MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

7:42 CET
 
  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

Rating lists
01-Jul-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions BIT 2017 Clarification
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(1) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Saturday, May 6, 2017 15:30]

BIT 2017 Clarification


1) "Each composer may send only one.." means "may take part with only one..."
In other words: 1 problem per composer per group.
2) Group B: Pawn moves from 2nd to 4th rank, and from 7th to 5th rank considered as line movements.
3) Group B: Each problem has to present BOTH forms of the Klasinc theme: Black-White & White-Black
4) Group C: The tourney is open for all composers, but in the case of too many entries for solving, a preliminary selection will be made by the organizers. Selected problems will be judged by the solvers, as in previous years.
5) Group C: The mating moves have to be unique ones, and should be different for both solutions.
 
(Read Only)pid=15404
(2) Posted by ichai [Sunday, May 7, 2017 02:12]; edited by ichai [17-05-07]

Group B :

If the switchback is played by black, may the openning of the line be used only on the second white move ?
For example, if the black piece captures a white piece or pawn, then the switchback will open a white line.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15407
(3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, May 7, 2017 09:43]

Section B: Helpmate in two

Whether pawn promoting and promoted piece returning is considered switchback.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15408
(4) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, May 7, 2017 11:05]

Yes, I can confirm, pawn promoting and promoted piece returning is considered switchback.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15409
(5) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Sunday, May 7, 2017 12:27]

@ ichai

According thematic condition there must be gate-opening effect on the 1st move.
Annihilation of White Pawn could be concidered as additional feature, on my opinion.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15410
(6) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, May 7, 2017 13:03]

@ichai

The line opening should be used on the first move (not on the second move).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15411
(7) Posted by ichai [Sunday, May 14, 2017 02:12]

1 problem per author per group seems very restrictive
could you allow more ?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15444
(8) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, May 14, 2017 12:26]

Same restriction in FIDE tourneys also. Just send the best !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15448
(9) Posted by ichai [Sunday, May 14, 2017 13:12]

OK.
It just works to get the level of the tourney lower.
Limited entries limits the work of the judge, that's good, but is it needed here ??
That's why I ask for a little more flexibility
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15449
(10) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, May 14, 2017 14:58]

The complete tourney is compound of 5 parts, 3 composing + 2 solving tourneys. So, as a whole, it is about a certain participant and not about a certain problem.
A potential "artistic richness" of a separate composing tourney is indeed reduced by "1 entry per participant".
What about the second, third... thematic problems by one author? They, of course, may be published and compete in an informal tourney elsewhere (independently of BIT).
If it's not about competing but only about the "art", the authors could post such problems here at MatPlus after the official tourney and the "artistic richness" of the theme(s) would be presented to the public.
But would an author do that without expecting a place in an award?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15451
(11) Posted by ichai [Saturday, May 20, 2017 23:15]

"The complete tourney is compound of 5 parts, 3 composing + 2 solving tourneys. So, as a whole, it is about a certain participant and not about a certain problem."

If you have such a need for a whole tourney, you may keep for each author his best placed problem for the whole evaluation

"...A potential "artistic richness" of a separate composing tourney is indeed reduced by "1 entry per participant"..."

So you agree with me...

"...What about the second, third... thematic problems by one author? They, of course, may be published and compete in an informal tourney elsewhere (independently of BIT)..."

of course it is kind of you, but there are objections :
1) A problem is appreciated at its best when it is judged in the thematic tourney it was made for
2) why should artificially risk an author to be perhaps anticipated by this way ?

"...If it's not about competing but only about the "art", the authors could post such problems here at MatPlus after the official tourney and the "artistic richness" of the theme(s) would be presented to the public..."

The main point for rewards is to increase the chances a problem has to be quoted elsewhere

So, once again, and with all due respect, I don't understand the reason for such a limitation
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15466
(12) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, May 21, 2017 00:33]

I didn't express "my opinion", I just mentioned the critical points. Different viewpoints and interests will differently interpret the relevance of these points.
To "understand" the organizers, one should take a deep sincere look from their position.
The best way to do that is to organize such an event many times and then "understand" what is optimal.
I believe that the good suggestions (and practical help) for enriching the event, without overburdening the volunteers, would be appreciated.

Personally, I certainly don't like the restrictions like the number of entries or just one month for composing.
However, I shall complain when I manage to organize a better event.
So far, I can't even dream of that.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15467
(13) Posted by ichai [Sunday, May 21, 2017 01:28]

it is OK,
I don't complain,
I am happy of this event
and also of others...
I just ask for a little more flexibility.

