Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
13:06 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General A new era in chess composition? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (21) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 19:11] |
is it really used in common language in german ?
| | | (22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 19:25]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-07] |
@Juraj,
> "...or you can publish your work in your book (many authors already did that) or you can publish them in your very own periodical (e.g. Chris Feather self-published already multiple series of newsletters filled with his own works, currently running series is Fairings with 17 issues, before that were Broodings with 50 issues, before that Scrapings, Moultings, Hatchings...)."
LOL, I can just imagine the computer-generated problem journals:
Dullings, Blandings, Dribblings, Tediumblah, The Excerciseist, SimpliWhims, Die Sinnlose, Pat Minus, Tranquility, Schach Unaktiv, ...
| | | (23) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2011 19:45]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [11-09-07] |
Germany has a great Jewish tradition. As two of the most popular people, just think about Albert Einstein and Kurt Tucholsky. ;-)
Terms like those are very common, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_deutscher_W%C3%B6rter_aus_dem_Hebr%C3%A4ischen
| | | (24) Posted by Dan Meinking [Thursday, Sep 8, 2011 06:25] |
@Juraj: "...everybody has already the power to publish almost anything."
Yes. But just because one can "publish almost anything" doesn't mean one should. That holds true whether you're an editor receiving originals, or a self-publisher (like CJF).
I don't fault Mr. Poisson for his methods. But I do wish he would've exercised some discretion, as any good publisher would do.
| | | (25) Posted by Thomas Maeder [Saturday, Sep 10, 2011 10:03] |
QUOTE
is it really used in common language in german ?
Not really. It's a correct German word, but I think that only a small minority of the population know its meaning.
For what it's worth, I have never had the Chuzpe to use it :-)
| | | (26) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Sep 10, 2011 22:04] |
Well, I could have used "nerve" instead but
"chuzpe" has undertones of admiration :-)
Hauke
| | | (27) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 02:32]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-11] |
In the interest of philosophical clarification, I'll play devil's advocate...
First, Christian's publication does not preclude a separation of "wheat from chaff."
On the contrary, Christian had already published a number of problems with identical EGTB material (in respected journals, such as: Die Schwalbe, Schach, diagrammes, Uralsky Problemist, Problem Paradise, Gambit, ChessStar, ... to name a few).
He even won a Commendation (Tel-Aviv 100JT, 2009).
So, what real harm is done by his publishing all the rest (I presume the chaff) in a single, online journal?
Second, an argument can be made that publishing all of these problems will liberate editors from having to consider such content.
Moreover, no composer need search through these specific tables again -- the entire table has been reduced to Christian's booklet.
Publish the entire EGTB in this fashion, and the size of the table -- for strictly study/#n purposes -- can shrink considerably.
Plus, you'll render moot, by anticipation, any question concerning the acceptability of EGTB content in journals, TTs, FIDE Albums, etc.
Shouldn't we recognize the benefits of Christian's work?
Third, the claim that human editors have higher publication standards is hardly demonstrable...
Just consider the number of cooked/busted/insolvable problems, which could have been tested by computer (yes, even by the EGTB!), but were not.
Then, consider the illegal positions, the anticipated problems, the problems plagued by serious duals, the republished unsound problems, etc...
[Awards have even been won by problems which computers, of the day, would have quickly proven incorrect.]
And, what about the many problems which employ excessive fairy elements to achieve themes of no discernible significance?
So far, these flaws are exclusive to human standards -- no such flaws have been demonstrated in Christian's publication.
Even beyond our flawed standards listed above, humans have published vast numbers of problems which are completely uninteresting.
I would hesitate to wager that a human (even a FIDE judge) would always distinguish the computer generated problem/study from some unfortunate selections by their compatriots.
[As I already mentioned, Christian's technique may already have won (at least one) commendation.]
Finally, computers do not go on and on about 'chutzpah.' :)
| | | (28) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 14:48] |
Well, Kevin :
"In the interest of philosophical clarification, I'll play devil's advocate..."
