MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

16:24 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 General Problem with the most content?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(21) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Nov 3, 2008 09:29]

Well, I wouldn't say, that the following wonderful problems are cooked ...

Ludovit Lacny
Moment 1998-99, 1.-3. Prize
(= 10+9 )

#2vv
1.Ld6? (2.Td3,De4) ...Dc5 2. Le5, ...Td2!
1.Sb2? (2.De4,Le5) ...Dc5 2. Td3, ...Ld5!
1.Dc6! (2.Le5,Td3) ...Dc5 2. De4

Dieter Kutzborski
Berlin-München 1988, 1. Place
(= 11+10 )

#2vvv
1.d3? (2.f4,Tf5,Sd7) ...de4 2.d4, ...De3!
1.f3? (2.Tf5,Sd7,d4) ...de4 2.f4, ...Le3!
1.Lh7? (2. Sd7,d4,f4) ...de4 2.Tf5, ...Tg6!
1.Sc5! (2. d4,f4,Tf5) ...de4 2.Sd7
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2881
(22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Nov 3, 2008 09:44]

Hauke asks "does the unprovided flight help you ... find the key?"

Unfair question.
Good solvers prune flawed keys, and consider them only after everything else fails.

If we would measure the offesne of the flight-taking-key, based purely on solving difficulty, it would open the floodgates for unsubtle key motivations. Motivation is of paramount concern -- not solving difficulty (which is biased, by convention, to make flawed keys seem more difficult).

There is always a tradeoff between a dogmatic rejection of such an offense, and a nuanced measure of its spiritual context.

I don't want to be too much in either camp...
Dogma is like a foreign subway token -- always question whether it's still worth pocketing, but never dismiss its potential value.

Regardless, Hauke's method for weighing these offenses should be rejected.
Motivation for the key is the spiritual offense -- solving difficulty is only a manifestation of its evil.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2882
(23) Posted by Michael McDowell [Monday, Nov 3, 2008 22:42]

In the problems by Bruch, Lačný and Kutzborski the flight-taking tries and keys are an integral part of the idea, conceived from the start. It is interesting that such top-class composers are prepared to investigate ideas based on (by conventional standards) bad keys. Other examples come to mind, like the many settings of the Sushkov theme involving pinning tries and keys. Such problems presumably win their awards for their originality, with the defects being regarded as of lesser consequence. But isn’t it the case that composers of the past (and as Miodrag illustrates, some composers of the present) would simply never have considered composing such problems? As for solving, no matter how much I appreciated the overall idea I would feel some disappointment with such a key (and I would hate to encounter such a problem in a clock solving event!).

Maybe it’s all part of a natural development. Duals are considered anathema, then they have to be tolerated to allow Good Companions-style complexity, then the solver has to be educated to look for tries, and so on. Have we reached the stage where in the two-mover the quality of the key is considered irrelevant? Problems like the three examples given must place the judge in a dilemma, when he has to compare them with two-movers where the composer “abides by the rules”.

Original content against artistic presentation – where should the emphasis lie?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2888
(24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 11:55]

Michael asks the perfect question (prefaced with good historical context):
"Have we reached the stage where in the two-mover the quality of the key is considered irrelevant?"

A persuasive argument can be made that dogma always fades in the face of original ideas (perhaps this is the "natural development").

I'm reminded of Milan Vukcevich's excellent article on Bristols, which makes this point beautifully (if only by sub-theme): http://www.matplus.org.yu/BRISTOL.HTM

I can't answer Michael's question, except to ask, several other semi-rhetorically questions...
Why target THIS (unprovided-flight) dogma?
Why now?
What about checking keys?
Why not first remove dogma of lesser value?

To the last question, consider promoted force...
Not long ago, I encountered comments from a few Israeli composers (somewhere online?), which essentially claimed promoted force should not be considered a flaw. Given increasing limitations for originality in two-movers, I found their argument to be very persuasive. More to the point, I could think of no dogma with lesser value than this convention! Whereas flight-taking keys alway result in stronger motivations, promoted force seems to restrict possibilities for no specific purpose.

Somebody will surely ask, why not surrender all these conventions (at once)?
Nobody can answer whether this is the time to discard a particular convention (or all conventions).

I frequently revisit Milan's article, perhaps because I keep finding something left unstated. Maybe I'm reading too much into the article, but I think his discussion of "purity of aim" suggests a resolution to this dilemma.

The point, I think, is that such conventions have value, and should not be discarded arbitrarily. When innovation becomes difficult, composers must be open to reconsider dogma (personally). Finally, the turning point does not arrive by discussion -- nor merely after a few fine artistic examples counter the dogma -- but after an example demonstrates a wealth of new artistic possibilities, which could not otherwise be achieved!

Some very nice examples of flight-taking keys have been presented here, but I personally do not (yet) see how discarding this convention has opened some big door (save the door holding back numerous problems which are better left unpublished).

Those who disagree have a clear opportunity to be pioneers, merely for the burden of selling their view (to those who will naturally resist).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2889
(25) Posted by Uri Avner [Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 15:49]

Before ranking conventions according to their relative value (which might be dogmatic by itself) we should ask ourselves what is the value of convention.

