Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:57 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Unto Heinonen MT |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Jorma Paavilainen [Thursday, Nov 10, 2022 18:59] | Unto Heinonen MT
The Finnish Chess Problem Society announces Unto Heinonen Memorial Tourney for series-movers, free theme, in two sections.
A. problems without fairy elements
B. problems with fairy conditions and/or fairy pieces
Allowed stipulations are direct mates or stalemates, helpmates or helpstalemates and selfmates or selfstalemates.
Entries via email to Tournament Director Neal Turner: nealturnerfinland<at>hotmail.com
The closing date is April 30th, 2023. The judge is Hans Gruber.
For more details, see
https://www.tehtavaniekat.fi/index.php/uh-mt/
Please reprint!
| | | (2) Posted by Joose Norri [Sunday, Feb 5, 2023 11:46] |
It is peculiar that series reflexmates are not allowed. Such a problem, the type of which Unto did quite a few, have to be presented as selfmates with a reflex condition. They then belong to section B, which is OK, but perhaps the wording might have been better.
| | | (3) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Feb 7, 2023 14:36] |
Yes, of course the Reflex condition will be accepted in the fairy section, as will the weird stipulations that the series-mover fraternity seem to delight in.
| | | (4) Posted by Joose Norri [Wednesday, Feb 8, 2023 06:06] |
But the reflexmate is not among the allowed stipulations. A reflexmate has to be a "Selfmate with Black(-White) reflex". That goes for section B also. And it is highly unusual, not that it has many practical consequences. But if such problems do participate, and they figure in the award, it will then be fascinating to see if they are quoted in the databases etc. with their original stipulation or just as reflexmates.
| | | (5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Feb 9, 2023 18:09] |
@Joose,
>"But the reflexmate is not among the allowed stipulations."
The "reflexmate" is NOT a stipulation -- not by any objective definition of the term! -- rather, it is a combination of a "selfmate" stipulation plus a "reflex" fairy condition.
Too few problemists are aware of this misclassification (they treat this historical error as exalted precedent, in the hope future generations will inherit our debt), because they are divorced from objective definitions of our artform's most fundamental terms (in their rudderless disorganization, the apathetic have little choice but to collapse the logical structure of our artform to a hazy outline lost in the fog of their "lived experience").
The majority of problemists can not coherently state the difference between a "stipulation" and a "fairy element" (not one challenged has ever managed to articulate this distinction in a manner consistent with the reflexmate stipulation).
There is a perverse incentive for problemists to avoid acknowledgement of (leading to an eventual remedy for) this failure -- composers who aspire to earn FIDE titles are at the mercy of judges who similarly learned to follow the poor classification handed down by older FIDE Albums.
I've been making this case for too many years (despite knowing it's likely a waste of keystrokes), and I'm hardly the first.
If I'm reading you correctly, I commend the Finnish Chess Problem Society for actually caring about the future of problem chess (rarely do we witness such courage in this generation).
While I have little hope their wisdom will spread quickly across databases, their bold step forward should be appreciated, and I am confident their coherent problem classification will greatly benefit their members (well into the future).
For the benefit of future generations seeking enlightenment:
A proper stipulation declares the solver's task (what is expected to successfully solve the problem) -- nothing more, nothing less.
The stipulation in no way alters (neither by enhancement, constraint, or modification) the rules of the game (for that, a fairy element is required).
Potential movements may vary from fairy element to fairy element (fairy boards, fairy conditions, fairy pieces, fairy starting position, etc), but the stipulation can have no impact on legal move possibilities in a given position).
#n, h#n, s#n, hs#n, PGn -- these are all proper stipulations (semi-r#n *MIGHT* be considered a proper stipulation, but that's a lengthy conversation).
There are also several retro stipulations (some of which have been, or may be, formalized).
Reflexmates, Series-movers, and Parry-Series-Movers are often miscategorized as stipulations (they are a combination of stipulation and concealed fairy elements).
Everyone knows the solver's task in a "reflexmate" problem is the identical task stipulated in a problem selfmate problem: the solver is tasked to force the opponent to selfmate your their own king.
The key difference is that the reflexmate is a fraudulent stipulation which conceals a fairy element: the reflexmate stipulation imposes a constraint upon the rules of movement (if mate in one is possible, for either player, no other move may be considered legal).
How could so many problemists (highly logical individuals who care deeply about problems) be unaware of this?
1) as noted, they lack objective definitions for even the most fundamental elements of a chess problem.
2) there is no authoritative body which regulates (nor even provides guidance for) the classification/naming/nomenclature for invented problem elements.
3) misclassification of a fairy element as a stipulation confers several unmistakable advantages:
-a) it's easier for problem editors,
-b) it obscures "Fairy-Economy" considerations from judges (who don't see the fairy condition explicitly stated),
-c) concealment of the fairy element broadens the audience for such problems (reflexmates and series-movers have likely benefited substantially from this deception), and
-d) the misclassification of the FIDE Album has title implications.
4) Precedent is too easily used as an excuse (e.g., see the problem classification project which produced lovely graphics but failed utterly to classify problems).
note: some of the above issues also apply to series-movers and parry-series movers (neither of which are proper stipulations, as they too conceal a fairy element), and we are likely to see more improper stipulations which seek to conceal a fairy element.
