Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum General Has this KRPP vs kr endgame been composed?
You can only view this page!
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
|(1) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Jun 13, 2009 14:17]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-13]|
Has this KRPP vs kr endgame been composed?
Had this interesting idea for a study... but I can't say I composed it -- I basically worked backwards in the EGTB...
But, I wondered if this was composed previously?
I know the final idea is known.
(= 4+2 )
1.h5! Rb5+ 2.Kf4 Rxh5 3.Ra2+ Kg1 4.h4! wins.
Edit: I had the wrong fen earlier, bR on b4, not b2.
|(2) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Saturday, Jun 13, 2009 14:49]|
Seems to be new!
|(3) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 00:02]|
Siegfried, please, give more details on your 'working backwards' with EGTBs.
Don't you do the same with Fritz on your computer?
I guess that in any case you first think which piece and where to place it and then get the verdict from EGTB or Fritz. That is, idea always comes first. So, this is composing and you're the only composer of this endgame. EGTBs just help to check your ideas quick.
|(4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 14:35]|
If the 7-piece database is complete, does this suddenly make
all miniatures worthless?
If a fictive Deepest Thought though cracks chess as a whole,
does this make all studies and all chess at all worthless?
Some judges apparently think so but I find this untenable.
(I never "composed" my famous [?!?] 3 grasshopper helpmate
in the usual sense of "compose", I just put them into the
corner for fun and suddenly realized, hey, this has a cool
and unique solution! Am I less the author thus? Wouldn't I
if I had used a computer - I hadn't? Waffle. My opinion is
that the way you get to your problem is completely irrelevant.
As long as you don't steal it :-)
Surely we have members of MPF with the opposite opinion,
don't forget to bring popcorn :-)
|(5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 14:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-14]|
Very interesting questions you have posed.
Would I deserve the same credit if I had:
1) discovered this position entirely by accident?
2) had the concept to focus a search algorithm upon a specific area of EGTB, which found it for me?
3) studied rook+pawn endings to such a degree that I had worked this out entirely myself?
When I was a very young boy, my older brother and I would sift through stones with friends, looking for gems.
From this childhood endeavor would come philosophical conversations about what constituted beauty.
My point being: we had precise ideas about what we were searching for, but we did not "compose" the few rocks we took home.
Yet, the finder did keep the gem.
I came to the EGTB much the same way.
I had a very precise idea about the kind of gem I wanted, I found it there (waiting for me), and polished it, as best I could.
Frankly, I might have attempted some worthy introduction, extending the piece count beyond the present table depth, to curry artificial favor with some judge -- but the elegance and beauty I find in this version is a better reward.
From first concept to final diagram, this problem was found in less than one childhood afternoon on the rocks.
It is almost shameful to admit how little time was required.
We can agree on this: I certainly deserve some credit for the concept, some luck in finding this, and a little polish.
So, if not anticipated, please credit the problem to: Kevin Begley + EGTB, Mat Plus Forum, 2009.
My name first, indicates concept.
On the other hand, you make an interesting argument...
Yes, I have taken credit for the very same result in composing some directmates/helpmates (checked with popeye, or win chloe).
The difference here, however, is that I very well understood the solutions in my directmate/helpmate problems.
I cannot claim to understand this endgame -- perhaps I do, perhaps I don't -- nor do I claim to have studied the position carefully.
You bring up very interesting questions about who deserves credit, but they are better left for some 24th century accountant.
What name is on the final marquee (should we add "Computer" as a joint composer for every problem composed after some specific date?), really doesn't matter in the long run.
Maybe history will judge that the computer was like steroids, and leave a dishonorable asterisk on all problems of the era!?
Or, perhaps the word "composer" is no longer an accurate term, in this age of technology.
I try my best to pursue chess problem art for the sake of art.
My "composing" serves three purposes:
1) reward myself with a problem, which I find beautiful somehow (though a few I have published only contradict this claim),
2) attempt at repayment for others (like yourself) who have shared their works,
3) the process itself helps me better appreciate problems.
[edit: upon further review, the win does appear fairly trivial, in lines which do not involve the thematic defense. But, I cannot claim to fully know how other attempts to win are all refuted.]
|(6) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 15:06]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [09-06-14]|
EGTB is not to be named as composer, see Codex.
EDIT: To question below, see http://www.sci.fi/~stniekat/pccc/codex.htm
|(7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 15:16]|
Hmm, I can't name EGTB?
OK, can somebody please explain how I am to credit this properly?
|(8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 16:17]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-14]|
I've read the codex, but I don't see any explaination how I am to properly credit this problem.
Some judges will say this is fully anticipated, I suppose.
Others will claim I have full rights to claim it as my own.
It is neither fair to reduce this to a merely chance discovery that I made in the EGTB, nor is it fair to claim this as my own composition.
