MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

12:55 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 Has this KRPP vs kr endgame been composed?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
(21) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 21:26]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-16]

Árpád,

No more coffee for those who made the selection in your country.
Coffee's for closers only.
You closed -- 8 units! -- and they owe you a Cadillac.

Folks act like you had the premium leads -- like a bunch of jealous salesmen.
Everybody gets two leads per day: the Thompson leads, and the Nalimov leads.

Tell 'em get out there -- they got the prospects coming in.
The prospects are sitting out there waiting to give their beauty.
Are they gonna take it?
Are they man enough to take it?

Brass balls, gentlemen -- that's what it takes to compose endgame studies.

--edit:--

Lest anyone not understand, these quotes are taken, and modified, from David Mamet's screenplay of his own Pulitzer Prize winning play, Glengarry Glen Ross.

But, the real point is that we should refuse to surrender to any notion that endgames can only be understood by computers.
When first I saw KBN vs k, ~25 years ago, in Pandolfini's Endgame Course, I could not make sense of it in its entirety.
I had to learn it backwards -- first I learned mates in 4, mates in 6, and eventually, I worked my way up to a concept he called "the drive." Even then, it took me several days practicing these concepts (usually against a computer) to master the technique. And, I still play every few years against a computer (along with KQ vs kr, and others), to be sure I can expect to knock them out in a blitz game.

The same is true now, for the best of us, in EGTB positions -- they can be completely incomprehensible.

But, contrarian judges would insist that composers ADD units (and add new complexities), rather than present this material in a form fit for human understanding.
Or worse, they would surrender -- and insist that other composers surrender -- to the EGTB, claiming nobody can ever understand these tables.

I completely reject both these paths.

At some point, I believe a single diagram will not be sufficient to present endgame compositions.
Instead, a composer must be charged with the responsibility to reduce these "incomprehensible" ideas into forms fit for human understanding. And, anyone who can break complex endgames into TEACHABLE forms deserves high praise.

This means either building on (and sourcing) previous endgame works, or, in the absence of previous work, providing sub-problems which build towards deeper understanding.

If the EGTB is off limits, we all stagnate, and must soon resign all hopes of human advancement.
And worse, we suffer from never having seen what beauty might be found, with the aid of tables.
And the implications are far more reaching -- it is not impossible to build helpmate tables, selfmate tables, etc.
Who can say the recent illogic of some judges will not spread, to guard against some lucky-monkey -- a fictional creature, which, the contrarians would have you believe, now threatens to destroy the very temple they have, themselves, sacked.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3850
(22) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 13:25]

@Arpad: Yup, something like that I had in mind (you have even
mutual zugzwang) - good that I'm no devoted study composer and
let the matter rest :-)

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3852
(23) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 20:34]

Arpad, Romanian selectionners lied to you. Your study doesn't necessary need the help of EGTB so as most of us could correctly analyse it. But in the light of what had happened in the last WCCT that was probably a wise decision.
In the near future evebody will understand that EGTB tool as well as 3D programs for making scenes don't define art. They dont give ready products and are nothing without human creativeness.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3855
(24) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Wednesday, Jun 17, 2009 21:18]; edited by Arpad Rusz [09-06-17]

No, I wouldn't say they lied. But you are right, this study doesn't really needs the help of Nalimov Tablebases to analyse it. One only need to accept the fact that RB/NN is a general win, as we accept that Q/R is a general win. It was an acceptable decision for me knowing that still many judges doesn't really want to see EGTB studies.
I have published only a few EGTB studies but I must say that it is not easier to compose a good study that in the classical way. You must to search trough hundreds or thousands of positions to find an interesting idea and that is only the beginning. A position found in a database is usually still far from being a study which can be published.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3856
(25) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 00:16]

Árpád:

>It was an acceptable decision for me knowing that still many judges doesn't really want to see EGTB studies...

I cannot presume to judge their decision.
However, if they chose to withhold your problem *only* because of the EGTB controversy, the decision was poor, if not unacceptable.
Yes, I understand this is competition, but a line is crossed in the moment decisions are made purely to win the approval of judges.

It is a profound shame how some continually poor decisions from a few judges can erode the foundations of an artform.
Until we reclaim the artform, we are complicit in our own theft.
Selectors have a duty, as do composers, to rise above pursuits for this carnival's plastic cup.


Months ago, I was telling my 7-year old neice a revealing story about a major worldwide art contest, which promised to have entries from scores of the greatest artists of the day.

[disclaimer: I learned this story from a college professor -- a PhD in Philosophy -- and hope justice is done in the retelling.]

It was won by a child who painted nothing more than a solid red circle on a white background -- essentially the flag of Japan.
This was far from the most perfect circle ever painted.
Only when I learned the title of the painting, COURAGE, did I begin to understand what is art -- why indeed this was great art.
Had this child used a computer, the story would only be that much the better for it!

