Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
10:58 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General A new era in chess composition? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (41) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 12:31] |
As a casual MtG player I can confirm there are a significant improvements possible to your win probability at competitive level with some money you can invest to expensive chase cards. But this is just one factor. You also have to practice and improve your game, test a lot with human opponents, have the feeling for the metagame etc. Because otherwise the most wealthy players would be on the top of official rankings - but that is clearly not the case.
However if you play just for fun, it can be a lot of fun with much less money. Make analogies as you wish.
Another point - selfmates of Torsten Linss. We had very interesting lecture by Torsten at Marianka 2011 meeting (bulletin with lectures will appear hopefully soon) dedicated to his tablebase composing. The lecture was incredibly well prepared and full of interesting ideas, especially for people who have never tried to compose with computer (except testing final positions).
One of the key messages of the lecture was that tablebase is just a start. Even the best automatic query doesn't give you automatically problems worth of publication (perhaps with exception of some specific tasks). The composer has to sit and do selection, has to weigh the artistic factors etc. But everyone does it according to his own personal preferences. The position publishable by personal standards of composer XY can be unpublishable by personal standards of composer GM. Personal standards can evolve over time.
And that's it.
| | | (42) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 14:00] |
A musician creates music. A manager recognizes it and creates business, but he does not create music. Recognizing and selecting problems might be a creation of business, but it is certainly not creation of the problems.
| | | (43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 20:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-13] |
Music provides an excellent analogy, here.
See, for example, Ryan Blitstein's article about David Cope’s music-composing software:
http://www.miller-mccune.com/culture/triumph-of-the-cyborg-composer-8507/
It is an excellent read, and raises many thought provoking questions (on a parallel track).
And, Blitstein smartly frames the issue, from the outset, by hinting at why "people are so angry" about "Cyborg Composers":
"...If a machine could write a Mozart sonata every bit as good as the originals, then what was so special about Mozart?"
How does humanity react to such a direct attack upon the fragile ego?
Subversion, obstruction, disruption, and destruction -- we toss our wooden shoes into the gears -- of course!
It is worth noting that Cyborg Chess Composing (to borrow from Blitstein) is not limited to querying table-bases...
Here's a very different example:
Alain Brobeker & Computer
(version by Werner Keym)
Retro Mailing List, 2011  (= 7+0 )
Add 1 unit (for a legal position).
In this case, Alain prefers to credit, rather generically, his computer.
I don't see the need for this -- it merely executed Alain's programming instructions, which were specifically tailored to "compose" this problem.
Even if it weren't his program, he directed it to focus on creating the most economical version of his idea.
And, even if somebody else had proposed the idea to him, having discovered this composition first, Alain deserves credit for "composing" it.
There is no question -- dodgy attempts of semantic sabotage notwithstanding -- whether this is a chess "composition."
Examine its elements: it consists of [1] a position on the chess board, [2] a stipulation (in the form of words), and [3] a solution.
[The same can be said of Torsten's problem.]
These are ALL of the elements which Article 2, of the FIDE Codex, uses to define a "Chess Composition."
Furthermore, this problem resulted from the "creative act" (merely by imagining the possibility that such a problem could be Cyborg Composed) of the individual credited.
Therefore, this is a composition, and Alain must be its "composer."
"All this machinery making modern music, Can still be open hearted..."
-RUSH, the spirit of the radio
| | | (44) Posted by Dan Meinking [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 22:02] |
KB: "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."
KB: "But, regardless how Torsten did manage to realize this fantastic selfmate, his process has no impact upon its objective value."
KB: "Therefore, this is a composition, and Alain must be its "composer."
In all these instances -- regardless of how a particular problem comes into being -- Messrs. Feather, Linss and Brobeker surely review/evaluate/select before publishing. Mr. Brobeker even felt the need to credit his computer; fine and dandy. Heck, I've even credited Popeye (twice) in my personal collection for finding lines that augmented my original idea.
What Mr. Poisson has done is quite a different matter. He queried a database, eliminated anticipations, then put his name atop what remained. No review/evaluate/select. If this is the "Composing of The Future", I prefer to live in the present.
KB: "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."
My objections are not personal. I would feel the same way if (God-forbid) John Rice did the same thing.
If Mr. Poisson's objective was to incorporate these thousands of generated positions into WinChloe, bypassing the review/evaluate/select process, he should've credited them to "EGTB" and not to himself.
| | | (45) Posted by Geoff Foster [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2011 23:58] |
There seems to be some confusion. In an earlier post it was pointed out that Chris Feather is a self-publisher. However, he does not publish problems mined from EGTB. In fact, he only publishes helpmates and series-helpmates.
| | | (46) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 01:47] |
@Geoff:
His point is: CJF would publish a worthy problem, regardless of how it came into existence. I agree.
My point is: CJF would not publish a single problem (let alone thousands of them) without the review/evaluate/select process, regardless of how it (they) came into existence.
| | | (47) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 05:39]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-14] |
I find no such process ("review/evaluate/select") mentioned -- not by any aspect -- anywhere in the CODEX.
The CODEX offers no requirement that an "actual human" be counseled, prior to a composer publishing their own work.
Article 2 of the CODEX, which defines (and lists the elements of) a "Chess Composition," has no mention of this processes.
I find no mention of this process in Chris Feather's publications.
...I find no mention of it in many problems that Dan Meinking, himself, has published -- in this very forum!