As to the "discovery" notion -- which frankly is argued too vehemently by those who would, with astounding leaps of logic, have me precede this with a few forced captures, then call this entirely my own work -- I refuse to engage such artificial mockery.
[read: If this problem were fully anticipated by EGTB, to whom, other than EGTB, was it ever known?]
If the codex will not allow for some form of compromise here, then codex be damned.
What is the penalty for violating the codex?
Do they take my Union Card?
|(9) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 17:31]|
you can mention Nalimov or Thomson as co-authors if you wish. But ... here are some contre-arguments.
These boys who are ‘sifting rocks’ should first ‘compose’ them, because they are not in EGTB! There are no studies, no moves in EGTB. Only after you have placed pieces on board (‘composed a rock’) the position appears in EGTB. It’s interesting how can someone ‘search’ studies in EGTB if they are not there?
I’d like to see your study that you’re claiming you had discovered in EGTB. If it is a good one, and you did this in one afternoon, then I’ll know the name of the luckiest guy in the world.
Nowdays some studies are difficult to understand. Difficulty is a criterion for evaluation of quality of a study. It can’t tell us in which way this or that problem was composed. And high difficulty was always considered in different elaborated scoring systems as not good. So, if anyone is sick and tired of boring difficult studies, like I am, then just give them the right score - very low. But don't mention EGTBs. They are not guilty.
|(10) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 17:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-14]|
OK, upon much further review, it seems other attempts to win are refuted by fairly obvious means.
I cannot quite fathom how this should be regarded differently from any other composition which I have checked with computer, and put my name on. Instead of C+ by popeye/win chloe, it is merely C+ via EGTB.
So, I change the credit to: Kevin Begley, Mat Plus Forum, 2009
[Edit: dedicated to Nalimov, Thomson, and "Old Man" Henry.
"Old Man Henry" (as the neighborhood kids called him, on the 90th street of Omaha, Nebraska, in the early 1970s), had a rock driveway with a few very unusual rocks, that I swear he must have put there for us kids to find. There simply was no earthly explanation for what we would find there, every time we went looking.]
Let it be known that if this problem is anticipated by computer, then so too must all of my solo problems (which could be verified by computer) fall.
Didn't Yarosh verify his first babson with a computer (and make modifications, as needed)?
Pity -- that, too, must fall.
|(11) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 19:42]|
Oops, just saw that it was your study, Kevin. All this time I thought it was Siegfried's.
Did my previous request of showing me your study sound strange? My apologies.
|(12) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 22:43]|
Ahh, that explains it.
And, strangely enough, for about an hour, I thought one of your posts was from Siegfried.
Is he using magic on us?
|(13) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Sunday, Jun 14, 2009 23:14]|
It is true that I have certain powers (Ivan Antonov can confirm it) but I don't use magic since it is too dangerous! Also, I did not do anything for this confusion!
|(14) Posted by Ivan Antonov [Monday, Jun 15, 2009 07:17]|
Yes, Siegfried sends energy for good aims only :-)) (Sorry, a bit off-topic)
|(15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Jun 15, 2009 09:52]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-15]|
Something must be wrong with my database -- I cannot find your award for that wonderful grasshopper problem!
I was not aware of this problem, until your post.
A clear demonstration of the need for popularity ratings in problem databases.
If I could search for problems that make me smile, why ever would I need click anything else?
As for the question of your having dropped the pieces in some lucky fashion, this is a complete non-issue.
You did more than Saavedra or Reti, and you are clearly the composer of this, in every traditional sense.
I too did more than lookup that study, but I tend to prefer non-confrontation, and was looking to resolve the matter quickly.
I fully expected a fight as to whether I had any right to claim credit for this...
Thought I would be advised to engage in some rybka-assisted, non-thematic capture (a deliberate violation of aesthetics) in what can only be considered an underhanded scheme to defraud the EGTB of what somebody would claim to be its "never published, completely-anticipated property."
And the more I thought about this -- never published, completely orthodox, brand new ideas, waiting there...
Then that controversial judgement -- it hit me like a two-ton heavy thing...
In this environment, there are substantial gains to be had in the publication of miniature studies!
a) There is a significant need for these, to push the boundaries of what solvers/players come to understand as book endings.
b) Players LOVE LOVE LOVE some miniature endgame solving, and oh, do they despise artificial introductions.
c) Complete computer assistance is widely availible, and solving requires zero-time.
d) Some either foolish, or very clever judges just crossed jurisdictional boundaries to scare off the entire field.
It's free range, open-season, big game hunting, and all those who compose for the shiny trophy will tuck tail and run.
As for questions of authorship -- please, it's just the shadow of a scarecrow sitting on a gargoyle.
Making problems is an artform, the "composer" is no more than the person(s) first to find beauty in the solution of a diagram.