As we know, the question is not only relevant for chess composition but for Art in general. A convention always draws common borders and limitations to what we are doing. So why do we need these limitations at all? Why not be free? The immediate answer is that without limitations "everything goes" and all meaning is lost. Limitations are what we measure our achievements against. The whole point of Art and chess composition in particular is the fight against limitations without discarding them. We always strive to achieve what seem to defy limitations. When successful, it brings the greatest satisfaction, perhaps the only one that a composer could have. The unavoidable dialectics between limitations and freedom cannot be escaped. Thus, "freedom" can be found only within a context, i.e. limitations.

So, the removal of a convention has its price and should be very difficult to attain. Any relinquishment of a convention is (or should be) revolutionary in nature and must be fought for and get the support of the best composers (at least one of them) before it has the chance of acceptance. And in no way it should become the easy way out for relatively weak composers.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2891
(26) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Nov 4, 2008 16:59]; edited by Juraj Lörinc [08-11-04]

As far as I understand it, flight-taking key in twomover is no-no by some top composers, while other top composers are willing to cross the line and produce twomovers with flight-taking keys.

And some these twomovers are appreciated by significant part of the public. I guess it is not because of the names above diagram, actually Kutzborski's #2 was seemingly placed in the informal match and thus awarded anonymously. Thus it seems it is more a question of individual preferences - Misha and some other experts would see only cooked #2 where other #2-experts see good twomover.

Naturally, personal preferences of chess composition public are largely aligned, yet different. Consequently the composers able to compose in line with aggregated preferences of whole public seem to be most valued. Am I right?

Edit: mistaken word.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2893
(27) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Nov 5, 2008 16:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [08-11-05]

"Any relinquishment of a convention is (or should be) revolutionary in nature..."

Very well said, Uri -- it not only crystalizes what I found unstated in Milan's Bristol article, but also may answer an important question I've been pondering:

Why arbitrarily restrict promoted force, by convention?

Perhaps conventions needn't have any redemption value (as I claimed in a prior analogy to subway tokens).
Uri suggests that a collection of fixed points, arbitrarily chosen, has navigation value!

Does your quote not imply, by corolary, that arbitrary conventions exist to compell revolutionary overthrow?
The purpose of these locked doors is to compell breakthroughs?!!

If this is true, I must carefully ponder the art of political dogma... Perhaps even reexxamine Hobbes versus Locke.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2896
(28) Posted by Touw Hian Bwee [Thursday, Nov 6, 2008 14:01]; edited by Touw Hian Bwee [08-11-07]

Originality is a subjective matter, depending on how we see it. The originality of a theme depends largely on the mechanism and the scheme.
A theme may be no longer original but the other two factors will determine whether the end product as a whole is original or not.
I don't think a cycle of moves by itself can be considered original anymore, it is quite well known since at least three decades ago.
What makes it original depends on how the composer chooses the mechanism and the scheme.
Now the question is, should we compose a cyclus, or any other theme, at ANY, repeat ANY cost, even by abandoning accepted conventions?

In my opinion, we may differentiate two types of cyclus. We take a three-fold cyclus as example and imagine a triangle with A, B and C as the three corners.
For the first type, we will walk from A to B, from B to C and finally from C to A. We have the AB-BC-CA cycle.
The second type, we similarly walk, this time from A to B to C, then from C to A to B and finally from B to C to A.
We now have the ABC-CAB-BCA or ABC-BCA-CAB cycle.
The first type I would call a single-pass cycle (or a short cycle) and the second a three-pass cycle (multi-pass or a full cycle).
Lacny's and Kutzborski's are of the second type (Kutzborski's 4-fold cycle is not exactly pure, since the mate Sd7# is by 2 different S).
Bruch's is of the first type.
Lacny's problem is especially interesting, and I wonder if it might not find its ideal form as a threemover instead of a twomover.
The tries and key will then appear as variations with a conventional non-flight taking key.
Flight taking second moves in a threemover are acceptable and not considered a flaw compared to tries and key in a twomover.

Another important question is : Is it not possible to show the THEME without the flight taking tries and key?
A composer should make sure that it certainly is, before deciding to cross the border and then even ask if it is worth doing so.
Naturally again, the mechanism plays a big role in this. From the start, the composer has the choice from many available possibilities.
The following illustrates a similar AB-BC-CA cycle in conventional form.
The three thematic mates (A,B,C) : Bg6, Bd5, Rd4. The thematic tries : 1.Se6, Sf5, Sxf3.
Black refutations : Qd8, Qg8, Qxf6. The key : Your choice by the Sd4.
I am giving just the scheme here, though I think you may get to the final position in less than half an hour.

(= 7+6 )

 
   
(Read Only)pid=2900
(29) Posted by shankar ram [Tuesday, Jun 23, 2009 19:32]

Hmmm...
This thread seems to have deviated from it's original title : "...most content". Without quoting "noodle soup" or multi-phase or task problems, I think some of the jointly composed 3-movers of G.F.Anderson and V.L.Eaton (50s and 60s) would qualify. I can still remember how I was overwhelmed when I first studied them.

Will try to hunt them out and show them.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=3890

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

MatPlus.Net Forum General Problem with the most content?