I would say : there is no place here nor for advocates, nor for devil - of course nor for monkeys.
- Perhaps also not for philosophy, but this is another question.
To say it shortly, I think that
a) EGDB did not kill chess composition with 6 pieces or less.
b) C. Poisson, and others, are right to put their name upon such diagrams (n# or studies with less than 6 pieces)
c) computer help - whatever this help is (solving programs of any kind, chessproblem databases, EGDB, and others...)is wellcome and only helps to increase the general level of chess problems.
| | | (29) Posted by Dan Meinking [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 17:13] |
JR: "a) EGDB did not kill chess composition with 6 pieces or less."
Yes, because the EGTB authors did not simultaneously publish millions of diagrams and claim credit for them.
JR: "b) C. Poisson, and others, are right to put their name upon such diagrams (n# or studies with less than 6 pieces)"
I have already stated that "mining" is a valid method, because normally in such cases the composer reviews the candidate positions and selects the best one(s). However, blindly extracting thousands of catalogued positions and publishing them as one's own work seems tantamount to piracy.
JR: "c) computer help - whatever this help is (solving programs of any kind, chessproblem databases, EGDB, and others...)is wellcome and only helps to increase the general level of chess problems."
All these positions are already available in EGTB. Copying them en mass into WinChloe (and claiming authorship) does not "help".
Full disclosure: I own neither EGTB nor WinChloe products.
| | | (30) Posted by Frank Richter [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 17:31] |
All chess positions are already available anywhere ...
I remember a very old discussion regarding the autorship of chess problems: does it base on the position or on the solution to a given position? But I don't remember the answer.
And I agree with Dan: A computer don't automatically increase the level of chess composition, but it may be a powerful tool for this purpose.
| | | (31) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 19:50] |
@Dan :
as says Franck : EGTB 6 pieces or less is free on the web on some different sites, one of them : http://www.k4it.de/index.php?topic=egtb&lang=en
for solving programs : wchloe is not needed, you have Popeye that is free on the web
for databases you have also PDB server which is quite a great database also free on the web
"...All these positions are already available in EGTB. Copying them en mass into WinChloe (and claiming authorship) does not "help"..."
Well, I think this is an illusion. They are not really available until somebody shows it to you.
Perhaps, if you try yourself the exercise - to find interesting positions inside those from EGDB - , you'll see how these results can be valuable, {and how they can be less valuable.}
| | | (32) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 21:26] |
"Available" is such a philosophic notion.
Are the factors of 1230064725695433552136354866829483369914071281960058107962611156090077
"available" before somebody actually computed them?
(snickers at the thought that somebody actually runs his computer for finding my
two random primes product :-)
I'm on the side of Jacques on "availability".
Hauke
| | | (33) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 22:35]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-12] |
@Dan,
The EGTB is not a database of chess problems.
You find only what you search for -- to prove this point, I found this:
EGTB:
 (= 4+1 )
White to move mates in 5.
People tend to imagine that the really good EGTB entries were just awaiting discovery (all the rest awaiting a "pass").
I don't exactly view it this way, but either way, the mission ("discovery") is accomplished by the composer (whom I consider no more than the first to recognize the merit of publishing the problem).
It is certainly not "tantamount to piracy" for a person to compose problems (even five thousand of them) which may have verifiable solutions in the endgame table-base.
Nor is it considered piracy to use a solving tool as an aid in realizing a chess problem.
Martin Minski
1st Prize, David Gurgenidze 55JT, 2008
 (= 2+3 )
White draws.
As you can see, study judges are unconcerned with how the composer came to discover beauty in a study (presently, this is a nearly universal standard).
Rightly so, I think -- we should all strive for awards based upon objective merit.
Helpmate judges do not worry whether an exceptionally long helpmate (with remarkable setplay) was discovered by hand, or by feeding a random position generator into popeye's intelligent mode.
It matters not how we perceive the painter's method -- a judge's purpose is to honor good works (rather than glorify select individuals).
So, I consider it highly unfair to imply that Christian is somehow a "pirate" for automating his search (in the EGTB) for correct, unanticipated problems.
