Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:13 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General another proof game question... |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Friday, Feb 28, 2014 19:55] | another proof game question...
What is the shortest proof game to show the Valladao theme?
| | | (2) Posted by Joost de Heer [Friday, Feb 28, 2014 21:26] |
P1240590 shows a Valladao in 13.5 moves.
Unto Heinonen has a proofgame in 23.0 showing double Valladao after 21.5 moves (H29 in FIDE album 1992-1994, can't seem to find it in PDB).
| | | (3) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Friday, Feb 28, 2014 23:11] |
looks like Michael Grushko has a Valladao PG 10.5! in Problemist Supplement September 2005. This could be a shortest length record!
| | | (4) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Mar 1, 2014 00:27]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-03-01] |
Andrew Buchanan showed Valladao (plus Ceriani-Frolkin, so no promoted force in the diagram) in just over 8 moves ( P1228018 ), however it seems partially anticipated by Enzo Minerva's proofgame in Best Problems, 2005 (which showed virtually the same idea, in as many moves).
Paul Raican (after Heinonen) showed a double-Valladao (promoted force in diagram) in only 20 moves ( C+, Best Problems, 2007-2009 ).
Frolkin and Prentos showed a double-Valladao (promoted force in diagram) in a PG/h# hybrid, in 19 + 1.5 moves ( P1240532 ).
I don't find any orthodox proofgame showing double-Vallado, without promoted force appearing in the diagram.
If you count fairy elements:
Guy Sobrecases showed a Valladao (with no promoted force in the diagram) in just over 5 moves (diagrammes, 2009).
I showed a double-Valladao (plus double-Ceriani-Frolkin, so no promoted force in the diagram) in just over 10 moves ( P1104833 ).
I don't find any proofgame showing double-Valladao for a single color.
Note: the concert of such thematic content would obviously require some fairy element; but even allowing an untold number of fairy elements, there are considerable challenges to overcome (limitations on computer verification, the motivation of double-castling for a single side, necessitating a pair of en passant captures, etc).
For the bold adventurer, Rokagogo might provide good opportunities to mitigate the double-castling challenge (though, an informed audience might interpret this as a considerable reduction in the value of the intended paradox).
It would be a spectacular achievement if this were accompanied by castling both to the King-side, and the Queen-side -- especially if limiting conditions (e.g., alphabetics, maximummer, etc) are avoided.
In my experience, constraint-based reduction methods have a tendency toward banality, souring the very paradox which is meant to be appreciated; however, given the context (first/record realization of a difficult task, with marginal opportunity for thematic enrichment), I expect that a competent judge would probably find merit in even a grotesque realization.
| | | (5) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Mar 1, 2014 09:03] |
One of the by-products of that hybrid problem (PG+h#) achieved a double Valladao in an orthodox PG in 17.5 moves (with three promoted pieces). We could have published that problem as an original, but we decided not to. In my opinion, merely improving the speed of a certain theme in a proof game, is hardly adequate for publication, and even less, for a distinction. Not to mention, that 17.5 moves may not be the fastest way for a double Valladao. A real challenge would be to show a double Valladao in a proof game, without extra-set material, in any number of moves. Any other attempt to show the theme with promoted force, will always be in the shadow of Heinonen's pioneer problem.
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Mar 1, 2014 11:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-03-01] |
Good points, Kostas.
Still, if you believe your realization (in 17.5) might be the fastest possible realization, it would certainly be worthy of publication (though not necessarily worthy of high award, as you point out -- that's another matter, entirely).
Hey, we know that, eventually, somebody will realize this in record time (if I'm not mistaken, Paul Raican seemed already on the hunt, in following Heinonen's work, with fewer moves) -- so, if you're already at the record, why not publish?
It also seems a good idea to distinguish between the pure-form, versus the mixed-Valladao (as we do with AUW -versus- mixed-AUW); otherwise, there are a variety of double-Valladao possibilities, some much easier to achieve than others (e.g., double-White-Valladao > double-w/b-Vallado > double-mixed-Valladao).
In my earlier post, I completely neglected these considerations.
I presume your 17.5 move realization contains a Valladao for both white and black. Yes?
And, for the record, I presume that the pure-form of Valladao (read: non-mixed, or for one side) would consist of one side (white/black) castling, promoting, and making the en passant capture (unless previously defined otherwise, this seems the most logical classification mechanism).
| | | (7) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Mar 1, 2014 20:00] |
Kevin, I sent you the problem in a private message. We may decide to publish it, here or somewhere else, but for the moment it remains censored.
| | | (8) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Sunday, Mar 2, 2014 02:08] |
Kevin-
many thanks for your research-it was really important and I really appreciate it!