Reflexmates have enjoyed an exalted status over all other fairy problems (which might account for their greater numbers, despite the fact this particular concealed fairy element rarely yields problems which could compete in with problems containing unconcealed fairy elements).
> "...it is highly unusual, not that it has many practical consequences."
It is unusually good practice to insist that fairy elements are never concealed in improper stipulations (regardless how much simpler and more elegant it may be for problem editors).
There are consequences, as noted above.
The fact that almost no problemist can coherently define a stipulation is a direct consequence of the usual practice of following a dubious precedent.
> "But if such problems do participate, and they figure in the award, it will then be fascinating to see if they are quoted in the databases etc. with their original stipulation or just as reflexmates."
It will take time before we begin to see database corrections. Same goes for problem journals.
Let us hope the next generation is less cowardly about addressing matters which undermine the fundamental elements of problem chess.
The longer we procrastinate to do the right thing, the more costly it is to remedy this error (especially in the databases), and the more we encourage similar failures.
If we ignore past mistakes, and allow the cost of their remedy to swell beyond all hope, we put our entire artform at risk.
That can not be the safe bet we continue making every day.
There is an effort afoot to convince problemists that hs#n problems deserve their own category in the FIDE Album.
I'm supportive of that consideration, and hopeful this reorganization might encourage a remedy of past mistakes (despite the fact that the smart gambler may still bet heavily on continued cowardice, I'm betting somebody will eventually realize that short-sighted strategy only erodes, and ultimately dooms, that which matters most).
Until then, may the Finnish Problem Society endure.
| | | (6) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Feb 10, 2023 22:28] |
Applyinh same logic perhaps helpmate is not a stipulation. The task for the solver is to find a mate in the given number of moves. HELP is a disguised fairy condition (prohibiting black from playing non-helpful moves) tagged to the mate or other stipulation. 😃😃😃
Of course i do agree with Kevin that "reflex" is indeed a fairy condition. Reflexmates however are even now added only in the fairy section of Albums.
| | | (7) Posted by Joose Norri [Saturday, Feb 11, 2023 22:32] |
There's something called the helpselfmate (helpcompelmate earlier), then that's not a stipulation either. Oh there are many.
| | | (8) Posted by Joose Norri [Saturday, Feb 11, 2023 22:42] |
At first it might look like in this particular tourney the helpselfmate has no room, it being for series movers; but combine it with parry series and there you are. Black gets to help.
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Feb 12, 2023 08:18] |
> "Of course i do agree with Kevin that "reflex" is indeed a fairy condition. Reflexmates however are even now added only in the fairy section of Albums."
I wasn't aware this changed.
Maybe there is hope yet for this artform. :)
| | | (10) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Feb 12, 2023 12:36] |
Reflexmates have always been classified as fairies, as far as I remember. In early albums, anything that was not an orthodox directmate or a study, was considered fairy. Later, helpmates, selfmates and retros got their own sections (but not reflexmates). In recent albums, the fairies were split in two sections (with, or without fairy conditions) for practical reasons (less workload for the judges). Now, a third section is introduced, for some "light" fairies. Here is the proposal and what was discussed in the last WCCC in Fujairah:
QUOTE
The suggestion of V. Crișan and N. Shankar Ram to introduce an individual section for help-selfmates was examined by the committee and it will be further discussed during the year. The committee will also study the alternative suggestion made by the WCCT committee to introduce instead a section of “light” fairies (stalemates, series-play, reflexmates, help-selfmates, all without fairy pieces or conditions).
This proposal is linked to the FIDE album. Magazines have their own sections. For example, the Problemist has a special section for orthodox selfmates and reflexmates. StrateGems had a section for stalemates and series problems, etc.
The Codex offers the following classification:
QUOTE
Chapter II – Types of Chess Composition [8]
Article 5 – Classification according to Stipulations
Chess compositions can be classified into several groups according to their stipulation. Besides the historically developed groups, viz studies, direct mates, selfmates and helpmates [9], further groups [10] have developed [11]
Article 6 – Special Types
Additionally, and independent from the classification according to Article 5, there are a number of special types, including:
(a) Retroanalytical chess compositions
(b) Mathematical chess compositions
(c) Constructional chess compositions.
Article 7 – Classification according to Rules
Furthermore, chess compositions can be classified into those which apply the FIDE-rules of the game of chess [12] and those which apply modified rules [13,14]
And the footnotes:
8. Articles 5 to 7 are not intended to be exhaustive. Other classifications are possible and also practised, for example according to the material used (miniature, minimal, Meredith etc.) or according to other criteria.
9. According to this classification, examples of frequently used stipulations are:
(a1) White to move and force a win, without restriction to a specified number of moves (studies).
(a2) White to move and force a draw, without restriction to a specified number of moves (studies).
(b) White to move and mate the black king in a specified maximum number of moves (direct mate).
(c) White to move and force Black to mate the white king in a specified number of moves (selfmate).
(d) Black to move and cooperate with White in order to obtain a mate of the black king in a specified number of moves (helpmate).
10. Further groups are, for example, stalemate or series stipulations etc.
11. Compositions other than studies are usually called problems.
12. Presently the rules defined in the 1 Jan 2018 version of the FIDE Laws are valid. Relevant for compositional chess are articles 1 to 5, 9.2 and 9.3.
