Website founded by Milan Velimirović in 2006
23:17 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net Forum General How to publish a study of EGTBs? |
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | (1) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Tuesday, Mar 23, 2010 23:10] | How to publish a study of EGTBs? The method on a moving story with “penance way” seems not to be that good.
I propose a better one. You must pin to your study a note e.g.
“I was working at the position many years ago. I hadn’t published it, because I was not able to check the correctness. Now, I can confirm the solution by EGTBs.”
It should be enough for a judge to recognize it as original work. | | (2) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Mar 24, 2010 03:22] | This thread was meant to be a joke, but its name is quite suitable for one of the several serious questions coming from the EGTB discussions: How the solutions of the EGTB based studies should be written and explained.
I was impressed how my feelings about the Georgy's endgame radically changed after he added lingual comments to the solution. The crucial position has its story, and, when narrated well, it deserves to be presented to human beings.
I don't worry about the moral questions of using EGTB when it produces something nice. Beauty doesn't call for excuses. However, we could love only what we understand. The inherent drawback of new EGTB positions is that they bring out what Man couldn't comprehend.
The mentioned masterpieces by Barbe/Saavedra and N. Grigoriev have no essential relations to the EGTB results. Both this positions could be solved, and understood by millions of chess lovers, and that's why they are loved so much. They keep attracting new generations with their naive outlook, while the most EGTB products discourage solvers. What composer couldn't solve himself, shouldn't be offered to anyone else for solving. It is about the same with long helpmates and selfmates in recent solving competitions, giving more suffering than pleasure to most competitors. Contrary to the idea of the Loyd vs. Steintz duel, the Computer (in the cloth of Human) vs. Human is surely a humiliating duel.
Back to the title of this thread, EGTB results should really be published with some notes, as Marek suggested. Instead of many boring lines of tries, an author's story is needed, with some nice words, if he wants to share his enthusiasm with wider audience.
For instance, I would like very much to see here Jean-Marc's analyses of the study he devoted hundreds of hours. If he shares a part of his experience with us, we may begin to like more the R vs BB ending, and his examples, too. Even if we don't like the outcome, we would surely enjoy sharing author's excitement in the process of creation. | | (3) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Wednesday, Mar 24, 2010 05:01] | Thanks Marjan! I hope the night is still long enough for you. | | (4) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Wednesday, Mar 24, 2010 09:13]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [10-03-24] | Marjan, maybe your feelings would change again if the Georgy's endgame is explained by a study specialist. He would say that the final choice of Rg5! is darkened by waste-of-time duals Rg3 and Rg2. These duals are not a thing to be proud of. If the author considers them as a part of his idea then it's a rotten idea. | | (5) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Wednesday, Mar 24, 2010 17:35]; edited by Jean-Marc Loustau [10-03-24] | Marjan, thank you for the interest that you show for my study: I agree that a good writing annotated solution is desirable. I'm not sure I'll do it here for several reasons: First, it remains a relatively analytic study, moreover with a relatively long solution, and I doubt that this is the place to do it; also, even if I have all the elements, making a clear synthesis takes some work, may be not huge, but I have very little free time, at least in the coming months. As this answer is not very satisfactory, I would add the following remarks:
1) I have already done this kind of work for 2 of my studies with the same material (2 very close studies, justifying to show them together), and I published an article in Phenix in 2009, "Deux études", a somewhat long article but I think very "readable" and allowing (I hope) to get a satisfactory understanding (these studies are not less difficult than the one of the Gurgenidze Jubilee). This article is in french, but I chose one of these studies for publication in english in the recent book by Gerhard Josten ("A study, a piece”). The theme of this study is at least as interesting as the Jubilee Gurgenidze, a duel between the Rook and one of the Bishops and several successive Roman themes. You can therefore refer to one or the other, knowing that these writing can certainly be improved.
2) I intend to present the study of the Jubilee Gurgenidze in an article, or perhaps in a book with other studies with the same material. However, for the reasons I said before, it will not be soon!
3) I can give here (in few days), if you wish, only a few key-principles (without too many details) to obtain a better understanding of this study, after the black move h4-h3; indeed the main content of the study takes place after the Pawn has played on h3, the previous moves being an introductory play that I find interesting, but apart from a positional draw and 1 or 2 good moves, it has not a very significant thematic content. However I do not know if this post where we discuss general matters is the proper place to deal with this… | | (6) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Mar 24, 2010 20:31]; edited by Marjan Kovačević [10-03-24] | Sergiy, my evaluation of the endgame did decrease (a bit) after Hauke's remark on the time-losing duals, but my attention didn't. With his comments, the author managed to catch my ATTENTION, and this is the topic I wanted to raise.
