MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

8:24 UTC
 
  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-Oct-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(1) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Mar 28, 2013 02:27]

Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums?


I always wondered why studies received 1.66 points in FIDE albums. Tradition is one reason, or maybe because studies were more difficult to compose. Is the latter still true? I have never tried to compose a study, so I may be wrong here, but I have the impression that today, with the tablebases and the chess engines, study composers have a much easier task than past composers.

On the other hand, if more points are given because of difficulty, how many points should Yarosh's Babson task receive? I am particularly interested to read the study composers' point of view.
 
(Read Only)pid=10038
(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Mar 28, 2013 06:22]

Great question.
And, if studies do deserve 1.66 points, please explain why a heterodox study is worth fewer points.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10039
(3) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Thursday, Mar 28, 2013 10:37]

In my opinion studies should be given 1.00 points. I don't see why they would be more difficult to compose than orthodox or heterodox problems or retros or whatever.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10040
(4) Posted by Per Olin [Thursday, Mar 28, 2013 19:29]

Having composed studies some decades ago, but nowadays only sporadically, I confirm the observations of Kostas to be, in my opinion, correct. With databases for positions with few men and good chess game software for analysing positions with more men, the composer can faster and more reliably check the correctness. Correctness has been the big issue for studies, and thanks to the computers the degree of incorrect studies is diminishing.

The historical reasons for a study to earn more album points than other problems are unknown to me. Can be that a study has been seen to be more 'valuable' for the chess community and / or valued higher for being more difficult to compose. If the degree of difficulty is the key element, then a direct moremover should probably earn more points than a direct twomover. Anyhow, as the world has changed, it would be useful to reconsider this issue. I see no other way to act than to try to get the matter into the agenda of a future WFCC meeting.

Thanks to Kevin for pointing out that a study and a fairy study do not earn equal points. Provocative question: will we among studies see the same 'development' as among retros that one day orthodox and fairy problems are in the same group; how will this affect the amount of points?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10041
(5) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Saturday, Mar 30, 2013 20:29]

Without having the intention to be involved in an endless debate I think that the huge technical difficulties are just one side of the issue in question. Every study composer knows from his own bitter experience how difficult is to spot genuine new ideas in this genre and even then a relatively small percentage of those ideas are realizable in valid studies.
If you refer to title norms out of a sincere concern of a possible inflation: mind you that there are currently only 6 living study composers who are grandmasters for chess composition. One of the main reasons is that due to the unique character of this genre, study top composers are barely involved in other genres and thus diminish significantly their chances to get many entries into the albums.
Take a small example to demonstrate the absurd: between the death in 1991 of GM Ernst Pogosyantz and 2006 (when Nikolay Kralin and Oleg Pervakov were finally awarded with their deserved supreme title) there was not a single study composer with the GM title in Russia! Furthermore: to the best of my knowledge there has never been a single GM for endgame studies in the entire West!
If you find it normal keep on proposing such ideas to make titles even more unattainable for human creatures in the name of universal justice.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10048
(6) Posted by Torsten Linß [Sunday, Mar 31, 2013 10:16]

YA: "Every study composer knows from his own bitter experience how difficult is to spot genuine new ideas in this genre and even then a relatively small percentage of those ideas are realizable in valid studies."

Replace "study" by "twomover", "threemover" or "helpmate twomover" and you get a similarly valid statement...

YA: "If you find it normal keep on proposing such ideas to make titles even more unattainable for human creatures in the name of universal justice."

About 20 years ago PCCC allowed an unlimited number of problems/studies in the Album. Before the limit was 800. Now we have 1100-1300. This led to an inflation of titels. Just extrapolating these numbers, we can conclude that hardly anybody who has accumulated 70-100 album points would have gotten the GM title under the old rules. So titles have been made more attainable.

Back to the issue raised. In my opinion there is no valid reasoning for giving any genre preference over others. So there should be no distinction.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10049
(7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Mar 31, 2013 12:43]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-03-31]

I agree with Torsten.

