Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
11:37 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Of The Standard of Taste |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (21) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Friday, Aug 27, 2010 00:06] |
Gerhard, I can give you two studies (not games). Everyone who knows what chess composition is will easily see which one is better and which is worse. This proves universal standard of taste.
Probably you only speak about tastes and composition of different styles, all of them of high standard (you willingly forget about bad examples and say that philosophers are wrong!). In that case it’s much harder to say that one composition is better than another. David Hume described who and how can do it. Even if all of us never get the perfect assessment of quality, this doesn’t contradict the existence of a perfect standard: some are closer to it, others say that there are no better tastes.
| | | (22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Aug 27, 2010 02:14]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-08-27] |
Gerhard,
"My opinion is still: It doesn't make any sense to discuss on the quality of art - philosophers included."
The zenith of the chess problem art form will have passed, at the very moment we stop discussing "the quality of art."
There can be no end to our conversations about what makes a chess problem beautiful...
But, let us not conflate endless with pointless.
Both Hume and Kant make clear that there is good value in having particular standards of taste, and in discussing them.
| | | (23) Posted by Gerhard Josten [Friday, Aug 27, 2010 18:36] |
So let us take an example:
Yuri Bazlov achieved a 5th Prize in the Nunn-50JT, 2005 with this study:
 h7,  g6, g2,  b7,  f7,  g5,  g4.
However, this work has been granted by the PCCC "The Study of the Year award for 2005".
(The program for the diagram didn't accept the black knight on f6.)
| | | (24) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Aug 27, 2010 18:51]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [10-08-27] |
This might be because N is not officially supported for knight. Try S instead. In FEN, however, N can be used.
 (= 3+4 )
S:  
N:
Interestingly, the win in a sideline I analysed (after 1.Kg7?) is far from trivial.
 (= 3+4 )
White to move, black wins (analysis)
1.Sd3?! Sd4+ is an ideal position for black, but white can play 1.Sh5! Sd2+! 2.Ke2 Se4 3.Kf3 Ke5 4.Kg4 when black can crack the white fortress by bringing his king to f2, for example:
4...Kd5 5.Sf4+ Kd4 6.Sh5 Kd3! 7.Kf3 Sd2+ 8.Kg4 Sf1 9.Kh3 Be1 10.Kg4 Ke3 11.Kh3 Kf2 and black wins, or 9.Kf3 Bc5 10.Sxg3 Sh2+ 11.Kf4 Bd6+ and black wins, else the win with the black bishop protecting the pawn from behind is trivial.
| | | (25) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Saturday, Aug 28, 2010 07:58] |
PCCC have always claimed that 'Study of the Year' is not the best study but best for promotion of the study composition.
That's why there's no big divergeance in the evaluation of the Bazlov.
But if you wanna know whose tastes are better you should have better feelings (born and developped through practice and learning) of quality than Nunn and PCCC or trust someone who has.
Nunn awarded the 1st prize to Pervakov in this tourney, it was the strongest study indeed and even better for promotion. That's why if you ask me, I'll tell you that Nunn has better taste than this incognito who hides behind PCCC label.
| | | (26) Posted by Gerhard Josten [Sunday, Aug 29, 2010 11:38] |
Sergiy,
do you remember the MT Attila Schneider and your comment?
4.6 Sergiy Didukh
Tuesday, July 25th 2006
First of all, I want to thank the organizers of this tourney. Unfortunately, it didn’t gather many participants. But the overall level of entries was neither too bad nor too good.
It’s not surprising that judges’ verdicts differed. The bad thing is we have this big divergence in points not because of the different methods of study evaluation or else because of our different experience in judging tourneys. The true reason is rather depressive – composers understand classic established in the course of the history of chess composition) artistic standards in their own way. To my mind, the obvious violation/ignorance of some basic artistic criteria took place. Blinded by the sunny side of the study some judges didn’t care much for bugs in the butter.
This tourney let us all witness the sad reality. Most studies double up material that is necessary for the main idea. It’s a slap in the face of economy. Some others have long or analytical side-variations, and the clarity of the main idea fades.
I hardly refrain myself from giving advices (you see I was born in the «country of advices» /in Russian «советы» 1. soviet power, 2. advice./) but, please, when judging or composing do weigh pluses against artistic flaws.
| | | (27) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Aug 29, 2010 15:42] |
Whereas I'm not as ultimate as Gerhard on the case of "judging art",
I'm willingly admitting science direly lacks a Art-O-Meter (pat. pend.)
which could solve our problems. When it comes to *subjective*
judgement, the case might not be as hopeless as it seems, though.
When I saw (random example is raaaaandom) the episode "Propaganda"
of "Babylon 52, and Sheridan just turned off the TV (instead of firing
an RPG into it for example) at the end, that was an Crowning Moment of Awesome
(as defined on TVTropes). I knew without a doubt possible:
That. Was. Art.
And obviously, that intensive feeling might have shown in a PET scan or suchlike.
Thus, an Subjective-Art-O-Meter (pat. pend.) might as well be feasible
(albeit somewhat unpractical if you are a judge; also the experiment
probably isn't reproducible either). *If* we would have such a gizmo,
the obvious next step would be to compare the subjective ratings
of a lot of people. Are they influenced by immutal laws (shades of
Johannes Berger)? Or just following fads? Science still has much work to do...
Hauke
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General Of The Standard of Taste |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
