Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:34 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General best chess problem definition of "aristocrat"? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Monday, Nov 11, 2013 05:29] | best chess problem definition of "aristocrat"?
Is a problem aristocratic or does it have aristocratic construction? And to quote the late Soupy Sales, "what do we mean by that?!"
| | | (2) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Nov 11, 2013 06:11] |
Hi Eugene. I recall seeing a definition of "aristocrat" in an issue of either "The Problemist" or "British Chess Magazine" from the 1960s: it stated that a problem is aristocratic if it had exactly 8+8=16 pieces and no pawns.
| | | (3) Posted by Michael McDowell [Monday, Nov 11, 2013 09:23] |
I think it was Otto Dehler who coined the term "aristocrat" in the 1930s, specifically to describe a problem containing all 16 pieces and no pawns. It amuses me how some commentators never fail to use the word, no matter how few pieces there are on the board. You often see the silly term "aristocratic miniature" - as if it was unusual for a position with less than 8 pieces to contain no pawns. There seems to be a view that something becomes more important if you can stick a name to it. "Aristocratic" sounds so much more impressive than "pawnless". Maybe it makes the commentator feel more authoritative. I see nothing noteworthy in the fact that a position contains no pawns. A problem containing all 16 pieces and no pawns will catch the eye, but it is just a feature, not content, and one that is surely accidental. I cannot imagine that anyone has ever deliberately set out to compose such a problem.
| | | (4) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 11, 2013 10:11] |
Sorry Michael,
I must say that I thought till now that "aristocratic" meant "pawnless". Without knowing that it needs also 16 pièces !
So, perhaps, I used this term in an inappropriate way.
I beg your pardon.
However, I can explain why :
As far as you think that this term exists, when you want to underline that a diagram has a special quality bound its pawnless position, you may say :
"it is aristocratic !"
instead of
"it is pawnless and this is here specially nice !"
because "aristocratic" is a word of positive value it means more than "pawnless" which is only a description.
After a small search on internet, I could find that this mistake is quite usual and you find in many places "Aristocratic means pawnless !"
So now, what shall we do ?
| | | (5) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Nov 11, 2013 15:17] |
The PDB keyword "Aristocrat" refers to a pawnless position.
I see no reason to not use the term in such a manner, no matter what Dehler's original intent is. It does seem a bit odd when you see a 5+2 selfmate with only one black piece and four white ones defined as an aristocrat when "minimal" makes more sense as a classification.
The only wholly incorrect use of the term in my opinion is when, for example, in a selfmate, you see the term "White Aristocrat." I used the term that way a few times myself (based on what I had seen) until I realized it was silly.
And then there is the oddity of describing positions with pawns only as "kindergarten." And finally, Joaquim Crusats uses the term "plebeian" (I believe) to describe a position with white pieces versus black pawns and held a tourney for this on superproblem.
| | | (6) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Monday, Nov 11, 2013 16:07] |
did Kniest coin the term kindergarten?
| | | (7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Nov 14, 2013 23:29]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-11-14] |
I agree with Jacques, that "pawnless" has the wrong connotation; thus, "aristocratic" is the better term.
The term "kindergarten" is give & take...
I also agree with Michael, that applying this term to a diagram can seem nearly as arbitrary as the term "Meredith" (or "Miniature"); however, I can not take Michael seriously, when he claims that the achievement of such terms does not constitute any "artistic content."
It is demonstrably false to suggest that the achievement of such specific patterns are purely accidental.
Yes, composers actually do deliberately focus on presenting such thematic patterns -- and they rightly declare it to be an artistic endeavor.
Such a bounded view of art (and the proselytic proliferation of its exclusionary dogma) is long, long outdated -- neither chess nor art can survive as a game without frontiers.
It would be incredibly gullible, indeed, to imagine that artistic content can only exist within a rigid frame.
The beauty of both chess and art, was always to cheat your eyes.
Consider the popular letter themes, for example -- are these any less arbitrary?
Forget that they depend completely upon arbitrary conventions (within the frame of an arbitrary move notation).
Just ask yourself: is there anything inherently artistic about this arbitrary letter arrangement pattern?
No -- of course there isn't -- the beauty of patterns is only something inherent (thank evolution!) within our own "pattern sifters."
You could as easily declare that "switchbacks" are just a pattern, not an inherently beautiful theme... and, by extension, the Rundlauf constitutes no inherent "artistic content," either.
Eventually, your Forsbergs will fall (along with your AUWs, and your Babsons too) -- all were built upon the same foundation...
Remember: we are talking about "artistic content" expressed in the puzzle from of an arbitrary game, with arbitrary pieces shifting on an arbitrarily sized, two-dimensional board, according to a completely arbitrary set of (still evolving) rules! And, within this tiny, tiny niche of the artistic universe, I find it incredible that there are lifeforms fighting to exclude everything passed the scope of their own arbitrary horizon.
Sometimes, the artistic content is all about fitting the frame.
Look online for the smallest painting of a chessboard -- here is artistic content, for no reason other than it fits a remarkable frame.
Better to appreciate art (and chess, and puzzles) by the beauty which you must yet struggle to see.
| | | (8) Posted by Michael McDowell [Friday, Nov 15, 2013 08:46]; edited by Michael McDowell [13-11-15] |
Nowhere did I mention "artistic content". I said that there is nothing unusual about a problem with less than 8 pieces containing no pawns. I meant "unusual" in the sense of such positions being rarely composed.