The following sentence from Georgy's comment translates EGTB "knowledge" into Human language: "But black have only three good squares for the knight and white have fourth: 7.Rg5!!"
From this sentence (explaining 3 x duel R vs S, and 3 x S vs. R), one learns the author's excitement and the principle of the battle. It may be questionable if this position belongs to Georgy (or to Chess itself), but he is surely the author of the sentence that explains his involvement. Also, it is not the quality of the endgame that trills me. It is an excitement about the inner harmony of the Chess Game, where minimal advantage of White gets formula: one square more + the Switchback ability of a line Piece vs. S.
(Besides, the Georgy's sentence above is absolutely true, in spite of mention duals. Without this extra field for WR there is no solution. White may repeat the position, but finally has to move from g1 to g5).
Jean-Marc, thanks for the comments you announced. Sometimes even one sentence could do! Most EGTB analyses (as well as other too difficult solutions) appear hermetic, as a dialog between only two persons: the author and the judge. However, if the composer reveals some of his conclusions, or teaches us some principles of the position, the joy becomes open to many more people. (The principles of Opposition made difficult Pawn endings much more popular, and the Troickiy line is most of what we know about SS vs. P).
I promise to share a part of my own experience with a difficult endgame that was mostly solved, rather than composed. Perhaps the best place for such analyses would be the "Show me your problem" section. | | (7) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Mar 25, 2010 07:58] | (= 4+2 )
White to move and win
SH, original
1.a4? Rxa4 2.Rxa4 stalemate
1.Kg1? Rg5+ 2.Kf2 wins, but 1...Ra3! 2.Kh1 Ra4 3.a3 Rd4 4.a4 Rxa4 5.Rxa4 stalemate
So:
1.a3!! Ra4 2.Ra2 (dual (minor?): 2.Kg1) Ra5 3.Kg1 Rg5+ 4.Kf1 and white wins.
Should be humanly understandable but this does not make it a study. Let's call it a theoretical endgame in the style of André Chéron. | | (8) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Thursday, Mar 25, 2010 17:22] | It is correct to say that Georgy found a very nice idea but the setting is yet to be found because anything based on duals has no value. Human creativity is needed, tablebases won't help here. | | (9) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Friday, Mar 26, 2010 12:59] | @Marjan: ok, as you wish some explanations, I do want to write something here. But as I said before I am very very busy, and as I have nothing written by now, it could take some time (also for translation, as I am not very fluent)… So I cannot say exactly when, but it could be next week or much later, my last dead line being end of May because I hope I will have some time in May. Today I plan to write different successive posts:
1) some general and basic principles
2) the (very easy) case of Pawn on 2nd rank
3) the case of Pawn on 3rd rank
4) an example with my study from Gurgenidze JT (after move h4-h3)
5) the case of Pawn on 4th rank
6) the Pawn on 5th rank or above
But may be 5) and 6) could be only 1 post; or may be I will not take the time for writing them, depending also of previous posts… Also may be posts 3) or 4) could be divided in 2, depending of what I put in them (examples…). May be also 2) is useless, may be not…
Such is my intention, and if I don’t promise anything (sorry!), I sincerely hope nevertheless I will do it! | | (10) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Saturday, Mar 27, 2010 18:46] | Jean-Marc, this looks as complex and ambitious task. Now I see that you need a lot of time and work for this, but we could wait until you are ready, there's no time limit at all! Also, after writing Part a), the reactions could guide you. Anyway, even with the picture of Pawn moving rank by rank through your plan, you gave us something to think about. | | (11) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Monday, Mar 29, 2010 15:49] | Since my post was recognized as a joke, I will try to amuse again.
Jean-Marc Loustau
The Problemist 2009
(= 2+4 ) win
1. Rb6+ Kd7 2. Ka4 Bc7 (variant b) 3. Ra6 Bd1+ 4. Ka3 Bd8 5. Ra7+ Kc6 6.Ka2 a4 7. Ka3 Bg5 8. Rf7 (1x) Bc1+ 9. Kb4 Bd2+ 10. Ka3 Bg5 11. Kb4 Bd2+ 12. Ka3 Bc1+ 13. Kb4 Bg5 14. Ka3 (2x) Bb3 15. Ra7 Bd1 16. Rf7 (3x) Bc2 17.....
Can a threefold repetition of same position become a dual? | | (12) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Mar 29, 2010 20:36] | Amusing is only that you write "win" instead of draw, because then there is no dual. There was this discussion in "Ausgerechnete: Endspiele" coming to the conclusion that the threefold repetition draw rule does not apply to studies.