I wish I could claim to have had this child's courage, when creating the 6-man problem which opened this thread.
As it was, a vision had to drag me to the EGTB, where that problem fell like an apple into my hands.
Nevertheless, I hope others will demonstrate such courage -- in defiance of an unjust verdict.
Where judges demonstrate an inability to comprehend beauty in a certain form, composers have a duty to show them otherwise.
Selectors too!

I honestly had not formed an opinion about a controversy which would leave endgame composers under this completely unfair cloud.
I am primarily a fairy composer -- this probably wouldn't impact me for many years -- not (yet) my business, right?

I thank all those who contributed to this thread for helping me to remember what constitutes art, and for reintroducing me to the moral of a story I have long treasured, and often retold.

I only hope this forum helps judges, and selectors, to better remember why we are here.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3858
(26) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jun 18, 2009 09:36]

 QUOTE 
Months ago, I was telling my 7-year old neice a revealing story about a major worldwide art contest, which promised to have entries from scores of the greatest artists of the day.

[..]

It was won by a child who painted nothing more than a solid red circle on a white background -- essentially the flag of Japan.


Reminds me of - already posted in another thread - the story of "art needs an audience".

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bell.asp
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007040401721.html
http://www.milanvel.net/mp/snapshot/rescbody.php?fid=gen&tid=489
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=489
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3859
(27) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Friday, Jun 19, 2009 00:09]; edited by Arpad Rusz [09-06-19]

Árpád Rusz
-original-
(= 3+2 )

Win
1.Kf2 Rh5 [1...Kd3 2.Rf4+-] 2.Kg3 Rg5+ 3.Kf4! Rh5 4.Ra8! Kd3 [4...Rxh2 5.Ra2++-] 5.h3! Rh7 [5...Rxh3 6.Ra3++-] 6.Kg5! Ke4 7.h4 Rg7+ 8.Kf6 Rh7 9.Kg6! Rxh4 10.Ra4+ +-

Or a version which is a twin for Kevin's position (he has Ke5/Kf2):
Árpád Rusz
-version-
(= 4+2 )

Win

1.h5! Rb5+ 2.Ke4 Rxh5 3.Kf4! [3.Kf3? Kd3 4.Kg3 Ke4 5.Ra4+ Kf5 6.Ra5+ Kg6=] 3...Kd3 [3...Rxh2 4.Ra2++-] 4.h3! Rh7 [4...Rxh3 5.Ra3++-] 5.Kg5! Ke4 6.h4 Rg7+ 7.Kf6 Rh7 8.Kg6! Rxh4 9.Ra4+ +-

Sadly, the final Kg6! is not unique (but it is the fastest win), Ra4 and Ra5 are also winning moves.
The question is: can be Kevin's and my study combined to one study with two variations?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3863
(28) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 22, 2009 11:10]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-22]

Using the EGTB, I discovered a cook in a Kovalenko study...

V.Kovalenko, source?, 1979
(= 3+2 )

Black to move, White wins. (cooked).

see PID=18440 @ http://www.endgame.tu2.ru/

The solution went:
1...Bh7+ 2.Kh6! Bc2 3.Be6 Bg6 4.Kg5! Be8 5.Kf5 Kh7 etc, and he'd claimed 2.Kg5? drawn as follows:
2.Kg5? Bd3! 3.Bd5 Kh7 4.Kf4 Kh6 5.Ke5 Bg6 6.Ke6 Kg5 7.Ke7 Kf4 8.Bf7 Bc2 9.Be8 Bb3 10.Bd7 Ke5

In fact, 2.Kg5 is won, and after realizing what Kovalenko must have overlooked, I took it upon myself to make this into a study...

Kevin Begley (after V.Kovalenko)
Original
(= 3+2 )

White wins.

1.Kg5 ...Bd3 (1) (1.Kxg6? ...Kxg8 =; 1.B~? ...Bf7! =; 1...Kxg8 2.Kxg6 +-)
2.Be6! ...Bg6 (2.B~? ...Kh7! =)
3.Bd5 (2) ...Kh7 (3.Kxg6?? stalemate =)
4.Bg8+ ...Kh8 (4...Kxg8 5.Kxg6 +-)
5.Be6! (3) ...Be8 (5.Kxg6? ...Kxg8 =; 5...B~ 6.Kf4 +-)
6.Kf5 +-

(1) Reaching nearly the position claimed drawn from the Kovalenko study (but wB on g8, not f7). Indeed, despite the slight difference, Kovalenko's study can be won in the same fashion.

(2) Some minor duals here: 3.Ba2 or 3.Bb3 or 3.Bc4 also suffice, but I do not consider 3.K~ to be a dual, as it only wastes time in what must transpose back to the text.

(3) Returning to the position after black's second, having achieved only the loss of an important tempi.

