Website founded by
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 |
|(121) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Wednesday, Apr 17, 2013 22:48]|
You can hardly write somthing to the topic here because this thread has been misused to spread hate between chess componists.
If this question is such a decisive one then I wonder why there are so few moremover componists that add an easy endgame to their problem so that it isn't a moremover anymore. There is a brochure by Wieland Bruch which name in German was "Gratwanderungen zwischen Mehrzüger und Studie" and in English "Exploring the watershed between more-mover and study" where there are some examples that can be interpreted as a study and as a more-mover.
I have a personal favorite that surprisingly hasn't been mentioned in this brochure.
Jefrejinow Sahs 1st price 1959
(= 6+6 )
Solution 1.Re4! dxe4+ 2.Kg2 e3+ 3.Kg1 Bf7 4.exf7 Qxc5 5.f8Q+ Qxf8 6.f7+ Qg7+ 7.Kh2! h~ 8.f8Q+ Kh7 9.Qxg7#
This one would be a mate in nine moves if there were not hopeless moves like 1.-Qxc5 or 3.-h5. Nevertheless the character of this study feels more like a more-mover. Here it is very hard to argue for 1.66 points.
|(122) Posted by Uri Avner [Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 18:40]; edited by Uri Avner [13-04-26]|
@ Mr Didukh
Sorry if I haven't met your expectations.
You are absolutely wrong about the facts, but I'm not going to make the effort and give you the true facts because:
(a) I'm not so sure you are much interested in the facts, and
(b) a habit of mine says that not all nonsense must be answered.
Anyway, I invite you to a game of chess to evaluate whose love of the game is greater.
|(123) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 19:31]|
@Sven-Hendrik: So any #n where the only win is the #n
- say Kc2 Sb4 vs. Ka1 Pa3, #2 -
(cf. a short article in the SCHWALBE - ??? - I think I don't mean
that by Wieland) also has to get 1.66?
Poooopcorn! Snide remarks! Quiiiiiips, please only one per person!
|(124) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, Apr 23, 2013 19:39]|
What HvdH once said also applies to problems:
Not every position with an unique solution makes a study.
|(125) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Wednesday, Apr 24, 2013 21:26]; edited by Sven Hendrik Lossin [13-04-24]|
I think Wieland's brochure shows some examples where you can argue for either more-mover or study. And yes Hauke, I think this is usually the case if the solution of the more-mover is also the only way to win. Nevertheless I have to disappoint you with the 1.66 for everyone: Even it is a good more-mover that would be selected for the Albums in the #n-section, then it is not clear if it is a good study as well.
I don't know if there are composers that put an endgame variation on their more-movers to sell it as a study but maybe there are.
|(126) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Apr 25, 2013 02:36]|
This constitutes yet another reason why it is preposterous to retain the 1.67 weighting for studies.
|(127) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 15:37]|
Since more than 10 days you don't answer (see posts 114, 119, 122)
I'll tell you at least the way I can see it :
Uri Avner is surely one of the best presidents we ever had.
|(128) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 18:31]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-28]|
I completely agree with your last post, Jacques; even though, the contrary statement (a pathetic ad hominem diversion) is hardly worth pursuit, it is well worthwhile to express appreciation for the work Uri did (and still does) on our behalf.
The argument supporting extra special favoritism for Studies is very weak.
Strong passions for the indefensible tend to result in amplified noise.
Honesty, in chess composition, is often trampled to a faint signal; but, posts like yours helps to renew my optimism for the future.
|(129) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 20:08]|
Kevin, you don't need strong argument .
You don't need argument at all, I would say.
Study composers receive 1,66 per study, this is a fact. What would be the benefit for others to lower this ?
They have to give argument ! And there is none.
The claim for 'equity' has no value at all.
|(130) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 20:24]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-28]|
Equity has no value?
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."
If they want to argue that Study composers are God's chosen people, they are only asking for revolution.
I haven't even begun to argue for fairness, Jacques -- I have simply requested that WFCC openly declare the purpose of their imbalanced (and inherently unfair) competition.
Those in favor of the present system have yet to provide a valid rationale for this imbalance -- all they have managed, thus far, is to continually note that, at present, the unfairness happens to be a fact.
The existence of a monarchy is not a valid rationale for this form of government (no matter how divine they might imagine it to be).
They refuse to provide a rationale, because their preferred form government, in chess competition, is a corruption.
|(131) Posted by Uri Avner [Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 21:18]|
A word of support in one’s efforts, especially those done for no other reason but the protection/benefit of chess composition on its most difficult moments ever, is surely important to hear.
Thank you Jacques and Kevin and my appreciation!
|(132) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 28, 2013 22:39]|
Kevin why are you pleased to play with words ?