Actual plagiarism of chess problems does, unfortunately, occur.
Christian's problems should not be likened -- in any way -- to what we all consider "piracy."
I do tend to agree with you on this point: the standard for publication here does [sometimes] dip below what I consider a reasonable threshold.
But, our thresholds are entirely subjective -- they change over time, they change according to fashion, and we can not claim to always live up to them...
The threshold for editors (even for judges) is not *always* above the level Christian tolerated here.
At least Christian's problems have provided us some tangible benefits (by helping to shrink the EGTB down into an eventual EG-STUDY-TB).
Would it really be better for him to leave rot all parts of the table which do not satisfy our present tastes?
If he had left any meat on the bone, future study composers might only be encouraged to endlessly flounder (in search of scraps from the tables).
| | | (34) Posted by Bojan Basic [Sunday, Sep 11, 2011 22:52] |
QUOTE
Are the factors of 1230064725695433552136354866829483369914071281960058107962611156090077
"available" before somebody actually computed them?
(snickers at the thought that somebody actually runs his computer for finding my
two random primes product :-)
It is 22885554438962287106300697327715361 * 53748521975996710281497858902794557, isn't it? :)
| | | (35) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Sep 12, 2011 00:54] |
auto-database-search + auto-anticipation-check <> composing
auto-database-search + auto-anticipation-check + review/evaluation/selection = composing
| | | (36) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 12, 2011 04:18] |
One of these problems won an Honorable Mention from a respected U.S. problem journal.
The other, I am to presume, skipped entirely the review/evaluation/selection process.
 (= 4+1 )
#5
 (= 4+1 )
#6
Is a judge expected to objectively distinguish (with certainty -- from the diagrams alone!) one from another?
Suppose a judge fails to identify (by skill or clairvoyance) which problem is born out of a legitimate "composing" process?
Would it say something about the objective value of "composing" (or would it only say something about the judge)?
| | | (37) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Sep 12, 2011 11:56]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-09-12] |
KB: "Is a judge expected to objectively distinguish (with certainty -- from the diagrams alone!) one from another?"
How a hypothetical judge might rank a hypothetical problem is irrelevant.
We are discussing thousands of positions that were not composed -- ie. reviewed / evaluated / selected by an actual human -- and yet they are being credited to an individual as having composed them.
What's done is done. No amount of debate can undo it.
| | | (38) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 10:05]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-13] |
D.M.>"We are discussing thousands of positions that were not composed -- ie. reviewed / evaluated / selected by an actual human -- and yet they are being credited to an individual as having composed them."
I, for one, refuse to accept that Chris Feather must depend upon some "actual human" to make "compositions" out of the works he includes in his publications, by some mystical process of "review/evaluation/selection."
I'm reasonably confident that Chris would insist upon objective standards, for each and every one of his compositions.
They should stand or fall based upon their inherent value: regardless how much help some solving tool may have provided (e.g., in realizing a long series-mover), regardless whom (if anyone) he consulted prior to publication, and regardless the quantity included in its issue.
Nor do I believe that he would accept that his publishers played an integral role in his "composing" process -- otherwise, why wouldn't he have credited them?
So, why apply this bogus double-standard to devalue, exclusively, Christian's work?
Why not accept his work as "compositions," and let them be judged according to their inherent, objective value?
Why slander him by declaring his publication, "tantamount to piracy?"
This defies the very essence of "good companionship."
This brings me to an awkward segue...
It seems appropriate, under the circumstances, to address two "elephant in the room" issues...
However, I must emphasize, it is not my intent to ascribe these as motives behind Dan's (or anyone's) apparent discontent!
That said:
1) I have witnessed many undercurrents of animosity, which I believe can be attributed, quite specifically, to the fact that Win Chloe is not offered as freeware.
I concede, there is a root of legitimacy here: a pay-to-play environment would negatively impact the integrity of this competitive artform.
If a few Euros can give the "competition" a significant edge, it reduces this ancient and noble endeavor to the likes of "Magic: The Gathering."