As far as I can understand there will be no favorable answer, and it is OK like that too.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15468
(14) Posted by Administrator [Wednesday, May 24, 2017 11:07]

BIT 2017 (Groups: A - #2, B - h#2, C - hs#max2,5)

All Participants with number of groups:

1. Suleyman Abdullayev__ ( 1 )
2. Fadil Abdurahmanović__ ( 1 )
3. Rauf Aliovsadzade__ ( 1 )
4. Ivan Antipin __ ( 1 )
5. M. Basisty __ ( 1 )
6. Dr Phani Bhushan __ ( 2 )
7. Yuri Bilokin __ ( 1 )
8. Evgeni Bourd __ ( 2 )
9. Aliaksandr Bulauka__ ( 1 )
10. Michel Caillaud__ ( 1 )
11. Kr Chandrasekaran__ ( 2 )
12. Mykola Chernyavskyy __ ( 1 )
13. Gannady Chumakov__ ( 1 )
14. Vlaicu Crisan__ ( 1 )
15. Ricardo de Mattos Vieira__ ( 1 )
16. Branislav Djurašević __ ( 3 )
17. Paz Einat __ ( 1 )
18. Georgy Evseev __ ( 1 )
19. Dan-Constantin Gurgui __ ( 2 )
20. Valery Gurov __ ( 1 )
21. Eric Huber __ ( 1 )
22. ichai__ ( 2 )
23. Fedir Kapustin __ ( 1 )
24. Marko Klasinc__ ( 3 )
25. Valery Kopyl __ ( 1 )
26. Illo Krampis __ ( 1 )
27. Ralf Krätschmer__ ( 3 )
28. Rainer Kuhn __ ( 2 )
29. Robert Lincoln__ ( 1 )
30. Ingemar Lind__ ( 3 )
31. Sébastien Luce __ ( 1 )
32. S. Manikumar__ ( 3 )
33. Luis Miguel Martin__ ( 2 )
34. Michael McDowell __ ( 1 )
35. Vitaly Medintsev __ ( 1 )
36. Karol Mlynka__ ( 1 )
37. Dieter Müller__ ( 2 )
38. CGS Narayanan__ ( 1 )
39. Emanuel Navon __ ( 2 )
40. Vladislav Nefyodov __ ( 1 )
41. Petro Novitsky__ ( 1 )
42. Aleksey Oganesjan __ ( 2 )
43. Ivars Ozols __ ( 1 )
44. Franz Pachl__ ( 3 )
45. Daniel Papack __ ( 1 )
46. Petko A. Petkov__ ( 2 )
47. Pietro Pitton __ ( 1 )
48. Miodrag Radomirović __ ( 1 )
49. Srećko Radović__ ( 3 )
50. Yosi Retter__ ( 3 )
51. Jacques Rotenberg__ ( 2 )
52. Kalyan Seetharaman__ ( 3 )
53. Aleksandr Semenenko __ ( 1 )
54. Valery Semenenko __ ( 1 )
55. Ilija Serafimović __ ( 1 )
56. Boris Shorokhov __ ( 1 )
57. Anatoly Skripnik __ ( 1 )
58. Roberto Tomassini __ ( 1 )
59. Ivo Tominić__ ( 3 )
60. Anatoly Vasilenko __ ( 1 )
61. Menachem Witztum __ ( 2 )
62. Predrag Žuvić__ ( 1 )
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15474
(15) Posted by Administrator [Monday, May 29, 2017 17:43]

Belgrade Internet Tourneys 2017

Group B – h#2 – Award:
http://www.matplus.net/pub/BIT2017B.pdf
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15480
(16) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 30, 2017 01:07]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [17-05-30]

The 1st Pr. is amazing

The very interesting 3rd Pr. could also be built with model mates :

Daniel Papack
3rd Pr
version
(= 6+10 )

h#2

1.B×b3 R×d6 2.c5 Rc6‡
1.R×c6 Bd5 2.Rc4 Bb7‡

it might be interesting to put a black pawn on d6 and to add a black bishop on h2, so that the 1st solution becomes 1.B×b3 Rb6 2.c5 Rc6‡
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15482
(17) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Tuesday, May 30, 2017 08:03]; edited by Vitaly Medintsev [17-05-30]

@ Jacques

Your version is very close to the problem sent by me:

(= 7+10 )


1.Rxc6 Bxd5 2.Rce6 Bb7#

1.Rxf7 Rxe6 2.c5 Rc6#

Zilahi + vice versa captures of WR<->BR with switchbacks + closing of BQ diagonal/orthogonal in 2nd Black's move + model mates.

I wonder why it hasn't included in the award while the 3rd Prize has...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15483
(18) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Tuesday, May 30, 2017 08:23]; edited by Vitaly Medintsev [17-05-30]

In the 2nd Prize, BSd6 could be replaced with BP - the pin is artificial (not nesessary) - 5r2/4pN2/R2pk3/1p1rN1P1/1K6/1B6/q1p5/1b6.
This is a flaw, in my view.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15484
(19) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Tuesday, May 30, 2017 13:53]

Personally I do not like adding two WS just to make model mates. Both white knights are guarding one square only. I do not think there is justification for their usage. I could accept them only if there is no other way to make correct problem but adding them. Of course that's my personal taste.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15485
(20) Posted by Administrator [Tuesday, May 30, 2017 14:42]

Belgrade Internet Tourneys 2017

Group A – #2 – Award:
http://www.matplus.net/pub/BIT2017A.pdf
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15488

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3

MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions BIT 2017 Clarification