(Note: It might apply, like 50 move rule, if there is retrograde content) | | (13) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Monday, Mar 29, 2010 21:14] | I hope you are right. | | (14) Posted by Steven Dowd [Monday, Mar 29, 2010 21:45] | Siegfried said:
"There was this discussion in "Ausgerechnete: Endspiele" coming to the conclusion that the threefold repetition draw rule does not apply to studies."
This seems like an extraordinarily bad conclusion. What is the justification for same? | | (15) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Mar 29, 2010 23:48]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [10-03-29] | On the study of Visokosov in 64-Shakmatnoe Obozrenie 1997, 2nd prize, Hörning and Josten claimed in issue 12 of "Ausgerechnete: Endspiele" that the study is incorrect because on the 17th move a threefold repetition has occured.
John Roycroft replied to that column:
Meine liebenswürdigen Herren! This issue of ER arrived here this morning, and of course, I turn first your section, which is always interesting.
[..]
For three-fold repetition to be a draw, someone must claim it! In a study there is no "player" to make such a claim! The same point arises with the 50-move rule. The sad situation is that in these two respects studies and the game no longer follow the same rules. I repeat, the rift between studies and the game is deeply regrettable. (Diagram EG 133.11336 is the Visokosov.)
To which Hörning and Josten reply:
Warum sollen die allgemeinen Schachregeln der FIDE bei Studien nicht gelten?
[..]
John sagt selber, dass er diese eigenartige Kluft zutiefst bedauert. Zu Recht! Wir als Löser der Studie machen jedenfalls die Zugwiederholung geltend. We are claiming!
Here is the study (by the way, please note that 64 was mistakenly given by Hörning and Josten instead of 64-Shakmatnoe Obozrenie) that is talked about:
(= 6+6 )
Andrey Visokosov
64-Shakmatnoe Obozrenie 1997, 2nd prize
White to move and draw
1.Bxb3 Sd1! 2.Be6+ Kb8 3.Bd4! Bxh2 4.Bg4 Bxc2 5.Kc5! Kc7! 6.Kd5! Bb3+ 7.Kc5! Bc2 8.Kd5! Kb7 9.Kc4! Ka6 10.Kb4! Bd6+ 11.Kc4 Bh2 12.Kb4! Kb7 13.Kc4 Kc6! 14.Ba7! Ba4 15.Kb4 Bc2 16.Kc4 Kb7 17.Bd4 Kc6 18.Ba7 Kc7! 19.a4! Bxa4 20.Kd3 Kc6 21.Kd2 Bf4+ 22.Kd3! Sb2+ 23.Kc3! Be5+ 24.Kb4 Bd6+ 25.Kc3! Be5+ 26.Kb4 Bh2 27.Kc3! Sd1+ 28.Kd2 Bf4+ 29.Kd3! draws.
A very impressive study with a full-board (or rather 3/4-board) positional draw! | | (16) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Tuesday, Mar 30, 2010 11:02]; edited by Jean-Marc Loustau [10-03-30] | A line of play of positional Draw is there only to show as clearly as possible the dynamics behind it, and the way of writing the line(s) of play is purely conventional. If, for this purpose, the same position must be shown 3 times or even more, why not! It is always possible to rewrite the solution with variations, but this may affect the clarity and thus the understanding (particularly when the positional draw is inside a much longer line of play).
For example, let us call A the repeated the position, and assume that from A we can reach, according to the black move, a position (or a set of positions) B or C which will be followed in the 2 cases by a return to A: If you want to show off the balances of the A position, it will often be clearer and more attractive to write the solution:
A -> B -> A -> C ->A, instead of:
A and If variation 1: B -> A
If variation 2: C -> A
And we can obviously extend this observation by considering other positions D, E...
So, I do not see where the problem is, and I think I've already seen several (many) such cases (but I particularly like the intention of making people laugh with one of my studies).
By the way, Siegfried, I like very much the study you show! | | (17) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Tuesday, Mar 30, 2010 16:19]; edited by Marek Kwiatkowski [10-03-30] | John Roycroft:
For three-fold repetition to be a draw, someone must claim it! In a study there is no "player" to make such a claim! The same point arises with the 50-move rule.
The rules:
Article 17 - 50 Moves-Rule
Unless expressly stipulated, the 50 moves-rule does not apply to the solution of chess compositions except for retro-problems.
Me:
Who claims it in retro-problems?
The rules:
Article 18 - Repetition of Position
A position is considered as a draw if it can be proved that an identical position [21] has occured three times in the proof game combined with the solution.
Me:
This point does not regard studies. In my opinion, it would be good to add an article. (WCCT-judges!)
By the way: my intention was never a laugh of any composition. | | No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General How to publish a study of EGTBs? |
|
|
|