Except, I'd go slightly further: I don't perceive that the challenge of study composers, to find original ideas, can even compare to #2, h#2, or #3.
By comparison, studies have held up very well.
But, who cares -- we don't reduce the value of California's gold, according to a prospecting advantage (gold has inherent value)!

Let's not forget that a composer deserves credit for tailoring every thematic variation to fit the length of the stipulated deadline (2 moves, 3 moves, n moves).

Strangely, why don't we see any consistent indication of a reduction in originality, reflected in the points awarded (for #2, h#2, or #3)?

2007-2009 Album:
#2 (58 composers/178 points), h#2 (32 composers/87 points), #3 (56 composers/93 points).
Studies (51 composers/153 points @ 1.66 per composition).

2004-2006 Album:
#2 (60 composers/159 points), h#2 (64 composers/202 points), #3 (71 composers/149 points).
Studies (34 composers/78 points @ 1.66 per composition).

2001-2004 Album:
#2 (62 composers/174 points), h#2 (59 composers/142 points), #3 (63 composers/145 points).
Studies (42 composers/140 points @ 1.66 per composition).

1998-2000 Album:
#2 (71 composers/213 points), h#2 (not a separate category), #3 (64 composers composers/166 points).
Studies (44 composers composers/95 points @ 1.66 per composition).

Where is the decline (in any of these categories) we should expect?
In fact, PCCC actually EXPANDED the h#n category, in 2001 -- carving out a completely new, autonomous sub-Album for h#2 composers!
Imagine an engineering college, which today added a new degree program, in "wired telecommunication."
Imagine a hospital planning to add an entire wing for Poliomyelitis Research.

Yochanan:> "If you refer to title norms out of a sincere concern of a possible inflation: mind you that there are currently only 6 living study composers who are grandmasters for chess composition."

76 Grandmaster composer titles have been awarded.
There are now nine (9) independent and autonomous Albums (which are essentially stapled into one).

If we presume an equal distribution of composers within each poorly defined Album division, and we presume that each composer works exclusively within one single sub-Album, we would expect ~8.4 Grandmasters per arbitrary section.
Having just six (6) Study composers would be slightly less than our expectation, but statistically, this is hardly a significant deviation.

Moreover, we all know that the two presumptions are completely false.
1) The data above shows an unequal distribution (compare retros sometime), and
2) The vast majority of titled Grandmasters work in several sub-Albums -- if you work exclusively within the field of Studies, you put yourself at a significant disadvantage.

I do not disagree that study composers merit greater appreciation; but, this is a separate issue entirely.

Please consider, sometime, the enormous disadvantages that the fairy study composer faces:
a) no huge, lifelong advantage in points per composition,
b) no separate, autonomous album (judged entirely by their own advocates),
c) no theoretical positions, to provide greater options for quick termination of the solution,
d) no easy table base verification, nor search functionality (e.g., for mutual zugzwang positions), and
e) greatly reduced verification opportunities (few programs available, generally much weaker).

Perhaps we should consider separate titles, per sub-Album division (as opposed to the "Jack of all Trades" Grandmaster title).
Composition Judges have such a distinction, in their titles -- why not composers, too?
Once you do that, however, you will only highlight the dysfunction of arbitrary, undefined sub-Album boundaries -- where frontiers are forged by fashion and favoritism (neglecting fairness entirely).

By comparison, fairy studies may offer much greater prospects for originality.
But, never forget that beautifully original ideas do not just fall onto the board -- the search for them has always been a vital part of the composing process, and the hard working composer who braves strange elements in order to keep finding fresh ideas should merit (at least) equal credit (in points per composition)!

Look how quickly we dismiss fairies -- according to their greater prospects for originality.
Funny that we don't hear anyone dismissing the classical study composers (who enjoyed similar advantages).

