, and when it was awarded).
WFCC & ICCF (the Correspondence Federation) do a great job of readily providing all such information online (save perhaps the title for FIDE Solving Judge -- which I am unable to locate anywhere).
FIDE, on the other hand, does not.
Furthermore, I would submit that FIDE should provide crossover information, for individuals with multiple titles, under various sub-Federations.
| | | (12) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Oct 4, 2012 16:38]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [12-10-08] |
QUOTE
I don't see any list of these titles on the WFCC website (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/titles.htm).
Under the "International Judges" section, I see only titles for Composing Judges.
Can you refer me to a similar list of FIDE Solving Judge Titles, anywhere?
The pages with the titles have not been updated yet to include those given in Kobe.
Edit: Hannu Harkola has updated the pages now.
| | | (13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Oct 4, 2012 16:52]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-10-04] |
@Harry,
I understand that the Kobe decisions are not yet updated onto the WFCC titles pages.
That's not an issue -- especially considering that the decisions are linked on the WFCC home page.
What I'm wondering is:
Were the four individuals awarded the "FIDE Solving Judge" title (in Kobe), the first ever recipients of this title?
And, if not, is there a list available containing previous recipients of this title (preferably w/ dates)?
Thanks again (and sorry if I am distracting this thread).
| | | (14) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Sunday, Oct 7, 2012 23:24]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [12-10-07] |
QUOTE
Were the four individuals awarded the "FIDE Solving Judge" title (in Kobe), the first ever recipients of this title?
Yes, they are. The concept and requirements of the title were decided in 2010. The title itself was established in 2011.
| | | (15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 8, 2012 01:04] |
Thanks Harry.
| | | (16) Posted by Joost de Heer [Wednesday, Oct 10, 2012 15:38] |
If memory serves me right there was an incident in Wageningen where Reto Aschwanden solved on day one but not on day 2. Whether to include him in the final ranking or not was very important: if he was included, someone received a title norm, if he wasn't included, that person wouldn't have a title norm.
| | | (17) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Oct 11, 2012 23:44]; edited by Kostas Prentos [12-10-11] |
I suppose there is no question whether the results of a solver who solved only on one day, or a few rounds, should be included in the final ranking, at least for rating calculation. If they were not included, then a solver who had a bad day, would quit the tournament without penalty.
A solver scoring 0 points without solving in three rounds, would have a negative influence on the average result of all the participants. The score of a particular solver, going for a norm, would be better if compared with the average score of all, and therefore, norms would be marginally easier. Someone missing a whole day would only benefit other solvers, and since this does not happen often, I do not see a threat of abuse or manipulation of the system.
| | | (18) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Oct 12, 2012 07:41] |
Perhaps a just solution in this circumstance is to introduce a ruling that, except for the situation of genuine illness, any solver who does not participate on all solving days will have their accrued points discounted altogether from their team's overall tally. That way, teams would be encouraged to select only those who they know for certain would be available on ALL solving days. (As for the observation about a [weak?] solver gaining 0 points, is it not fair that the team receive a lower score, since a relatively poor solver was chosen in the first place?)
| | | (19) Posted by Michael McDowell [Friday, Oct 12, 2012 15:14] |
Kostas makes a good point, though I hadn't been thinking of practical effects, more about the competitor's responsibility towards the event.
Since the 7th WCSC it has been both an individual and a team championship. Given that all competitors solve independently of each other I would argue that it is primarily an individual championship. As such it simply doesn't seem right to me that someone should start the event with no intention of completing it.
| | | (20) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Saturday, Oct 13, 2012 07:43]; edited by Ian Shanahan [12-10-13] |
I entirely agree, Michael. (Of course, the sole exception would be if a competitor were forced to retire prematurely due to illness.)
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General WCSC etiquette |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
