|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 |
| (41) Posted by Torsten Linß [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 14:27] |
We do not talk - we bludgeon one another with facts and theories gleaned from cursory readings of newspapers, magazines and digests. (Henry Miller)
|
|
| (42) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 14:32]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [13-04-03] |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nntOYUODSV0
For Torsten. :-)
Just find a way to circumvent the German censorship.
|
|
| (43) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 14:52] |
Horneckers law: If someone drags Simon&Garfunkel into a discussion,
the thread is over. :P
|
|
| (44) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 3, 2013 18:14]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-03] |
Endgames are the smaller canvas -- at best, like saccharin, a gateway to better drugs (w/o the unpleasant side-effects).
Nothing pure about them, nothing fair about framing a cheap title path, and nothing noble about encouraging their inferior form.
If you don't know that, you are more chess personality than problemist.
We don't require that they receive fewer points, out of a compassionate generosity for the Study devotee (whose eyes were blinded by the mad queen). To take advantage of empathy (by asking for an extra serving of points) would be a superluminal offense against art.
"Tell it to the man who says you can misjudge them all..." [unequally]
-Deep Purple
ps: regarding Hornecker's Law...
"Why don't we stop fooling ourselves? The game is over, over, over."
-Simon & Garfunkel.
|
|
| (45) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 05:26] |
First of all, I would like to apologize for starting this thread and not expressing my opinion; I was away on vacation. I have read all the comments and frankly, I am not convinced that studies still deserve a special treatment.
Whether the number of study GMs and IMs would be reduced, if the studies received the normal 1 point per problem, is of no importance. Looking at the title lists, I can name several titled study composers. Many of them would still have their titles even without the bonus, some might be IMs instead of GMs and some might not have a title, yet. Comparing these numbers with titled retro composers is overwhelming. I can name only 4 "pure" retro composers with the title of IM, and all of them were awarded their titles recently, after decades of composing. Yet, it would be unthinkable to ask for a special treatment for retro composers.
Are studies superior than other genres? In my opinion, they are not. They never were. They are just a different type of chess problems. They are closer than any other genre to the chess game, but so are orthodox direct-mates compared to fairies. Solving studies helps the o.t.b. players to improve their game, but so does solving all orthodox problems. But this is irrelevant, anyway. Deciding who deserves to become a composing Grandmaster has nothing to do with such practical issues for players.
Finally, studies are not harder to compose, especially in recent years. Have a look at Christian Poisson's website: http://christian.poisson.free.fr/problemesis/problemesis.php and you will find hundreds (if not thousands) of studies composed with the use of tablebases and WinChloe. You can take one position at random, add an introduction with a few moves and a few captures, use a chess engine to analyze the variations and make sure you are not missing anything and there it is. I know that this argument is too simplistic, but it is not very far from reality. At least, if difficulty in composing studies was the reason for the special treatment (I can only assume it was, I don't know) this is no longer true. Today, you can see 20-30 moves-long studies with complete analysis and no errors.
Of course, it takes much more than a discussion in this forum for such changes. My opinion is that it should be discussed in a future WFCC commission, if there is a delegate willing to initiate a proposal. Even if nothing like that happens, discussing the matter here does not hurt.
|
|
| (46) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 11:54] |
QUOTE
Even if nothing like that happens, discussing the matter here does not hurt.
At least if - taking this thread into account - weapons are confiscated at the entry :-)
Hauke
|
|
| (47) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 13:54] |
Before expressing my views, I would like to understand the motivation behind reducing 1.66 to 1.
Who would make it happier, while obviously affecting in many ways the study composers?
Besides, I would like to remind the members of our already too small, too divided (and sub-divided) community, to be as short and concrete as possible, and respectful to the site that Milan left us.
|
|
| (48) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 18:19] |
Hi Marjan,
I would very much like to read your view on the subject. Maybe you know why this special treatment for studies was introduced in the first place. I am sure that it was a reasonable decision at the time, but I wonder whether it is still reasonable.
Since I am the one who started this discussion, I must assure you that my motivation is only to correct an injustice, if there is one. Don't you agree that if a rule is wrong or obsolete, it shall better change? Of course, if any change is to happen, it can only have effect for future albums and titles. I understand that the study composers' task to obtain titles will become more difficult, and many will be unhappy. But the point of composing is not winning titles; this is only a side-effect. In any case, I fail to see how a possible change will affect the study composers in many ways, other than make winning titles more difficult.
|
|
| (49) Posted by Torsten Linß [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 18:46] |
The thing I don't like in the higher weighting for studies is an implied superiority of (composing) studies over (composing) problems. That's something I cannot accept.
|
|
| (50) Posted by Thomas Brand [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 19:04] |
SD:
> I just don't see other reasons why chess studies are given more points than problems. But this only reason of "pure chess" is enough for me to appreciate studies much more than problems.