13. In this context, the terms orthodox, heterodox, fairy and exo are used.
14 Modifications of the FIDE-rules may for example consist in:
(a) Rules (conditions) on which the composition is based (for example maximummer, circe, seriesmover).
(b) Pieces used in the composition (for example nightrider, grasshopper, chinese pieces).
(c) Chess space on which the composition is based (for example chess board with 10×10 squares, cylindrical chess board, multi-dimensional chess boards).
  |
| | | (11) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Feb 14, 2023 04:52] |
This is a flawed proposal (in the worst possible way: it gets a few things right, and it gets many things demonstrably, catastrophically, absolutely wrong).
Don't make this bad compromise. Keep the good parts, toss out the bad parts (line item veto the extraneous material).
FIDE should consider a separate category for help-selfmates, if there are indeed indications that sustained popularity merits this addition.
And, if FIDE wants to carve out "light fairies," they should DEFINE THAT CATEGORIZATION (not by what's included in it, but by what's required to be included).
As it is suggested, the carve out perpetrates a fraud.
If (sustainable) popularity merits a carve out for ONE new section of problems which use orthodox chess rules w/ unusual stipulations (no fairy conditions), I'm all for it (one, not two).
This didn't work in StrateGems -- Dan Meinking insisted they had insufficient entries for such a section, and they'd need to augment that section with a few fairy elements (which would receive favoritism in judgements).
It's IMPORTANT to note: at that time, help-selfmate problems were nowhere near as popular (they were hardly known then, if they existed at all).
That biased and contentious augmentation is no longer necessary (and if the advent of help-selfmates can not yet prove sufficient to fuel that category, then the whole proposal should go down in flames).
Helpselfmates are likely now enough to assure ONE orthodox category for unusual stipulations. There is your "light fairy" category (alternative stipulations, which never stray from orthodox chess rules).
If that category gets big enough (on its own -- without augmentation help-selfmates), then (and only then) should Help-selfmates break free.
I predict the remainder of the category will be largely uninteresting problems (it will fill with weaker problems, seeking cheap titles).
HS# will clearly dominate that category today (forcing others competing there to raise their game), but over time, who knows? There's plenty room for growth with other stipulations (including alternative aims).
This proposal seeks to carve out not ONE, but TWO CATEGORIES for problems with unusual stipulations.
And, it doesn't provide any definition for what belongs in the category (other than a list).
A scientists does not define DINOSAUR based upon a list of animals which belong to the DINOSAUR family (this is NOT a proper classification technique).
I would hope chess problem composers know better than this (everyone should have learned this in elementary school).
Apply elementary logic. It's an amazing tool (not only for composing/solving chess problems, but also for classifying them).
In their definition of "light fairies" -- they are using the flawed definition adopted by Mike Prcic (for StrateGems), at the request of Dan Meinking (who wanted a special section for his parry-movers invention). I objected to that nonsense then, and I object now (despite the fact I have no interest in participating in the FIDE Album, I object because this nonsense would reflect poorly on our artform).
Reflexmates, Series-movers, and Parry-movers (and any other fairy conditions which conceal there nature in an improper stipulation) should NOT be included here.
What is a reflexmate? It is a selfmate with a constraining fairy condition (white/black must checkmate in one move, whenever possible).
This is the same kind of constraining condition as "white/black must check", or must capture, or must follow my leader, or must chose from among the longest possible moves, etc.
The reflexmate is no "lighter" than a "black must check" fairy condition (or any other constraining condition which limits options).
To carve out a special classification, when NOBODY can define what belongs in that classification, is an exercise in gross favoritism. Furthermore, it undermine any valid classification system.
Historical precedent is NOT a valid definition. This special carve out MUST be logical (otherwise, inventors of new fairy elements will target this ill defined classification, in search of gaining album points and titles).
Do not make the same mistake StrateGems made (with titles depending on this ill defined category, the results will be increasingly more unfair, and the inter-sectional debate will become more contentious).
This proposal should never have been made (the party responsible should retract it from consideration), and must never be adopted.
The question is not whether hs# problems have enough gusto to merit their own categorization (my guess is yes, they do) -- the real question is whether a properly classified category of miscellaneous orthodox stipulations can exist without them (and, if they need augmentation from fairy conditions which conceal their nature in an improper stipulation, the answer is NO).
This illogical, ill-defined, unmerited, and biased proposal will cheapen your titles, diminish your album, and embarrass our artform.
But, in the dust of that failure, there is a proposal of merit (add ONE category, not two, for problems based on orthodox chess rules -- no fairy elements -- which are not already covered in other sections). HS# will dominate that section, and drive competition. Eventually, new stipulations/aims will demonstrate that category is big enough for HS# problems to break off (into their own section).
| | | (12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Feb 14, 2023 08:05] |
Let me run this by you another way...
To begin, I think it's valuable to distinguish chess problems which obey the orthodox rules of chess from chess problems which use rules that are altered (constrained, modified, or extended).
I happen to think orthodox chess rules is quite dull (LOL), and overworked; nevertheless, I freely admit such problems merit a unique status (chess players are more like to appreciate them, as they require no added rule definitions).