Equity has no value ??? Who said that ??
The claim to lower the points of studies in name of 'equity' has no value.
|(133) Posted by Daniel Keith [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 12:49]|
That evaluation studies is favoritism, this is an opinion of an ignoramus.
|(134) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 14:59]|
That evaluation of studies (for the FIDE Albums) is NOT favoritism, THIS is an opinion of an ignoramus.
|(135) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 17:13]; edited by Steven Dowd [13-04-29]|
Where we have traveled in 130+ posts:
A: You are dumb.
B: No, you are.
C: You are stupid.
D: You are stupider.
This entire archive needs to be sent to any advocate of chess in the required school curriculum as an example of how chess *doesn't* make you especially smart.
PS - This excludes some posters such as Herr Lossin and Kevin Begley, who at least have tried to provide reasoned discussion. If you did also and I missed you, my apologies. People can knock Kevin all they want, and yes, some of his opinions strike me as not too reasonable, but at least he tries to explain his rationale.
|(136) Posted by Daniel Keith [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 17:44]|
Among the different styles of composition, studies get 1.66 points.
This seems to bother some composers.
I propose to change these composers sector and compose studies.
|(137) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 19:00]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-29]|
It was Thomas Jefferson who wrote, "We hold these truths to be self evident..."
In this situation, I would rephrase it.
We hold this truth to be self evident, that "orthodox" studies are not necessarily worthy of divine favoritism (read: extra points).
However, we are not yet advocating for revolution -- we are simply asking that WFCC provide a valid explanation for the present system (especially with regard to this inequity).
Just provide an honest accounting: why do all orthodox studies inherently deserve more points, than everything else earns?
Are you opposed to full disclosure?
Equity provides a clear, and valid reason why all problems which appear in one of the FIDE sub-Albums should be given an equal number of points.
Obviously, some problems are more difficult to achieve, and/or better composed than others (e.g., there is no comparison between the first realization of the Babson Task, versus a good find in the 6-man EGTB).
But, the current process does not provide a weight for quality, nor difficulty.
All compositions (except "orthodox" studies) earn one point, each.
What is WFCC's official reason for this systematic favoritism?
C'mon Jaques, you can't really suggest that nobody is entitled to a valid explanation for this -- can you?!
Consider the following:
1 point, FIDE Album, 1983-1985
(= 7+3 )
1.66 points FIDE Album, 1998-2000
(= 6+6 )
Which one deserves more points?
Before you answer, note two things:
1) The second problem is, in fact, cooked (oops -- 1.f8=Q+! or 1.f8=R+!), and
2) I can make these kinds of comparisons, all year long.
Why would the inclusion of grasshoppers necessarily diminish the value of a problem -- when in fact, they might very well improve upon some specific study ideas?
Why would Capablanaca's Chess (or Fischer's Chess960, or even Shantraj!) be of lesser value, than the latest version of an evolving FIDE player's rule book?
[note: you can not even define the term 'orthodox' such that it provides a clear distinction with fairy studies -- even within the past 20 years, the term would have been altered by dead reckoning changes in the player's rule book! You can't possibly argue that orthodox inherently deserves more, when you can not even define orthodox!]
Why would a selfmate (where all thematic variations conform to a given deadline -- e.g., n moves -- and transposition duals are forbidden) be considered a lesser form of problem stipulation?
Nobody can answer these questions, Jacques.
To rail against equity is not helping your cause.
The problem is, you can't provide a good reason (nor muster a good defense).
The parallels to the Three-Fifths Compromise (which gave slaves a lesser form of an otherwise equitable vote) are truly remarkable!
Supporters of a reduced equality maintained that full equity was of no substantial value, and refused to provide any valid reason for a false notion of superiority (in this case, by skin color).
Fairy Studies receive exactly three-fifths of full equity, based upon a very similar prejudice (for which nobody, including you, can provide any valid explanation)!
Note: I am not trying to suggest that supporters of orthodox studies are anywhere near as wicked as supporters of voring inequalities (nor slavery). I am simply illustrating that the rationale and reward are completely equivalent. Therefore, I would encourage you to join me in demanding that WFCC either provide a valid reason for this injustice, or end it entirely!
Instead of a valid explanation, this thread had deteriorated into false arguments (nonsense, if not worse -- as Steven rightly points out), in order to gain advantage (by depriving others of fairness).
I'm not looking for a civil war, with anyone, over this issue -- I'm not advocating for revolution -- I'm simply asking that WFCC provide us a valid rationale for this system (and valid definitions, for the sub-Album divisions).
I want to know WHY all compositions, except "orthodox" studies, are devalued, to receive only three-fifths of their full share.
