From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: CJA Awards
Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: 27 Aug 92 16:00:45 GMT

mginsbur@wissel.GBA.NYU.EDU (Mark Ginsburg) writes:

>Suggested improvements for the judging process (as requested):

>[Here, I am only concerned with the 'Analysis' Category.  I am not
>quibbling with the other categories, which offer much subjective leeway.]

>a.  At least one of the judges should be an IM or GM.  And, he should
>be as impartial as possible [suggestion:  Elliot Winslow at the USCF -
>are you interested, Elliot?].

Elliot has served as a judge in the past, but as a USCF employee and
assistant editor of Chess Life, he would probably have a conflict
of interest in judging the category, assuming CL nominates something in
that one.  He served with distinction, as I recall, having voted to
give an instructional article I nominated (I was editing the Nebraska chess 
magazine at the time) the nod over one by Yaz in Chess Life.  (The two other 
judges overruled him, though, and we only got an Honorable Mention.)

As I recall from the past couple years, when we HAVE had strong players 
(Evans, Schiller), their judgements were not radically different from the 
lower-rated judges.  Eric, in particular, gave me detailed comments on 
several pieces, one of which he castigated rather heavily.  The other judges 
also gave it low scores, although perhaps not as low as Eric, and did not
supply their rationale.  (In any event, it didn't win.)

>b.  The criteria I set forth in the prior post were, in my opinion, 
>not followed.  Recall I mentioned 'search for truth', 'advancing known
>theory or summarizing what we know so far', and 'impartiality'.  
>Therefore, I recommend that these criteria be followed a la Huebner or
>Timman.

I suspect that by these high standards, most of the analytical articles
published are 'garbage'.  Anybody want to run the analytical articles in 
Chess Chow through this gauntlet?

>And there it is.  An improved method for judging the analysis category.
>Of course, I understand the judges are overworked and underpaid, as I
>said before.  

>All I am asking for is a fair appraisal of the analysis as nominated.
>I also understand that much good analysis simply wasn't nominated, as
>Chris Chabris points out.  The criteria which I set forth, btw, are
>those which underly the classic work "The Art of Chess Analysis" by
>GM Jan Timman.  And Botvinnik also advocated self-criticism as a method
>of getting the truth out of one's own games.  Recall that the CJA
>winner this time around omitted key losses by the author which
>do not support the article's conclusion.  

Gee, publishing only one's wins is actually rather common.  And what
do you think/remember about Fischer's infamous King's Gambit article?
(I also recall people, including GM's reviewing it, being surprised when 
Fisher's 'My 60 Memorable Games' actually included a few of his losses.)

>I hope this time around I am more constructive and less bitter.  I 
>recommend that those who are interested get a hold of Cozio article
>I am criticizing and judge for themselves.

Mark, regardless of what others may have thought of your comments, I
have taken them seriously, although it may not have appeared as such.
I also recognize the administrative difficulties in seeking and enforcing
such standards upon volunteer judges.  (And even on paid judges, if it
ever comes to that.)  I have great respect and admiration for professional
chess players and authors, even if at times I am not convinced that they are
playing the same game I am.  (Unfortunately, professionals are not likely
to have the time or interest to serve as CJA judges without some kind of
compensation, and I cannot fault them for that.)

On a slightly less serious note, I'm searching for the 'ultimate' panel
of judges, designed to alienate EVERYBODY.  How about Larry Parr, Don
Schultz, Max Dlugy, and Yasser Seirawan as judges?  <grin>

Mike Nolan