Now, let's examine the orthodox hs# versus the orthodox PG.
In 2020, if the Win Chloe database can be trusted to reflect these genres roughly evenly, both sets enjoyed about the same number of published problems (within a margin of <15%).
If I added orthodox Retro problems (which can be a difficult search), I'm guessing the numbers for that group would be at least even.
I do not believe orthodox PGs are in their prime, today (read: I suspect their numbers in previous years would dwarf the help-selfmate numbers).
I submit there is a clear reason why their numbers have dwindled, and it's not entirely due to an overworked field (it's about incentive).
In the history of problem chess, there must be many hundreds (if not thousands) more Proofgames than Help-selfmates.
Yet, Orthodox PGs never enjoyed their own category. Why not?
It is my understanding that, in the FIDE Album (please correct me if I'm wrong here) the orthodox PGs must compete with several other genres:
- orthodox retros: retractors, legal/illegal cluster problems, and various other retros (#1 for who?, etc).
- fairy retros
- fairy PGs
- math problems
This is a very difficult competition for orthodox PG composers.
It's no secret that Orthodox Retros already receive some degree of favoritism (rightly or wrongly, incentives are needed here -- computers are of little assistance, and composing is a far greater challenge). Furthermore, it's never a fair fight when you are composing in the heavily worked orthodox genre, and you're competing with hundreds of fairy conditions (even the orthodox PGs must receive some favoritism) -- it's a FAIRY FIGHT, but it's not exactly FAIR. Then, you have fairy retros (which is a vibrant field), and you may occasionally find your Ortho PG competing with a math problem.
If you compose PGs, you know that the good stuff often happens beyond the computer horizon.
If you're lucky, your PG can be solved after several days (sometimes, it requires weeks). If you want to get into the Album, there's a fair chance you're pushing your luck beyond that point.
By comparison, the vast majority of help-selfmates are computer tested in seconds flat.
It's not the same composing process.
Now, if you're going to score these problems evenly (1 point each problem, divided by the number of composers), you're destroying any incentive to compose/solve orthodox PGs.
And, why are categories in the Album carved out based upon the proposals of individuals who have a vested interest in securing greater space (for their preferred genre, for their titles) in the albums?
Why shouldn't there be an automatic formula (triggered by some popularity threshold)?
The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
I never saw Orthodox PG/Retro composers crying that they deserve multiple categories. They don't enjoy as much free time to carve out new categories for themselves, I suppose.
The imbalanced incentives were bad enough before; now, we're going to let hs# composers carve out two brand new album categories for themselves (and further erode incentives for orthodox PG/Retro composers, because hey, they obviously don't care about your nonsense incentives anyway -- so, screw them some more).
I never saw Orthodox PG/Retro composers crying that they deserve their own category. Is that why they have been disadvantaged?
Album points and titles are an inherently biased game -- bad enough that we have an incestuous orgy of friends and fellow countrymen are judging one another, now we're not even going to have categorizations which can be clearly defined (other than by what they include/exclude).
Say you invent a new fairy condition, whereby a player must give stalemate in 1 move, any time it's possible.
That's a fairy condition (same as Reflexmate).
You have two choices:
1) Call it a fairy condition (that's the right choice for the artform), or
2) Call it a stipulation (conceal the fairy condition, win yourself a seat in the cheap title category, and enjoy the popularity and titles you deserve).
This ill considered proposal will incentivize the wrong choice. Over and over and over again!
And who is going to stop them from exploiting this loophole?
What authoritative body will regulate that? If there were such a body, we wouldn't have mindless proposals like this floating around.
If problemists could be trusted to act responsibly, this proposal would be laughed out of every room (before it was ever offered for consideration).
Put all those tin cups aside. Think about the incentives that this creates to do the wrong thing, and all the disincentives from doing what's in the interest of our artform.
Consider the motivation of the persons who offered such a proposal.
Are they help-selfmate composers? Their primary interest is to benefit whom?
They expressed zero interest in establishing a clear dividing line between Orthodox and Fairy (if that was their motivation, Orthodox PGs and Orthodox Retros would be provided such a carve out).
No. They don't even care to define Orthodox versus Fairy.
They refuse to define "Fairy" in fact, because doing so will prove that Reflexmates and Series-Movers are NOT proper stipulations (which improperly conceal a fairy condition).
They want to enjoy lawlessness.
"CHAOS IS A LADDER."
So, for their own benefit, they'll undermine any logical classification of chess problems (thereby diminishing the understanding of newcomers).
This illogic is detrimental to the artform (it unnecessarily inhibits newcomers, and it discourages experienced composers from participation).
The orthodox hs#n problem has more in common with the orthodox stalemate problem, easily, than the orthodox PG has in common with the orthodox retro, the fairy retro, the fairy proofgame, or the math problem. Does anyone doubt that for a second? Yet, we have urgent need to cleave only the help-selfmates!
There are FAR more fairy PGs and fairy Retros than there are orthodox stalemate problems (it's not even a contest), yet the help-selfmate group can't shoulder that teeny, tiny burden.
Meanwhile. the orthodox PG group must shoulder a load far heavier than their own product. How is that fair? How is that logical? How can anyone dare ask such favoritism be codified in the Album?