PCCC should encourage us to continue their heroic tradition of exploration -- to venture boldly into strange new worlds of chess composition.
Instead, it pays a hefty per diem for those who retreat to the comfort of their own kitchen.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10051
(8) Posted by Steven Dowd [Sunday, Mar 31, 2013 23:49]

I don't compose studies worth anything, but some of my problems occasionally are, so my issue is more that two FIDE Albums have elapsed since I started composing and the deadline to another is on the horizon.

Not being able to see why my problems were or were not chosen, that is, with no published album within nearly a decade became especially acute when only one of my problems was chosen and many others I thought should have made the album did not, makes it impossible for me to decide what to submit, especially with a limit now on what I can submit.

In the last album, I know which problem of mine submitted made it. I have no idea why. I have no ideas what the competition might have been like.

In the one previous to that, I don't even know exactly which ones were chosen, only that they were with Marko Y. But I don't know why they were chosen or how they ranked next to others. I contend this is important to anyone who wants to take him- or herself seriously as a composer.

Without that sort of ability to compare, who can decide what to submit? Some of my friends who would not give me bad advice have said some of my problems are sure Album pieces, but they also said that about some pieces I sent to the last Album.

I just don't see how you can go even one Album without having the results there for those who might take submitting seriously, how you can go two and maybe three is beyond me.

I am certain some will see this as a complaint that some of my work was not accepted. That is not the reason at all, in fact the reasons they were rejected may have been very good ones. The simple fact is I don't know why, and I don't see how we can take a process seriously that provides so little feedback. And now has a limit on what you can submit. For an OTB example, it is like having a tournament director who doesn't submit a tournament for rating, and then wonders why you don't play in his next one.

======

Torsten's point about ideas being no harder to find in directmates or selfmates, etc. compared to studies is a good one. I spend many hours in the PDB proofing and commenting not so much out of a sense of public duty (although it makes me feel good that I am helping in this way) but because I am always looking for new ideas and potential matrices for executing those ideas. Studying the "old masters" gives you a good feel for what can and can't be done, and what should and should not be done as well as what already has been done and doesn't need repeating.

It seems to me that the current Album situation, to return to my rant, works against that.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10055
(9) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Apr 1, 2013 08:55]

Studies are too different from problems. It is the only genre where chess rules are not changed. So, my suggestion is to give studies at least 2 points in the FIDE Album competition.
I don't know chess strength of people who think that studies should be given 1 point. Would you be so kind to shock us with your ELO rating?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10056
(10) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Apr 1, 2013 11:38]

ELO was a band.

Elo is a rating, named for a man.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10057
(11) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Apr 1, 2013 19:25]

 QUOTE 
In fact, PCCC actually EXPANDED the h#n category, in 2001 -- carving out a completely new, autonomous sub-Album for h#2 composers!
Imagine an engineering college, which today added a new degree program, in "wired telecommunication."
Imagine a hospital planning to add an entire wing for Poliomyelitis Research.

A clarification: the split of the helpmates section (or sub-album, as you call it) into two separate sections, starting with the 2001-03 album, was done for practical reasons. In the 1998-2000 cycle, the h# judges had to review something like 2300 to 2500 problems... In the 2007-09 album, 1200 h#2 and 1700 h#2+ were submitted.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10059
(12) Posted by Torsten Linß [Monday, Apr 1, 2013 23:46]

SD: "Studies are too different from problems. It is the only genre where chess rules are not changed. So, my suggestion is to give studies at least 2 points in the FIDE Album competition."

That's no valid reasoning. In a similar manner one can conclude that studies must not be given more than half a point.

SD: "I don't know chess strength of people who think that studies should be given 1 point."

Does this matter? I don't think so.

SD: "Would you be so kind to shock us with your ELO rating?"

Do you know the Elo rating of the PCCC delegates how in the first instance decided that studies should be given 1.67 points? You might be shocked!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10061
(13) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Monday, Apr 1, 2013 23:55]

Who decided when that studies receive 1,66 points? I'd like to know the reasons to be able to judge if they are still valid.