I realize that themes are not punctuated in studies, but it is interesting that, of the five-men used, three perform switchbacks in the main line, and one performs a double-switchback.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3873
(29) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Monday, Jun 22, 2009 16:25]; edited by Arpad Rusz [09-06-22]

I have found this:

J.Nunn
Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings
1995
(= 3+2 )

Win

1.Bc7 mutual zugzwang (this is exactly Kovalenko's position but mirrored) 1...Ba7+ 2.Kb5! (Nunn gives the correct solution, and says that 2.Ka6 Bc5 3.Kb5 Bf2 is longer) 2...Bf2 3.Bd6! [3.Bf4? Ka7! 4.Bd6 Be1! (4...Bh4? 5.Kc5 Ka6 6.Bf4 Be7+ 7.Kd5 Bd8 8.Kd6 Kb5 9.Kd7 Ba5 10.Bc7 Be1 11.Bd8 Bg3 12.Be7 Kc4 13.Bd6+-) 5.Kc5 Ka6 (or 5...Ba5 6.Bf4 Ka6) 6.Bf4 Ba5 7.Kd6 Kb5 8.Kd7 Kc4 9.Bc7 Be1 10.Bd8 Bg3 11.Be7 Kd5=] 3...Bb6! 4.Bf4 [4.Kxb6? stalemate; or 4.Be5 ; 4.Bg3; 4.Bh2] 4...Ka7 [4...Ba7 5.Bg3 Bb6 6.Bd6+-; 4...Bf2 5.Kc4 Ka7 6.Kd5 Ka6 7.Kd6 (7.Ke6) 7...Bb6 8.Kd7 Kb5 9.Bc7 Bg1 10.Bd8 Bh2 11.Be7 Kc4 12.Bd6+-] 5.Bb8+! Ka8 6.Bd6 Bd8 [6...Ka7 7.Bc5+-; 6...Bf2 7.Kc4 Bb6 8.Kd5+-] 7.Kc5 Ka7 8.Bf4 Be7+ 9.Kd5 Bd8 10.Kd6 [10.Ke6] 10...Kb6 11.Kd7 Kb5 12.Bg3 Ba5 13.Bc7 Be1 14.Bd8 Bg3 15.Be7 Kc4 16.Bd6 1–0

Nunn says "The position after Black's fourth move is identical to a study by Horwitz (1880), so he deserves much of the credit for the analysis..." He doesn't mention Kovalenko's position.
Anyway, it seems like Kevin's study is totally anticipated. Sorry! :)

And finally I have tried to create my own version, by adding a Reti manoeuvre:

(= 3+2 )

Win
1.Kb3 Ka7 2.Kc4 Bb6 [2...Kb6 3.c7 Kb7 4.Kxd4+-] 3.Kb5 [3.Bc5? Ka6=] 3...Bd8 [3...Bf2 4.Bc5++-] 4.Bh2 [Thematic try: 4.Kc5? Ba5 5.Bf4 Ka6 6.Kd6 Kb5 7.Kd7 Kc4 8.Bc7 Be1 9.Bd8 Bg3 10.Be7 Kd5=] 4...Bb6 5.Bb8+! Ka8! [5...Kxb8 6.Kxb6 Kc8 7.c7–+ zz] 6.Bd6 [6.Kxb6? Kxb8 zz 7.c7+ Kc8 zz 8.Kc6 stalemate] 6...Bd8 7.Kc5 Ka7 8.Bf4 Ka6 9.Kd6 Kb5 10.Kd7 Ba5 11.Bc7 Be1 12.Bd8 Bg3 13.Be7 Kc4 14.Bd6 1–0
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3874
(30) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 22, 2009 22:29]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-22]

> 1.Bc7 mutual zugzwang (this is exactly Kovalenko's position but mirrored) 1...Ba7+ 2.Kb5! (Nunn gives the correct solution, and says that 2.Ka6 ...

Actually, no, Nunn is incorrect -- 2.Ka6 is also won, as Kovalenko had already correctly demonstrated.
Strangely, they both came to the same position, and each thought the other solution was incorrect.
In fact, both solutions are correct.

[EDIT: I had misread this completely, overlooking that Nunn indeed claimed that 2.Ka6 is won, though I find it highly strange that he built his study with two variations.]

>Anyway, it seems like Kevin's study is totally anticipated. Sorry! :)

Nunn had the idea first, but, his study is flatly cooked by Kovalenko's win.
So, my problem *might* be the first sound version to show the idea.

Does that still leave me totally anticipated (can you be anticipated by a cooked problem?), or does this change my problem to K.B.(after Nunn and Kovalenko)?

[EDIT: see later post, I think mine is probably a version, or correction, of Nunn's problem.]
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3882
(31) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Jun 22, 2009 22:35]

Nunn says that Ka6 wins, but is longer. So he is correct.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=3883
(32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 22, 2009 22:39]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-22]

Ahhh, I misread the thing completely.
Nevermind, Nunn had it correct, and I am indeed completely anticipated by Nunn.

However, it is highly unusual to make a study with two winning variations (not minor duals here!).
So, I think maybe that leaves my problem as merely a correction (or a version) of Nunn's, even though Nunn's "study" is not correct as a study (in fact, it seems incorrect by design!).

edit: to Joost, yes, Nunn is indeed correct, Kb5 = win in 26, Ka6 = win in 27.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=3884

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

MatPlus.Net Forum General Has this KRPP vs kr endgame been composed?