Why are help-selfmates so damn special?
Is there really a need to provide them EXTRA incentives?
Computer solving tools already provide them a HUGE incentive over orthodox PG/Retro compositions (solving time in seconds versus hours, days, weeks, or perhaps never).
Why are they deserving of their own section, but there's nothing to shield orthodox PGs or orthodox Retros from the burden of competing against fairy elements?
Friends, I submit to you that this proposal is little more than a title grab.
They are not proposing an intelligent classification system, based on fundamental terms. On the contrary, they are adding two categories, one of which ("light fairies") they have perverted entirely (this is a classification they can not even define, other than by what they have included and excluded).
This is an offense against our artform.
The people who have offered this proposal have only considered how it works to their own benefit (not to the benefit of this artform, nor to the benefit of newcomers).
I do not participate in FIDE Albums. I will not accept any title they offer. I consider those pursuits a perverse incentive (and I believe this proposal is yet another demonstration of that sad fact).
My primary interest is to welcome more people to enjoy the beauty of problem chess (and hopefully, contribute a little something to advance that cause).
I do understand that many are financially subsidized according to FIDE titles.
While I receive no such subsidy, I certainly don't begrudge anybody their income (nor would I deny that recognition is deserved for problem composers and solvers).
That should not preclude us all from acting responsibility, in the interest of everyone (not only enriching ourselves).
But, I do believe these perversions (money and titles) take a substantial toll on our artform.
At the very least, any proposal should provide clearly defined terms which are fundamental to the classification of chess problems (and we must adhere to those terms in our classification).
Everyone should know the definition of Orthodox Rules versus Fairy Rules, versus UNUSUAL stipulation (stalemate is not a fairy condition, reflexmate is) -- there can be no debate about these terms.
Clear definitions must be the basis of our classification system -- not proposals from self-interested parties (they ignore their burden, because they have all the votes, and you have none).
If you want to carve out special sections based upon popularity, provide metrics (and data), so we can be assured this is an impartial process.
That much is owed.
But, they'll continue ignoring the sign posts. Doesn't matter that they can't even define a stipulation. Who cares about integrity? Let's all continue inflating our titles!
Why is it so difficult to achieve consensus on our most fundamental terms?
A stipulation should never conceal its underlying fairy condition (and that fraudulent stipulation should NEVER be used to carve out a special section).
That's a perversion, yet it's impossible to get problem enthusiasts to come together on this, because THEIR TITLES (and their income) depends upon continued corruption.
If you have no laws, no definitions, no logical classification system, you have a rigged game.
Few dare speak out against this obvious fact, because there are legitimate reasons to fear reprisals.
Thus, a small set of people rule us all. They propose what they find pleasing (absent any logic), and the rest of us have no vote.
Give them the power to award titles, and they would own this entire artform (to erode at their leisure).
We have no say. All we can do is reject their entire album. That's the only choice we'll get. We should think carefully on that, before electing to award ourselves.
This proposal completely disregards the harm it does to our artform.
It creates unfair divisions. It fails to properly classify sections. It fails to define terms.
It is absolutely wrong (both biased and mindless) to use improper stipulations (whether they conceal a fairy condition or not) as the basis for segmenting chess problems.
There is no free lunch. Our artform pays the price of this recklessness, which a small faction of problemists would impose upon all (without a shred of concern for the integrity of problem chess).
If we can not all stand against that perversion, then your whole album become a bad joke.
The fairness of your titles will become go from already suspect to something beyond ridiculous (the value of your titles depends upon the integrity of your albums).
This proposal will destroy most the people who seek to benefit by it (and they don't even see that).
I urge you all to reject it.
Instead, give them ONE new category, and place in that every proper stipulation (no conceals fairy elements -- ONLY orthodox chess), except those which already have their own category.
Orthodox chess stalemates have no business competing against half-neutral grasshoppers in Isardam chess.
If the help-selfmate promoters can later demonstrate their bucket is twice as full as other genres (given one new category to share with strictly orthodox chess problems), and leaving will not erode other categories, then by all means, FIDE should consider allowing them a second bucket.
That has been the implicit agreement for orthodox PG/Retro composers.
It was never enough for orthodox PGs to demonstrate they merited a separate category -- they also had to show that the remainder of the group (from which they cleaved off) could survive on their own.
And guess what? They have FAR more support in their secondary group (fairy retros and fairy PGs have come into their own).
Discard this selfish proposal, and use it as an opportunity to make something better of your Album.
Forge an honest classification system, bolster the integrity of your artform (and your titles), and use those definitions to promote problem chess to newcomers.
| | | (13) Posted by shankar ram [Tuesday, Feb 14, 2023 19:25] |
>>> FIDE should consider a separate category for help-selfmates, if there are indeed indications that sustained popularity merits this addition.
>>> If you want to carve out special sections based upon popularity, provide metrics (and data), so we can be assured this is an impartial process.
Both these concerns are addressed in the proposal with data from the last 5 albums.
See pages 12-13 of the WCCC-2022 agenda (https://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/WCCC-2022-Fujairah-agenda.pdf). Also, the "light fairies" section suggestion was not part of this proposal.