And, risking "Urza's Retaliation" from the fans of Magic, I boldly reiterate: such comparisons do not paint a pretty picture.
Personally, I am conflicted...
On the one hand, I believe Christian has every right to expect some financial compensation for his ingenuity and hard work.
Hey, subscriptions & books cost money, too -- nobody demands publishers to provide us a free lunch.
On the other hand, I am very thankful for many who have volunteered the same, for the benefit of the problem community.
Imagine: where would we be without these contributions (no popeye, no PDB, etc)?
Nevertheless, spirited discontent provides no excuse for tolerating the devaluation of a person's compositions, nor does it mitigate slanderous accusations (of "piracy").
2) There is considerable denial associated with the art of "composition" in the computer era.
Yes, modern composition can be a difficult and uncomfortable reality to face...
Automated tools are already capable of producing (for an individual, who no longer requires substantial skill) award-winning compositions.
Given time, these tools will diminish the value of individual composing titles (oh well, they were severely compromised, long ago, anyway).
Thus, the individual may perceive these tools as a threat constituted against them.
As a defense mechanism, there is a tendency to pretend that works by select individuals have emerged from a more noble process (one shared by all the great composers of history).
This may spare an individual ego, but only at the price of our collective soul (we lose any claim to an honest, objective competition).
The following problem -- one of the most incredible selfmates I have ever seen! -- helped save my soul:
Torsten Linß
2nd-3rd Prize, Uralski problemist, 2008  (= 5+2 )
s#22
(b)  d2
(c)  d2
[solution: http://www.math.tu-dresden.de/~torsten/problem/828.html]
High time everybody recognize: This aint your grandpa's chess composition!
For the benefit of anyone not already aware, Dr.Linß has created a table-base for selfmates (S#TB, if you will).
Unlike the EGTB, Torsten's S#TB is not available online.
Just let that sink in -- I had a few failing moments, where this really used to get my goat!
Anyway, armed with his S#TB, it is easy to imagine how this amazing composition *might* have been "composed."
It is conceivable that this was "composed" merely by sifting through the output of an intelligent database query -- et voila: a masterpiece!
Any programmer could have managed it -- without ever possessing a trace of Torsten's composing talents.
But, regardless how Torsten did manage to realize this fantastic selfmate, his process has no impact upon its objective value.
Objective judges would never consider whether an "actual human" was consulted -- to review/evaluate/select -- prior to publication.
The old process (of engineering a chess theme by sheer talent) is still alive and well.
But, increasingly, composers today prefer to simply discover what beautiful patterns are possible.
[And, they have every right to take credit for their discoveries!]
If that's a threat to the ego, remove the ego!
D.M.>"What's done is done. No amount of debate can undo it."
True -- and, "what is done" may not be limited to a few thousand studies/mates discovered from EGTB-entries... many more could follow.
This event could trigger an avalanche of similar action -- especially from those composers determined to ascend unto peak prolificness.
What choice have they?
The future already sees them as composers of the computer age -- claims of "silicon abstinence" will gather neither support nor pity.
There is little prospect of success in a "Butlerian Jihad."
Let us detach from the individual ego, embrace the future, honor good works, and act as good companions... if only to save our art's collective soul.
| | | (39) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 12:18] |
If fellow problemists wish to accept as "composing" that which requires no human discernment, that is certainly within their right. I, however, will never believe that.
Nuff said.
| | | (40) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 12:20] |
I know very little about computers and databases but I believe that Someone can make a computer-programme which would automatically select all dual-free twomovers from a database (#n and endgames just require more programming work). Those positions/problems can be published with Someone as the author. But Mr. Someone does not have to know anything about chess. He may consider 'his' published diagrams as nice pictures without understanding a single sign in the printed 'solution'. Someone may send thousands of positions from a database to FIDE Album and expect that judges 'will find' what is interesting. Hypothetically, composing titles might be achieved by people who know nothing even about chess rules.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum General A new era in chess composition? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
