|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| (21) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 11:27] |
I can't download diagrams.
|
|
| (22) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 12:27] |
Kenan, please, stop making absurd and unfounded accusations like about a monopoly... as you can see, many different people are trying to explain to you that your impressions are incorrect.
As a counterexample to your idea that "if the 1st and 3rd Prize are selected for FIDE Album, then also 2nd Prize should be" - it was already said here and confirmed by countless examples that individual composers and judges can judge the same set of problems very differently. Besides all the results of international competitions judged collectively, there were similar competitions run also by MatPlus site, or read the report on the judging study here: http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/judvys01.htm
Needless to say, it is also possible to have opposite case. A composition is completely or almost overlooked by judge of the primary competition, but in FIDE Album it scores big in view of all three judges. One example comes to my mind: G84 in the FIDE Album 2001-2003, it got Commendation in the primary competition, but maximum 4+4+4=12 points in FIDE Album, from Theodor Tauber, Paul Raican and Manfred Rittirsch. It is here: http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/cychis11.htm#uloha3
|
|
| (23) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 12:44] |
The most important thing is to enjoy composing. Don't let the different judging criteria ruin that joy.
|
|
| (24) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 13:24] |
You are absolutely right Dejan! We enjoy compiling, but when questions arise and you want to know the reasons, the responsible person remains on the side and people who do not have questions answer with criticism. I even find it very useful to discuss all the tournaments. This will only benefit everyone for the experience.
|
|
| (25) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 13:41] |
Juraj, I agree that not all prize problems can be selected for the album. My task is the one who received the 2nd prize in all criteria of chess composition must have been selected. Moreover, the tournament was judged by one of the best experts in the cooperative genre Dmitry Turevsky. And Turevsky himself was surprised by the decision of the judges. And the composition itself is simply impeccable, beautiful (a four-phase homogeneous game with a change in the function of the figures) with a thematically rich game. And what is so offensive about this if I wanted to know the opinion of colleagues on this matter. If the gentlemen of the judge are so sensitive, touchy, then next time, let them not take such responsibility for themselves.
|
|
| (26) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 21:42] |
That must be a joke.
Of course I'm not one of the best experts in the cooperative genre. I am THE best expert. Kneel, mortals.
Seriously, this is the Kenan's h#3 with a cycle of white moves:
https://www.yacpdb.org/#573178
This is the Kenan's h#2 he mentions, that I liked a lot:
https://www.yacpdb.org/#413130
In the WCCI its scores were: (3 +) 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 + 2.5 (+ 2.5) = 7.5
|
|
| (27) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 22:21] |
As Dmitri is THE best expert ;), who I am to point imbalances in the play? So do not read further, if you are not interested in my remarks...
First pair of solutions: while in the 1st solution pinned rook is passive, in the second solution pinned rook moves and selfpins after white check. Selfblock Be5 in the first solution is rather different.
Second pair of solutions: while in the 4th solution both black moves are unguard hideaways (and B2 is also selfblock after wS sacrifice), in the 3rd solution B2 is only selfblock, but not unguard.
Of course I see also all the positive elements, there quite a few, but I can well understand why majority of judges were reluctant to give higher marks. Nowadays there are so many good HOTF helpmates that comparing them against each other could yield this result. By the way, 7,5 is high mark well above any average.
And the h#2 in question has got 3rd Prize, not 2nd, if yacpdb is correct.
|
|
| (28) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Thursday, Sep 1, 2022 22:47] |
Thank you very much, Dmitry! A colleague asked me to mark my parcel on the site, but unfortunately I don’t know how. I put a link to this.
|
|
| (29) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Sep 2, 2022 09:59] |
Well, it's time for the old skepticists analogy (couldn't google
who invented it - Gardner? Dawkins?).
"Neighbour's dog is in my garden!"/"Kenan makes good problems!"
Statement will be accepted by word of mouth. It's almost unnecessary
to give extra proof, ample past evidence exists.
"A horse is in my garden!"/"Kenan's problem was actually better
than the one the judge choose!"
