MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

15:47 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions BIT 2017 Clarification
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(41) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Friday, Jun 2, 2017 19:39]

Concerning 3.Pr. in Group B, by Daniel Papack, the composer finds some parts of the discussion inapropriate, and offers to withdraw the problem from the tourney.
He asked his opinion on the whole case to be published:
"Mr. Medintsev has found the same scheme. I think he also has the right of authorship!"
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15521
(42) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Friday, Jun 2, 2017 22:29]

I appreciate Mr. Papack's opinion but I also respect the judge's decision
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15524
(43) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 09:19]; edited by Miodrag Mladenović [17-06-03]

As a judge I do not mind if Daniel decides to add Vitaly as coauthor to his problem. That would be perfectly OK. They can even decide that Vitaly's version is even better and going forward they can send that version to FIDE Album. That would be also perfectly fine. However I cannot add Vitaly's problem as the additional problem in the award to share 3rd-4th Prize with you. I still think that there is significant difference in the positions and that Daniel's version is better. Of course I know that many other problemists will not agree with me as you can see in posts at this forum. But I am perfectly fine with that. I do not expect that everyone has the same opinion because then there would be no need for forums at all.

@Daniel,
Since I awarded your problem to get 3rd Prize it's obvious that I do like your problem. I also find out that all comments at this forum were appropriate and very useful. They did show me that I did make some mistakes but I can only thank to everyone for comments. I do not think that anyone put any inappropriate comment although some problemists are using stronger words to express their opinion. By the way I know Jacques and Nikola for many years and I know that they always have good intentions when they publish their versions of the problems and their opinions. I know them as a great composers and I do respect their opinions even if sometimes I do not agree with them. That's the role of forums to exchange opinions. I hope you are not going to withdraw your problem from the tournament. Actually I do not think it's possible to do. If we approve that that would lead to the lots of problems. Can you imagine if I am not happy with Commend that I've earned at some tournament (there were tournaments where my problems were ranked lower than expected) and then I withdraw my problem from the tournament after Award has been made. Then I send it to another tournament and then again I withdraw it and send again until I get the Prize. That's not correct in my opinion. As I stated above you do have rights to add Vitaly to be coauthor of your problem. I did not want to do that myself since my estimate was that your problem was better (due to my personal taste) and it's not easy to make decision to share prize if problems are using similar scheme but have significant difference in position. To be honest there were 3-4 more problems with a similar scheme that did not make the award due to same reason.

@Vitaly,
I really do like your problems and I do believe that you are one of the best authors of helpmates. However it just happened that this problem did not make impression to me because of the reasons I explained (underused white knights). Sometimes that happens.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15527
(44) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 09:53]

@Misha(43),
I have accepted your explanation.
Actually, I thint that my problem doesn't deserve a prize distinction.
So, there is nothing to worry about :-)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15528
(45) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 16:52]

I am very sorry if anyone's feelings were hurt, that has never been my intention. The discussion is about the chess-content and the meaning of the words applies EXCLUSIVELY to the chess-content.

I wrote explicitly about the MOTIVATION for a capture but unbelievably, the meaning of these standard chess terms was not understood.
So, I simply tried to help the perception by "zooming the picture", using "stronger words" to highlight the distinction between the MOTIVATIONS.

Since there's not a sign of public curiosity about the motivation for the play, I'm sorry that I've mentioned it.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15532
(46) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 18:02]

Nikola,
your reasoning about motivation for the play is very important.
I completely agree with you in this respect.
The question is whether the different criteria of artistry are equivalent to each other or they represented as hierarchical structure.
If they are equivalent to each other then there is no need to achieve subtlity of motivation if it leads to an increase in the number of units. But if motivation for the play is the predominant criterion (I belief it is so), then any composer should pay primarily attention to subtlity and equality of motivation for the play. Construction (economy of material/force) must be placed on the second or third place.

"America first!" © Donald Trump
"Motivation first!" © Nikola Predrag

I hope you will not take offense at me ☺
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15533
(47) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 20:08]

Another note from Daniel Papack:

"I think V. Medintsev insisted on the intention to create model mates, and so the 2 WS are necessary. Maybe the aesthetical moment of model mates is more important for Vitaly than the number of pieces. I believe, nowadays there is a decrease of respect for the individual artistic aproaches."
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15534
(48) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 20:17]

@ Marjan, @ Daniel, @ Miodrag, @ Vitaly, @ Nikola, @ Michael, @ Fadil, @ Marko

"...the composer finds some parts of the discussion inappropriate..."

I can understand that some composers don't like to see their problem discussed publicly.

Well I hope I did not offend anyone.

I have been silent for a long time on this forum, I return to my silence.

have fun !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15535
(49) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 21:40]

Vitaly, there's certainly no offense.
Since I myself use various "strong" words and phrases to highlight some point, I don't look for a "potential" offensive interpretation in the words of the others.

Perceiving fully the true motivation for play is particularly important with regards to a thematic motivation. Especially, when a tourney explicitly requires a certain theme, that theme is expected to be the governing principle in the system (problem).
The thematic motivation could be enriched by other motivations, as a desirable original upgrade of the known theme.
Unfortunately, a theme could be downgraded and trivialized as well :-(
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15536
(50) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 21:53]; edited by Vitaly Medintsev [17-06-03]

@ Daniel Papack (47)

No, goodlook final picture wasn't my main intention. I just couldn't find position without WSs in the following matrix:

(= 3+5 )


It would be very desirable for me to see a sound problem without those WSs in this matrix.
Could someone complete this matrix, not using white knights?
BQ position is significal.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15537
(51) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Jun 3, 2017 22:53]

Withdrawing a problem,... returning to silence...
Are we really so fragile that any deeper discussion becomes unbearable, even before touching the critical questions???

On my part, I sincerely apologize, I wasn't aware of how deeply fragile the human relations have become.
I was not interested in the particular problem, and certainly not about criticizing the author.
I was not interested in the particular judgement, and most certainly not about criticizing Misha.
I'm not interested in criticizing an individual approach.

I want to improve the perception, my own in the first place, with the hope to develop the understanding, my own in the first place.
Which beliefs come out of the high, or out of the low, "resolution" of the perception?

Apparently, the times are too fragile for such curiosity. I'm sorry.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15538
(52) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Jun 4, 2017 19:38]

Can we all take a short visit to 4chan to see what's really
inappropriate discussion style? :-)
I think suggesting alternative versions should always be OK.
The author can tell why he preferred his own setting
(often, there are conflicting ideals, as here: model mate
vs. economy).
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15541
(53) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Jun 5, 2017 10:20]

@Jacques(48)
 QUOTE 
I have been silent for a long time on this forum, I return to my silence.


Please do not go back to your silence. I do like your posts a lot. I always like seeing multiple versions of the same problem. I think that's a good way for someone to learn some new ideas and to improve skills.

@Nikola,
Same is valid for you. I do like your comments about the problems regardless if I do not agree sometime. But as I stated in one of my previous posts, there will be no need for forum if we all have same opinions about everything.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15544
(54) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Jun 5, 2017 20:05]

Misha,
I hate myself when I hurt someone.
And I'm trying to avoid hating myself.
That is my selfish reason.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15545
(55) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Tuesday, Jun 6, 2017 00:16]

It seems that my posting of Daniel's comments, including translation from German to English, caused some misunderstanding.
To avoid it in future, I've asked Daniel to send his comments directly to MPF, in German.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15546

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3

MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions BIT 2017 Clarification