If people see some artistic value in a position having no pawns then I'm happy for them. Each of us decides for himself what he finds interesting. There are plenty of cases where the modern problemist finds content in an old problem which would not have interested the original composer in the slightest. In fact you don't have to go back to the old timers. I submitted two entries to a #2 tourney a few years ago, and considered A far superior to B. Both problems made the award, but the judge placed B higher, describing it as an example of a theme I had never heard of (it doesn't feature in the Valtonen/Velimirovic Encyclopaedia), and would certainly never have set out to show, as it seems to me completely uninteresting. What was particularly hilarious was that I had tried and failed to eliminate a certain variation which I thought spoiled the problem a little, but was vital to this "theme"! I feel sure the problem got its award because the judge was able to add a fancy name.
(PS On checking one of Niemeijer's books I find it was Halumbirek who coined the term "aristocrat" not Dehler.)
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Nov 16, 2013 04:20]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-11-16] |
@Michael,
>"A problem containing all 16 pieces and no pawns will catch the eye, but it is just a feature, not content..."
Kindly explain what you meant by the term, "content" (if you didn't mean "artistic content").
I expect you see Chess Problems as an art -- so, to what other type of "content" can you be referring?
Thematic content is just jargon for artistic content.
All thematic (artistic) content is based upon patterns.
No pattern is inherently immune from being misconstrued as a mere constraint.
Therefore, I am reluctant to discard ANY thematic pattern as merely an arbitrary "feature."
The objective judge of art must suppose that the artist has self-imposed (whether consciously or otherwise -- There are no accidents!) the full observable set of arbitrary constraints.
Only within this context can you properly assess the aesthetic quality of these simple choices.
Everything should depend upon the creativity of your frame, and how well you fit.
Unfortunately, many problem judges will instead weigh your work according to how well you fit their own (typically inherited) frame.
Rewards based upon such a exclusionary (and non-holistic) philosophy are corrosive to the spirit of imaginative exploration.
There is nothing "paradoxical" about mining for patterns of known reward.
When was problem chess downgraded to a competition of pattern mining techniques?
That is a false frontier.
Beauty (artistic content) exists where you find it; and, you may find it everywhere (even in the quaintest pattern of an arbitrary constraint).
A little chaos theory helped me to appreciate the complexity of simple patterns; but, if you don't like math, consider the simple mechanism of genetic evolution (which explains the most complex patterns in the known universe).
No pattern has an inherent superiority -- whether you prefer mate patterns (Bohemians), or cyclical move patterns (Cyclones), or economical patterns (miniatures, aristocrats, etc), the quality of your work will depend upon how creative you were in expressing contextual beauty.
It may be considered offensive to offhandedly dismiss the aesthetic preferences of another problem composer, as something other than "content."
Please, don't do that.
| | | (10) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, Nov 16, 2013 09:51]; edited by Joost de Heer [13-11-18] |
=
| | | (11) Posted by Michael McDowell [Monday, Nov 18, 2013 08:10] |
Content = what happens when the pieces move. Pawnlessness is just a feature of a position.
Kevin,
It may be considered offensive to write in a patronising manner simply because someone holds a view you don't agree with.
Please, don't do that.
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Nov 19, 2013 10:08]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-11-19] |
>"It may be considered offensive to write in a patronising manner simply because someone holds a view you don't agree with. Please, don't do that."
There there. I've stopped. Are we happy, now? hehe. Just kidding.
If I was patronizing to you, Michael, in any way, I didn't intend to be; and, I'm sorry that you took offense.
I find it rather difficult to help remind adults that they have mistaken the meaning of "thematic content."
No, not all themes are based upon the movement patterns of the pieces.
Your view of art may need some modernizing (and, I mean that in the nicest possible way -- like to remind you there's a software update well overdue).
Painting using cubes, for example, is NOT merely a technique.
The form can be the story, if this is something that the composer wants to communicate to the audience.
Why do you try to interrupt that process, with the imposition of an exclusionary attack, based entirely upon nothing more than carving out your own subjective preferences?
You do not get to play "the decider" (of what is, and is not, thematic content).
I am sorry that it seems so damn condescending, when somebody reminds you of this plain truth: thematic (and artistic) content is WHAT THE COMPOSER SAYS IT IS (and what the audience enjoys).
It is not based upon the stone tablets of Michael McDowell.
So, don't bother coming down from your lofty mountain with dictates about artistic content.
Composers have a new covenant.
It does not benefit you, or the problem chess community, to wildly carve away at the honest artistic value of works done by composers who don't share your preferences.
So, pretty please, with sugar on top, stop proselytising these mean-spirited (and false) commandments.
Let the works speak for themselves.
| | | (13) Posted by Steven Dowd [Thursday, Nov 21, 2013 02:33] |
It seems to me that trying to separate position and content is rather like separating strategy and tactics in the game - you can do it, but there are many times in which they overlap. Surely the start position signals content?
I am not sure it is worth a lot of discussion (we'll end up in one of those "angels on the head of a pin" or "der Kaiser's Bart" situations) but thanks to both Michael and Kevin for giving me something to think about whenever I compose or look at other authors' problems. My good friend Henry Tanner often sends me similar "think pieces" regarding chess problems and their conventions; they are good things to think about when I am laid up with a migraine.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General best chess problem definition of "aristocrat"? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