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Mar 2, 2014 11:10] |
You're welcome, Eugene. Glad to hear this was helpful.
| | | (10) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Friday, Mar 7, 2014 16:29] |
It is possible, in an orthodox PG, that an en-passant capture is played while the opponent King is still homebased?
| | | (11) Posted by Dupont Nicolas [Friday, Mar 7, 2014 17:12] |
It should also be noticed that Paul's rendition shows an invisible promotion Sg1 (original black Knights are captured during the game, but Sg1 would also be invisible with only one original captured black Knight).
So in fact there are 2 different tasks (in the orthodox setting): Two-sided Valladao with invisible promotions and two-sided Valladao with captured (i.e. Ceriani-Frolkin) promotions.
| | | (12) Posted by Gligor Denkovski [Thursday, Mar 13, 2014 17:38] |
The shortest one known to me, quoted in my article "Problem motifs in Proof Games (3): Valadao" in Orbit 30 (April 2006):
Enzo Minerva
Best Problems 2005
 (= 13+14 )
Proof game in 8,5 (13+14) C+
1.e4 f5 2.Bb5 f4 3.Se2 f3 4.0-0 f×g2 5.e5 g×f1=B 6.Kh1 B×e2 7.Q×e2 Kf7 8.Qc4+ d5 9.e×d6 e.p.+
| | | (13) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Thursday, Mar 13, 2014 20:55] |
Thanks Gligor and Nicolas!!
a follow up...what is the shortest PG where the 2 black knights have swapped their game array squares?
| | | (14) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Wednesday, Apr 30, 2014 21:31]; edited by Andrew Buchanan [14-04-30] |
Aieee, anticipation! :(
Well done, Mr Minerva. It can be easily extended by 9... e6 or 9... Kf/g6 to present a diagram with no check.
| | | (15) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Wednesday, Apr 30, 2014 21:56] |
Reading the thread now...
Perhaps we have been thinking that publication must always be about staking a claim, and forgetting the primary function of publication: namely COMMUNICATION. If someone has done something fast, then please publish so that other people know what has been achieved and where the bar is now set.
And an improvement in technique which strips say 1.5 moves off a composition is worth communicating, even if there is no theoretical novelty, because it highlights better what was intrinsic to the task, and what was merely bloat. Often the first version of a mathematical proof is quite inefficient, but over time it can be honed to something smoother, cleaner & simpler. Similarly in software development there is the notion of refactoring. I find this process of refinement very attractive, and enjoy seeing it at work in chess compositions too.
In fact, it's very healthy that there is disagreement & subjectivity as to what constitutes goodness. It would be horrible indeed if there was just a single criterion for excellence, whether this be speed or theoretical novelty or anything else. Speed runs a particular risk of being such an over-simplistic criterion. But as long as one bears that in mind, it can still be celebrated in fun.
| | | (16) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 1, 2014 18:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-05-01] |
Andrew,
>"Perhaps we have been thinking that publication must always be about staking a claim, and forgetting the primary function of publication: namely COMMUNICATION."
Perhaps you are forgetting that the primary reason that artists communicate, via chess problems, is to share something beautiful.
Their every signature is, in fact, a claim -- their testament that the communication contains some artistic worthiness.
You communicate what you deem worthy of your good name; others will do likewise -- so, what's the problem?
If you care about some specific set of chess problem tasks/records, create a webpage enlisting contributions (allow anonymous participation).
You can not insist that Pablo Picasso sign his name to his every speed-sketch.
It would be wise to allow Pablo to communicate by pseudonym -- but, if so, keep straight what he signed in his own name.
Furthermore, it would be wise to allow Pablo the option to later alter his form of signature (from name-to-pseudonym, or vice versa).
Have you ever watched "Wheel of Fortune" (the television game show) in casual competition with other people?
It is a curious thing: no matter that all agree may upon scoring only the complete answer, some folks can't help but reveal fragments.
To appreciate the secret reason behind what may seem inappropriate blurting, you need only understand that people, once engrossed in a passionate effort to reveal some hidden truth, will often cease to care about who wins the credit.
So it is with chess problems -- sometimes composers want to sit on an idea (patiently awaiting the inspiration for a grand opus), other times, they prefer to quickly share their fragments.
The pity of it, of course, is that perfect patience is an unreasonable act, for anyone burdened by a finite lifespan.
The failure of the chess problem community is that we do a poor job of facilitating both options (we should allow authors to teeter between the artistic version, and the witty fragment); and, our judges should be better capable of distinguishing the difference.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General another proof game question... |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