In the current 2019-21 cycle, Helpself problems represent:
In G1, 42% from the total and 40% of selected problems in the FA via WCCI
In G2, 29% from the total and 50% of selected problems in the FA via WCCI
Which further continues the trend observed in the past 5 albums.
| | | (14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 01:07] |
>>Also, the "light fairies" section suggestion was not part of this proposal.
Thank you for that correction. I'm glad to learn that such an undefinable, improper categorization has not been formerly proposed.
Please note that such a flawed categorization ("light fairies") was my primary objection, and the bulk of my disagreement. Such a categorization is what I would consider a corruption.
If "light fairies" is taken to mean reduced fairy footprint, ask yourself:
Which is the lightest:
a) a series mover,
b) a reflexmate,
c) a parry-series mover, or
d) a study (or #2 problem) from Chess960?
hint: the correct answer would not be included in the "light fairies" section.
It's perhaps a moot point (given that this category is not included in your proposal), but hopefully we can all agree "light fairies" would be a terrible mistake.
As to what is proposed...
I am quite fond of hs#n problems, and I confidently expect their popularity will only grow.
Further, I readily accept that orthodox hs#n problems currently enjoy enough popularity that they can already sustain their own category (if the advent of the h#n category is taken as precedent, I see no grounds for objecting; that said, I would suggest that there might be a better path than following precedent).
I very much like the proposal to reconsider the categorization of chess problems (so long as the classification is logical, based on clearly defined terms).
Categorization should never be based on whether or not a fairy inventor took advantage of bad precedent when concealing the fairy nature of their invention in an improper stipulation; such a corruption would be unfair, and would create a perverse incentive for further abuses.
I do not deny there is merit to a proposal which recognizes Orthodox HS#n problems are now a main staple.
When I first heard this proposal was brewing, I found it challenging even to play devil's advocate against the proposal.
On the other hand, I remember a time, not too long ago, when the same argument could have been made for Orthodox PGs.
It seems both unfortunate and unfair that nobody proposed recognizing them with such a proposal (which might have provided greater incentives for such problems, then and now).
As I noted in my prior post, Orthodox Proofgames have been competing with Orthodox Retros, Fairy PGs, Fairy Retros, and Math Problems (quite a disparate array).
Before the explosion of interest in Fairy Retros and Fairy PGs, my understanding was that Orthodox PGs could (like hs#n problems today) sustain their own category, but adding this would hollow out the prior category. Today, that calculus may have flipped entirely -- to the point, I would argue, that it's unclear that an Orthodox PGs/Retros category (even with the incentives of having their own category) would continue to sustain itself.
Orthodox Proofgames often use retro analysis (it can be helpful both for composing and for solving), but they are help-games, and are much closer to help-mates/help-stalemates than to Retros.
So, it begs the question: why are they not instead lumped together in a sub-division of scheduling (help-) problems?
But, once the door opens to consider a new categorization, we have an obligation to view the bigger picture, and to ask ourselves: does this addition solve the larger problem?
Why are we not dividing the album, first and foremost, by Orthodox versus Fairy? Shouldn't this be the primary division?
Orthodox chess problems with unusual stipulations should never be mixed with fairy problems.
Consider the familiar game involving just two kings, where the unusual stipulation is to reach your King's last (promotion) rank.
Every new chess player has learned important lessons about opposition from that unusual stipulation. Unusual stipulations/aims should not be viewed as fairy elements (the rules adhere completely to orthodox chess -- only the solver's task is different).
Suppose we instead start by insisting there are two sections:
a) Problems of any stipulation which adhere completely to the rules of chess, and
b) Problems of any stipulation which involve a fairy element that alters (constrains, modifies, or enhances the movement possibilities).
Then, when categorizing based on popularity, we see that section a) has need for further subdivisions.
1) Directmates
1a) #2
1b) #3
1c) #n (4 or more moves)
1d) Where is the section for non-retro #1 problems? LOL. We don't take those very seriously, but from a classification standpoint, this is a serious question (there may be a good one that involves twinning). I would suggest that the directmate group should decide where they belong (either with #2, or with #n).
2) h#n (with further subdivision possible, based upon popularity).
3) win/draw (studies)
4) s#n
5) There's a credible case to be made that hs#n problems merit a division
6) There was a credible case to be made for Orthodox PGs.
7) Where do the Orthodox Retros belong?
8) Where do the Orthodox Problems with unusual stipulations (not yet covered) belong?
Again, I'd say the Orthodox Group must decide this matter, and the primary concern here is popularity.
Should we lump group 7 (ortho-retros) in with group 6 (ortho-PGs)?
Should we lump group 8 (ortho-misc) in with group 5 (ortho-hs#n)?
If I were advocating for orthodox-hs#n problems, I'd say hey, my category merits equal status with orthodo-s#n problems, and orthodox-h#n problems, and orthodox-#2 problems...
Why should my specialty get lumped together with miscellaneous orthodox problems (like =n problems)? That's not fair.
And, if I were advocating for orthodox-PG problems, I'd retort: you think you have it bad? My group had to take in Fairy Retros. This is far more unfair. Why aren't we resolving that first?
But, I'm trying to advocate for the artform as a whole.
We need to adopt a better classification system (and encourage everyone to reflect that, in how they present proper stipulations versus how they present -- never concealing! -- fairy elements).