Entirely possible. Still, I'd like to see proof. Evidence and
counterevidence might be brought and discussed, no harm done.
"A zebra is in my garden!"/"The judge was (maybe subconsciously?)
influenced by non-chess-art-related stuff!"
While not impossible, a serious statement. (Maybe a zoo is in
town?) Proof is entirely on the maker.
"An unicorn is in my garden!"/"There is a cabal circle-j...udging
their own problems!"
An extraordinary (and quite offensive) statement, and no amount of
circumstantial evidence will convince me. Photos! Videos!
Blood samples! (If the unicorn doesn't mind.)
Hauke, hobby zoologist
|
|
| (30) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Friday, Sep 2, 2022 10:57] |
I see you are good with animals. Therefore, I suggest you visit the village of Tumba Kum in South Africa, they need a veterinarian. Hauke, they will be very happy to see a healer from Europe)))
|
|
| (31) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Friday, Sep 2, 2022 20:00] |
Sorry, I forgot the most important part.
I want to thank and congratulate all judges and the director and everyone else involved in organizing this WCCI!
Well done! Absolutely serious.
|
|
| (32) Posted by Mikhail Khramtsevich [Sunday, Sep 4, 2022 17:36] |
По-моему, результат в трехходовом жанре должен быть опротестован и пересмотрен. Обратите внимание на выставленные оценки двух судей раздела: C.G.S. Narayanan (IN) и Sergey I. Tkachenko (UA). Что называется, найдите отличия? Заметили... А их нет!!! Каждому участнику выставлены обсалютно одинаковые оценки! А этого не может быть абсолютно!
|
|
| (33) Posted by Frank Richter [Sunday, Sep 4, 2022 21:19] |
Well, really strange ... may be, this is some copy-paste-error in final Excel spreadsheet?
|
|
| (34) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Sep 4, 2022 21:58] |
This is truly unprecedented: The scores of two judges in the #3 section coincide 100% (out of 274 problems, excluding 6 by one of the judges). Something is wrong; this is a statistical improbability. Please check the scores again and correct, if there is a transcription error.
|
|
| (35) Posted by shankar ram [Monday, Sep 5, 2022 07:53] |
C.G.S.Narayanan confirms that the scores shown against his name in the Section B table of results (https://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/WCCI-2019-2021-Results-section-B.pdf) do not match with the file sent by him to the director. He has asked me to communicate this here, on his behalf.
|
|
| (36) Posted by Eugene Fomichev [Monday, Sep 5, 2022 10:07] |
Следовательно мы видим преднамеренное мошенничество со стороны украинцев - судьи и директора.
|
|
| (37) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Sep 5, 2022 11:42] |
@Fomichev
It is stupid to blame judge in this case. The director made a bad mistake. It has to be corrected and #3 results revised
|
|
| (38) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Monday, Sep 5, 2022 13:06] |
Seetharaman, Eugene Fomichev is blaming the Ukrainian, not the Indian judge. He even sees "deliberate fraud" (per google translation). This is a very poor argument, as the scores by the Ukrainian judge appear to be correct. It is obvious to me that there was an unintended error by the director - if he wanted to somehow cheat (to what end?), he would do it more subtly. The next step should be to correct the results of section B, probably after the approval by the supervising panel of the tourney.
It is good practice (due diligence) for all the judges to double-check their scores in the published table for possible errors. It takes a few minutes, but it can prevent serious problems. Ideally, there should be a second round of deliberation on specific problems with a large difference between the scores, like No.6 by Gennady Ignatenko (3+?+0+3+3). In particular for zero point scores, there should be a justification by the judge who gives 0 and this should be shared with the other judges, in case they missed an anticipation (or a cook).
|
|
| (39) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Monday, Sep 5, 2022 14:12] |
despite this obviously human mistake, we should only thank and applaud the ukrainian director and judges for completing their job.
for more than half a year they live in mortal danger because of constant bombing threats from russians.
|
|
| (40) Posted by Valery Gurov [Monday, Sep 5, 2022 14:57] |
Delete
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions WCCI 2019-2021 - Results |
ISC 2024