How they came to discover beauty is not relevant whatsoever.
I have read what constitutes beauty in chess problems, and in art -- this is the old monkey-typist versus Shakespear trick.
Think risk versus reward: either you're Shakespear, or you're the luckiest monkey in history.
You can paint with a jet engine, and while the whinners protest, they have a new shot of you counting money on the 6-oclock news.
The merit of a composer is not how they paint, but how they find beauty.
The EGTB is just a tool.
If a complete rookie composer could write an EGTB to effortlessly find another Forsberg, we'd be knee deep in them.
If it were so easy for chess players to find good studies, we'd be neck deep in them.
Concept driven principles, and backward strategy still apply.
You can look at the EGTB until your blue in the face, hoping to be that lucky monkey.
Until you have an original idea, a vision of beauty, there is virtually no chance.
|(16) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Jun 15, 2009 16:33]|
You found no award for the 3G problem because it just got
a tiny "Lob". Where the judge should have given at least a
"LOLWUT ZOMG This is Sparta!!!1!" with *at least* 3 exclamation marks :-)
P.S. Recently, I used the EGTB for finding a position KSS/KRB where
one knight already hangs and White hangs also the other to fork off
the bishop. Already forgot the position since I found no decent
intro but whoever deems that idea interesting enough may lift it
from me. (Position[s] shouldn't be that hard to find.)
|(17) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Jun 15, 2009 19:01]|
Kevin, you are as cunning as a monkey. Well played the role of a bad cop, while being a good one. First I thought you belonged to this little pack of wolves who attack every 6-pieces composition and their authors.
Hauke, are you trying to put a little oil into the fire? How can you find positions in EGTB? I've said already - no positions, no moves. It's possible to extract only positions of mutual zugzwangs (which was done), because here applies the following condition:
Black to move - White wins
White to move - No win for White.
For this research we don't need to know any description of positions (placings of pieces).
The received list of zugzwangs is quite big and there are no tools or possibilities to seach in it for something tangible.
|(18) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 04:22]; edited by Kevin Begley [09-06-16]|
Perhaps you give me credit I do not deserve.
If this was my intention, it was on a level high above concious thought.
I am not religious, but I very much like this bible quote:
"Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore as cunning as serpents, and as innocent as doves."
|(19) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 10:24]|
OK, I didn't "find" them in the sense that I give a desciption
of my idea that narrows the positions to a handy subset - that
would be even above *my* geek abilities :-) I just enter a few
candidate positions and look if they are watertight. Please
note that while *in principle* this doesn't differ at all from
entering a 2# into a solving program and looking for cooks,
also *in principle* verifying without computer help is neigh
impossible without the EGTB (let alone the knowledge of the
fact that RB/SS is generally won).
Please compare the situation with that of 3D computer art.
If you have the proggie, you now can make scenes without ever
having studied anatomy and perspective and lighting and blabla.
Consequently, some people deny that 3D computer art can be art at all.
But I sayeth: Art is not defined by the tools.
|(20) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Tuesday, Jun 16, 2009 20:26]; edited by Arpad Rusz [09-06-16]|
dedicated to Hauke Reddmann :)
(= 4+4 )
Solution: 1.Nd7+ [1.Ne6+? Ke7 2.Nxc7 Bb7 3.Nd5+ Kd6–+] 1...Kg7 [1...Ke7 2.Nxf3 (2.g7? Rf4+ 3.Ke3 Bd5–+) 2...Bxf3 3.g7 Kf7 4.Ne5+=; 1...Kg8 2.Nxf3 Bxf3 3.Nf6+ Kh8 4.g7+! Kxg7 5.Ne8+=] 2.Ne6+ [2.Nxf3? Bxf3–+] 2...Kxg6 3.Nxc7 Rf4+ [3...Bb7 4.Ne5+=] 4.Ke3 Re4+ 5.Kd3 Bc6 [5...Bb7 6.Nc5=] 6.Ne6!! mutual zugzwang [6.Nb8? Bb7–+] 6...Re1 [6...Rxe6 7.Nf8+=; 6...Bb7 7.Ndc5!= (7.Nec5? Re7 8.Nxb7 Rxd7+–+) ; 6...Kf5 7.Nd4+=; 6...Rh4 7.Ne5+=] 7.Kd2 Re4 8.Kd3 positional draw
The position after white's sixth move is a mutual zugzwang with two hanging knights:
(= 3+3 )
This study presents the WCCT-8 Theme (white hangs a second piece after one is attacked) and it was composed for that tournament. I don't claim that this is something big, but it would be the only study with mutual zugzwang in the thematic position. But it was rejected by those who made the selection in my country not because it is a poor study. "You need the Nalimov tablebases to analyse it".
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Has this KRPP vs kr endgame been composed?