@ Sergiy:
If this is your only reason I'd like to invite you to study classical retros with "resolve the position" stipulation -- this kind of problems does not break any rule of the game of chess, is "pure chess", too.
|
|
| (51) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 20:56] |
If there is no superiority of studies over problems, they should be given only 1 point. Because difficulty is not an argument since studies compete with studies, not with problems. I see this superiority of studies in their close relation with chess game. Study composers have to master the art of composing and to play chess well enough to understand its ideas. It's wrong to think that a study composer can compensate his poor level of chess by programs and tablebases. How can he compose good studies if he doesn't feel the spirit of chess fight? This feeling of slight details in chess is acquired when your Elo rating is about 2100 at least.
|
|
| (52) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 21:07] |
In his article about the 50th PCCC meeting (Die Schwalbe 228, XII 2007, p. 289-92), the former president Klaus Wenda wrote about the one in Piran 1958: “The outstanding position of studies has been taken care by establishing an own sub-commission.“
So the preference of studies to other compositions by PCCC/WFCC has its origin in a time more than half a century ago. As I see it from nowadays (and after having read this entertaining discussion), a convincing explanation is missing so far.
Isn't it amazing that it's actually possible to achieve a title like „Master of chess composition“ by specializing on just one of its various genres?
|
|
| (53) Posted by Hannu Harkola [Thursday, Apr 4, 2013 21:43] |
It was decided in Piran 1958 that the first Album should have the following percentages in various sections:
# 2: 25 %
# 3: 20 %
# 4: 20 %
studies: 11 % (the Album 1956-58 contained 70 studies out of 603 which is 11,6 %)
Heterodox: 24 %
Maybe this is one reason why it was decided in Leipzig 1960 that "1 study = 1 2/3 problems". The minutes contain no explanations or discussions.
At that time the only title was international master.
|
|
| (54) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 01:38] |
Dear Kostas, I take your initiative as a logical attempt to correct something that looks like a forgotten deviation. However, with my deep respect for studies –compared to any other genre – I’ve never treated 1.66 as an injustice. The two great study composers proved here that reduction hurts in more ways. I feel hurt by some explanations here, without any interest in 1 or 1.66. Sergiy doesn’t compete for Album, and could have no interest in 1.66, too. Someone could be hurt some way, and what would be the gain for problem chess?
I will give my reasons for 1.66 and status quo next time, to avoid too long reading.
|
|
| (55) Posted by Mario Richter [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 02:14] |
Hannu's figures alone do not justify anything: if the 150 #2 have been chosen from 1500 entries and the 70 studies from 140 entries, what would that give?
Two questions:
Besides the honor, what does one gain if one is assigned the titel of an International (Grand-)Master of composition?
(e.g. free entry to congresses, composing tourneys etc.)?
At the time the Iron Curtain still existed, being an International Master might have been a real advantage for those living behind it in the Soviet Union and its satellites: it could have made it easier to travel to western countries, get western literature etc.
So there may well have been political reasons for this from a today's viewpoint rather strange looking decision.
Question 2:
How many points would e.g. the following problem get:
Alexander Kislyak
3851 EG 57, p. 230, July 1979
Spezialpreis (Judge's Choice), Roycroft-50-JT
 (= 15+15 )
(15+15)
Draw
|
|
| (56) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 11:11] |
Sergiy! I admit! I did never compose good studies! I am the worst self-plagiator in history! I built a time travel machine and looked what fun studies I create in the future when my Elo finally has reached 2100, and then I traveled back to publish them earlier! I thought it is not that bad, being only plagiarising myself, but now I fear I never published anything since the studies never will be published where I originally saw them...
|
|
| (57) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 11:33] |
Beside the money matter underlined by Mario, there was, (there is ?) also a kind of ideology which was to consider the studies as a peculiar bridge between problemists and players. And then to consider this bonus of points as an encouragement.
I think that none of these reasons are relevant nowadays.
But to change something you need good reasons, and "equity" is not enough. There are almost no connections between the studies and the other fields of composition. Georgy spoke (unintentionally ?) of a new title "...studies grandmasters....".
If the commission still thinks that "encouragements" are a good thing, perhaps they could give 1.66 to the problems too.
|
|
| (58) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 12:48]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [13-04-05] |
Siegfried, now you know what is impeding you to compose better studies. Maybe you don't know, but Kasparyan advised to play and improve in chess in order to become a better composer. I just connected his advice to Elo. Believe it or not, but the majority of your studies betray your low Elo. You are quite good and successful in expressing ideas from the chess problems world, but the fight, counterplay, cunning and subtle motivations are poor in your studies because these things and many other things are developed through chess. Of course, I am looking like a hare explaining to a pack of wolves why hares like carrots more than meat and the wolves cannot understand it. They only laugh and say that it's false. And I don't know anymore what you are: a hare or one of these wolves?
|
|
| (59) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 13:10] |
Well, you ARE right about the lack of subtle motivations, counterplay etc.
But I doubt I have the possibilities to raise my Elo much further. I lack the endurance to train several hours each day, and also the motivation. These days I'm glad if I find a nice idea and can have a co-author improve the play. But that would be another topic...
|
|
| (60) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 14:50]; edited by Sven Hendrik Lossin [13-04-05] |
The Elo is really unfeasible as a measure for being a good study composer. I know many people that would beat me 3 out of 4 times in the opening and midgame when the fourth game is that one in which I can make use of my endgame knowledge.
There is so much more to being a good chess player than being able to create great studies and vice versa.
I'd put it like Marjan: is there really a need to change that rule?
I have some doubts but I'd like to remind you that there was a great proposal in this forum here to take for example the ten best compositions (by means of points) of a single composer and add their points. The maximum would be 120 then. Then you'd become Grandmaster when being over let's say 100 and IM when over 85. This rule would respect more quality and less quantity which would perhaps help study composers.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums? |
ISC 2024