Further, we need to be proposing an overhaul of the Album categorization (the sub-divisions, which are based upon popularity).
I concede, it's no easy task to remedy decades of improper stipulations (it only gets more difficult tomorrow, when more fairy inventions will create further issues).
And, it's a challenge to recategorize the Albums (same is true for editors who classify problems), but we can't allow the challenge to prevent us from taking steps in a positive direction.
1) I endorse the addition of a category for orthodox hs#n problems.
2) I would also suggest the addition of a category for orthodox PG/Retro problems -- no orthodox chess problems should be relegated to a category mixed with problems using fairy elements.
3) And, I'm inclined to endorse the addition of a category for miscellaneous orthodox problems (it's unfair to include these within another group that is worthy of distinct, independent categorization).
Yes, despite the fact that their numbers would be low. So what? They will grow over time (just as hs#n problems should have grown out of that category), and this section need not be large (it's not distinct, it need not be based upon equity in popularity).
What does that leave us? The fairy section (which is exploding in popularity, in every genre, and will likely see more growth over time).
As it stands, that would leave us two sections for fairy problems:
1) Fairy PG/Retros, and
2) All other Fairy Problems.
I would propose expanding this, as well.
1) Fairy directmates, and
2) Fairy helpmates.
3) Fairy PG/Retros, and
4) All other Fairy Problems.
I'm not suggesting this is the only way to subdivide these categories (only that it's worth considering).
In fact, in an ideal world, I think it would be better to sub-divide first by Orthodox versus Fairy, and further sub-divide based upon the predominant nature of the problem stipulated:
1) scheduling problems (h#n, hs#n, PGn, some help-Retros, etc),
2) problems which involve a counter agent (#n, s#n, some direct-Retros, etc),
3) other.
As much as possible, a good categorization should rely upon an intelligent classification system.
The trouble is, this tends to create imbalanced sections (and the real issue, I'm told, is finding judges for the many sections it might create).
So, in conclusion...
I am not opposed to your proposal to create a new section for hs#n problems (so long as that "light fairy" nonsense is rejected -- which would constitute a perversion).
On the contrary, I very much support this reorganization.
However, I like it so much that I would further propose that the Album should use your proposal to leverage the possibility of a broader recategorization (look at the bigger picture).
The Album is the only authority capable of steering our artform to a better day, and they should use their power in a responsible manner.
This would especially benefit newcomers -- and encourage more participation (it's not only judges we are lacking).
"With great power, comes great responsibility." -- Voltaire.
The Album has an obligation to incentivize problem enthusiasts (especially editors and programmers of databases/solving tools) to adopt a more universal system, and to encourage a more logical nomenclature (where categorizations and stipulations adhere to a logical classification system).
We don't have a body that regulates/sanctions official inventions (stipulations, fairy elements, naming conventions, etc) in our artform. We rely upon responsible parties to police these matters.
We need to encourage all parties (especially inventors) to do the right thing from the outset (avoiding the necessity for unpleasant intervention).
Somebody recently wrote me (in a discouraging tone) that I'm wasting my time advocating for improvements to problem chess.
Well, it's my time. I've spent too much time (and too many words) advocating for improvements, and it has often seemed I was making no progress.
But, if I was getting nowhere, there would be no need to discourage me.
I'm just one person, and I'm having some impact.
Imagine if everyone involved in the Album would advocate for a sensible categorization.
Imagine if they took it upon themselves to weigh in on controversies, or to encourage inventors (of new fairy elements, and new stipulations) to strive for a higher standard.
Imagine if they adopted a higher standard, based upon a clearly defined classification.
Everyone would be motivated to follow their lead, and we might even see that help speed up the time needed for newcomers to appreciate the larger spectrum of chess problems.
That's all I'm advocating for.
| | | (15) Posted by shankar ram [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 03:31] |
The proposed new section is for orthodox AND fairy hs#s, together.
Orthodox hs#s alone don't have enough numbers to justify a new section.
The statistics from the previous albums, included in the proposal, as well as the data from the current cycle, clearly illustrate this.
| | | (16) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 07:44] |
And what about a new section for orthodox PG/Retros?
Does the data suggest those can sustain an independent section?
What is the threshold?
Where is that data compiled?
Furthermore, why not allow some smaller sections (when it makes no logical sense for two, or more, disparate genres to compete for the same space)?
I do agree that popularity is an important consideration when you're talking about hiring editors and judges for a problem journal.
The Album is different. That's the rumor, anyway. Evidence of that may vary.
Should not the Album, which is the basis for all your titles, adhere to a higher (more principled) categorization standard?
Should not the Album categorization be based upon intelligent classification, for example, rather than first to propose a hodgepodge combination meeting an arbitrary (if not entirely fictitious) popularity threshold?
The value of all composition titles depend entirely upon the integrity of your Album. The Album's categorization is a big part of what backs your currency.
I don't care about these titles -- not that I believe I'd have earned one if I did care, but titles are not in my interest.
But if you do care about preserving the value of titles, the integrity of this Album's classification should be restored (in a manner that can be long preserved).
Everyone who values these titles should demand to see a proper accounting.
It's just funny to me that I seem to care more about the integrity of this process than most title holders.