@Steven: ELO is indeed one of the most fantastic bands ever.
I'll write you an eMail about your rant which is surely offtopic.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10062
(14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 04:24]

Chess-Math problems should be given 3.141592... points per composition.
I will say "April Fools" -- right after Sergei Didukh does. :-)
If Sergei does not yield, we should seek out Magnus Carlsen's definitive opinion on this, and all matters.

ps: my Electric Light Orchestra has always been "Out of the Blue."
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10063
(15) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 08:15]

@TL
1. You don’t see the difference between football and handball. It’s in the rules! Problemists are like football players who hit the ball with their hands and prove the judge that they don’t break any rule. You are forgetting which game you’re playing, dear Torsten!
2. Chess strength is one of the necessary components for someone who wants to be a good studies composer. For problemists it doesn’t matter. Consider this an answer to the question what is more difficult to compose: a problem or a study.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10064
(16) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 08:24]

An offtopic request. Has anyone got a licensed Aquarium 12 (or Chess Assistant 13) chess program with access to the Lomonosov Tablebases? I'd like to check a 7-man position.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10065
(17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 09:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]

@Sergiy,

>Chess strength is one of the necessary components for someone who wants to be a good studies composer.

False. Plenty of patzers have composed amazing studies -- better even than those composed by Paul Keres.

>For problemists it doesn’t matter.

False. Chess strength can be an indicator of composition talent, for all kinds of problems.
See Breyer's masterpiece retro (btw: I have yet to see a study that deserves twice as many points).

You'd be lucky to show a slightly higher correlation between Elo rating and studies.
And even then, it should not require a good statistician to help you observe that several other factors are in play.

>Consider this an answer to the question what is more difficult to compose: a problem or a study.

Then we should not need titles for Study composition -- let your OTB title do the talking for you.
If chess playing is your game, dear Sergiy, you are in the wrong field.

ps: I think study composers have completely missed their best argument for more points...
And, it goes like this:

Generally speaking, studies require the composer to learn considerable endgame theory.
It is not enough to simply compose something, and then go search for anticipation.
A significant amount of theoretical positions (wins/draws) must be developed.

However, to a large degree, tablebases and highly improved programs make study composition much, much easier.
Plus, remember that the theoretical positions make the job of the study composer much easier (the better your endgame knowledge, the easier it is to target new ideas).
Finally, remember that study composers are already given an extra advantage: they don't need to tailor every variation to a stipulated deadline (all terminating in exactly n moves).

There is a better argument: problems which can not be composed/solved by aid of computers, may deserve more points.
This is true for a very, very small slice of studies, composed today -- and, they probably deserve special consideration (in the computer/EGTB age).
But, it is more often true for long orthodox retros/proofgames, and certain classes of fairy elements.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10067
(18) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 09:53]

@Kevin
Read more carefully what I had written and don't distort my words if you are lazy to understand them!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10068
(19) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 10:07]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-02]

@Sergiy,

>"Read more carefully what I had written and don't distort my words if you are lazy to understand them!"

If anything, my friend, I was "lazy" to quote you verbatim.

ps: when you insult me for being lazy, it likely only means that you hesitated to declare me entirely incompetent in the matter.
Obviously, you have no idea how low my Elo rating would be (nor how little I care about such things).
Every Russian endgame composer knows, the accusation of laziness does not even count in a triple decker insult.

As to the intended meaning of your own words, I welcome any clarification you can offer.
I am still expecting you to declare this an "April Fools" joke.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10069
(20) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Apr 2, 2013 10:37]

Ok, friend, you quote me and don't understand a thing. I didn't say that Keres is a good study composer. He isn't. I didn't say that Elo is the decisive indicator of a talented study composer. You have invented it all. You overestimate the role of tablebases, computer programs and endgame theory. It's impossible to prove anything to people who don't understand chess studies. So, I'll spare my efforts ...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10070

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?