I don't consider the value of any title to be any better than the system which produced it.
Until I consider this system fair, I will personally refuse to compete; and, I would encourage others to protest (by non-participation).
I would prefer that we had a meaningful title, which is at least transparent and honest (if not equitable and fair!).
I would prefer to compete for a title worthy of full participation.
|(138) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 20:22]|
It seems I don't explain myself enough.
I have nothing against equity, at the opposite!
Let's give an example : for a same job women are less paid than men, so they go and protest.
What do they ask for ? To increase their wages, of course! Not to reduce the men's one.
Now, as you could read many times in this file, the fact that the job is the same is not so evident for everybody.
My opinion on this matter has no importance here.
As a matter of fact you can notice that in any case studies is a special field :
a) almost all study composers are involved in studies only and reciprocally other composers don't compose studies (there are exceptions, but very few)
b) study composers organized themselves in a dedicated association - that is à completely unique case -
Also, you can understand how difficult were the discussions about these matters in the commission at that time.
So what is the point here to re-open and endless debate with no serious reason ?
|(139) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 29, 2013 20:57]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-29]|
>I have nothing against equity, at the opposite!
Full equity is the default position of any system striving for fundamental fairness.
Exceptions to full equity always require some valid rationale (and continual reconsideration).
>Let's give an example : for a same job women are less paid than men, so they go and protest.
>What do they ask for ? To increase their wages, of course! Not to reduce the men's one.
I am asking that all compositions be given a full share, or provide an official rationale for any divergence.
Whether that be 1 point (for all), or 1.66 points (for all), doesn't interest me.
The point value itself is only relative to arbitrary title settings; and, as I have said previously in this thread, I am certainly open to reconsideration of all arbitrary values.
Equity (and fairness) are fundamentally important, here -- not the arbitrary point values.
>As a matter of fact you can notice that in any case studies is a special field :
I am certainly NOT opposed to a special title (for studies).
However, the fact that many study composers exhibit less interest in the broader scope of problem composition, should NOT unfairly influence their share (towards the universal title).
>Also, you can understand how difficult were the discussions about these matters in the commission at that time.
>So what is the point here to re-open and endless debate with no serious reason ?
The truth might hurt, so don't seek it?
Is that your attitude?
I'm not asking for endless debate -- I am asking that WFCC either:
a) Reconsider the unfairness in Album-Points, or
b) Provide an official rationale for the inequity of their title competition;
and, furthermore, I would ask that WFCC provide a valid definition for any term used to forge a sub-Album division (e.g., "fairy", "orthodox", etc).
This is not too much to ask.
Why would anyone mount an indefinite opposition to this proposal, if they can't provide a single good reason for their opposition?
No -- it's not enough for you (and others) to suggest that the issue may be uncomfortable; nor is it enough to continually decry that fairness is such a difficult slog...
WFCC has an obligation to provide a specific rationale for continuing any of its historical bias (regardless how unfortunate, or uncomfortable, or difficult).
This is a very reasonable request -- if there were a valid reason to oppose this request, why hasn't it surfaced?
Thus far, the only argument to deny this request is entirely based upon childish ad hominem diversions (somebody is an ignoramus, or somebody was the worst WFCC President, etc).
I submit to you that the opposition is based upon corruption (seeking to gain advantage, by diminishing the full equity for others) and falsehood (seeking to maintain a false equivalence with titled Chess Players).
This is no different than the justification "three-fifth compromise": based upon a threat of endless civil war, we are asked to deny a full share of participation for our brothers and sisters!
Either enshrine this unfair prejudice (the divine favoritism of studies) into official law, or make the competition fair.
Are you willing to endlessly oppose this request?
...without ever providing a single good reason?
The tireless effort to conceal this imbalance will reflect upon you, here -- and not only you, it will give shape to the value of this competitive art form (any title awarded by such a process will grow more suspect).
If you care about the value of this art form, if you care about the integrity of titles awarded to composers, if you care about justice... you have no choice but to support an effort to (at the very least) compel WFCC to openly declare a rationale for continuing this inequity (if they refuse, that is, to balance this disgraceful historical prejudice).
We are not going to ignore this unfairness -- even in the interest of avoiding a protracted fight with agents of endless corruption.
Ultimately, this may well end in a revolution, to establish WFCC's independence (read: complete autonomy).
My proposal gives WFCC an opportunity to provide a rationale to remain the united subjects of (a prejudiced) FIDE.
Take it, or leave it.
|(140) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Apr 30, 2013 00:14]|
Ok Kevin, it seems that I failed in convincing you.
But you failed also in convincing me :
Your equity is not equity
Your rationality is not rational
|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?