I only care because I don't want parties who control that Album to game the system (which I fear has long been the case), in a manner which reflects poorly upon our artform.
Is FIDE running a popularity contest, or do these album points and titles reflect an honest assessment of a composer's contribution?
Hey, I am all for recognizing the contributions of fellow composers. I just happen to think the building should get the title, not its architect.
And, frankly, I'd be encouraged to compose an inferior product if titles were my primary goal. In my view, titles create a perverse incentive.
Furthermore, it's hardly recognition when composers are required to send their works to secure their own title.
Recognition by the problem community would be the opposite -- they would recognize the value of your works, and you'd never be asked to blow your own horn.
But, I digress.
Please justify your claim that the Album can not afford more categories of an inequitable popularity.
There's a limited number of problems, and a limited number of judges.
What difference does it make if they judge problems in one pile or two?
Each section would still be limited in the number of points they can award, based upon the popularity of that specific section.
Why is it better to have that number inflated/deflated by a potentially biased assemblage of genres (which may not reflect the actual popularity of a given genre)?
In other words, it is likely that help-selfmate problem composers would accrue benefit from an artificial popularity (using the extraneous genres combined with their group), thereby earning more awards than an independent section might justify.
Should not the Album categories be based more on a logical classification (versus a combination of disparate genres, to achieve a completely arbitrary popularity threshold)?
Suppose instead, we lump in the orthodox-help-stalemate problems (h=n), and orthodox-help-capture problems (hxn) in with orthodox PGs and orthodox Retros?
If you're going to create groups based upon popularity of arbitray mishmash combinations, you're telling me there's no logic to this categorization.
Why is this mishmash better than any other (of the many combinations possible)?
And, just to clarify...
Please tell me that reflexmates, series-movers, and parry-movers (which are improper stipulations concealing fairy conditions) are not included in this new section proposed.
Because if that's what is being proposed, I must object to such a perversion. Such a corruption is no way to finance the popularity threshold of a new section.
To elucidate this... just imagine I create a new kind of problem, whereby both sides are forced to play stalemate in 1, if possible, yet the goal is to force checkmate.
If I rightly declare this a fairy condition ("white/black must stalemate, if possible"), with a #n stipulation, those problems would go to the fairy section.
If I wrongly declare this a stipulation (this is not a proper stipulation, mind you, because it conceals a fairy condition which modifies the rules of the game), those problems would enjoy a new category (where they are liberated from competition against other fairy elements -- despite the fact those other fairy elements are often very similar, such as white must capture, black must check, both sides must chose from the longest move, etc).
We have no regulation authority to prevent such a mockery, and I can assert the bad historical precedent as a reason to accept my improper stipulation.
Does it matter that, in so doing, I would have undermined the most fundamental terms in problem chess (rendering no distinction between stipulation and fairy condition)?
That should matter, to everybody who cares about problem chess. Nobody should get away with that.
You'll have rendered grandmaster composers unable to provide a valid definition of elementary terms, such as stipulation, or fairy condition.
I strain to imagine a more savage way to undermine the validity of their valuable contributions, than to destroy the very foundation of our artform beneath their feet.
Imagine a Nobel Prize winning physicist who is rendered unable to define what is a force.
Please tell me this new section is not going to rely upon the improper stipulations advanced by inventors unaware of this distinction, and call that "orthodox in all manner but the stipulation."
Please tell me this new section will provide a clear and simple definition for what kind of problems are included/excluded (and not a definition based upon the list itself -- I want a legalistic definition which allows us all to quickly agree what new problem inventions will belong, and what will not).
Finally, once again, for the record, let me state that I have great affection for the help-self genre, and I have nothing but respect for those who contribute their time and energy to make that better.
I want to see quality contributions recognized in that genre, and I am generally supportive of a recategorization of the FIDE Album.
I ask only that it be fair, that it be intelligent, and that it be done in a manner which upholds a logical classification, based upon clearly defined terms (this is fundamental).
Any proposal to add a new category would impact all genres (including those genre assemblies which were never considered for such a benefit).
It's not enough that we agree that help-selfmates merit a special status; any proposal should also shoulder the burden of showing why this same benefit is not merited for any other genre (or manufactured genre tranche).
| | | (17) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 09:34] |
I wish this site fixed a limit for each post. 50 lines maximum per each post seems reasonable. No new posts until a reply is posted
Admin please consider.
Everyone will learn to put their view points succintly and avoid repetitive sentences on the pretext of stressing a viewpoint
| | | (18) Posted by Joost de Heer [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 11:51] |
Short translation for Seetharaman: I am right and you are wrong.
| | | (19) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 21:07] |
@Seetharaman: Against. You are not forced to read an overlong post.
(And if you missed a vital point of it, that hardly can't be held against you.)
| | | (20) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 15, 2023 22:02] |
I've seen these pathetic censorship attempts many times before.
When they can't argue against your position, they argue with how many words/lines it took you to overwhelm them.
Read only 50 lines. LOL. Then, you'll say it should be restricted to 49 lines.
Iterate until you realize you want 0 lines, then look in the mirror.
Here's a rule the moderator should consider: if a person can contribute nothing to the conversation, they should not jump in demanding limitations on a conversation they are not participating in.
How rude.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Unto Heinonen MT |
|
|
|
ISC 2024