I find no mention of this, anywhere.
This thread is the first I've ever heard of such a standard.
If there is one shred of legitimacy to such a process being required of a "composition," I'd appreciate if somebody could, please, provide a reference.
Is there one FIDE Judge (for Studies?, #2?, #3?, #n?, anything?!) who can testify to -- even once -- applying such a standard?
It certainly appears to be unaccepted and unenforceable.
If Chris Feather can review/evaluate/select his own problems, and publish them in his own journal, why can't Christian Poisson do the same?
Where is the evidence that Chris applied this mystical process, whereas Christian did not?
Neither party mentions this in their publications -- their problems certainly offer no clues.
If the judge has no way to determine the process employed, how can they possibly be expected to objectively enforce such a definition?
It certainly would appear to be impossible.
If there is no legitimacy to this process, and nobody is able to objectively apply it, and no FIDE Judge accepts it...
How is can it be seen as anything but a bogus, concocted double-standard?
Look, I can understand the difficulty some people have in accepting the future...
but, there is no need to concoct phony standards (or falsify well defined terms), in order to justify an obvious prejudice for the past.
| | | (48) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 06:27]; edited by Dan Meinking [11-09-14] |
KB: "The CODEX offers no requirement that an "actual human" be counseled, prior to a composer publishing their own work."
CODEX doesn't require common sense either. If we take your line of argument at face-value, eliminating the need for human intervention, we get:
soundness + non-anticipation = publishable
EDIT: The "actual human" I was referring to is not someone other than the composer. The "actual human" is the composer. Regardless of a how a problem is "born", without human intuition to review/evaluate/select we get the above equation.
KB: "Where is the evidence that Chris applied this mystical process, whereas Christian did not?"
Mr. Poisson has 108 problems on PDB, spanning a long and distinguished career. Suddenly he has several thousand new "originals". Perhaps you should query him for such evidence.
| | | (49) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 10:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-14] |
DM>CODEX doesn't require common sense either.
Heh, I can't comment on this -- I'd only regret having offended a few of the good delegates. :-)
DM>If we take your line of argument at face-value, eliminating the need for human intervention, we get:
DM>soundness + non-anticipation = publishable
Not exactly -- my line of argument goes two steps further!
Unsound and anticipated problems are often published, and most databases retain records when this occurs.
You may not like it, but the truth is: even these two objective standards provide you (an external agent) no grounds to restrain or censor the publication of chess compositions.
Chess compositions are considered a form of speech, and the codex grants no agent the authority -- on any grounds! -- to deny this right.
Not for objective reasons (unsound/anticipated), and certainly not for the subjective reasons you seem eager to selectively impose.
Standards of publication are entirely reserved to the publisher (in this case, Problemesis).
DM>Mr. Poisson has 108 problems on PDB, spanning a lengthy and distinguished career.
PDB does not paint a complete picture, here.
Christian shows nearly 800 compositions in the Win Chloe database, prior to this publication.
And, despite this being his own database, I would not presume this is a full account, either.
DM>Suddenly he has several thousand new "originals". Perhaps you should query him for such evidence.
I have no idea how long he worked to prepare his publication... years? months? less?
But, to me, it did seem sudden...
I always knew this day would arrive -- eventually, somebody had to crunch the EGTB -- I just imagined it being further away.
Maybe I expected a rookie antagonist -- somebody bent upon proving that the prolific have no claim to virtue -- would fire the first shot.
Or, maybe I figured some disgruntled chap would publish his own S#TB, on the fly, in a foolish bid to "even the playing field."
In hindsight, I should have expected an "insider" (for legitimacy purposes).
Who else, but an insider, would value such a coup?
Talented programmers have no use for FIDE composing titles.
As for evidence... I see no point gathering sand.
Like you said, what's done is done... and nothing can undo it.
All that's left is to chose: adapt, or perish.
peace.
| | | (50) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 10:42] |
Methinks there is an uncanny similarity of this discussion to
the famous KI "Chinese Room" setup. (In the improbable event
somebody isn't familiar with that: Take a person X armed with
gazillions of rules answering Chinese input with Chinese output.
He doesn't understand a word of input or output, but Chineses
think what he says makes sense. Can one say X speaks Chinese?)
Whereas we won't see a Chinese Room that fast (Babelfish surely
won't make you pass the Turing Test for Chinese) due to the
high complexity, chess is much simpler.
The Chinese Room was created to argue that whatever syntax
you put into KI, it will never generate semantics. Substitute
"semantics" for "problem quality" and voila.
"Hey hey, I've got a Chinese takeaway" Hauke
| | | (51) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 10:54] |
I don't know what is written in the licence of EGTB, maybe there are some 'holes'. Normally, a licence would specify who is the author or the owner of any part of EGTB, mentioning a prosecution for a misuse. The licence might not recognize a thief, but a common sense will recognize it. Of course, positions with stipulations and solutions which can not be found in EGTB can not be prosecuted by licence or common sense.
| | | (52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 11:03]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-14] |
@Nikola,
There are no copyrights for chess games, or positions.
Even upon the collection -- in its entirety (e.g., all 6-man endings) -- no license can be imposed.
| | | (53) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 11:28] |
The authorship of positions with stipulations and solutions is imposed by our Codex. A movie is a collection of snapshots. You may try to publish a snapshot from some movie and claim the authorship.
If I find a position in the EGTB, the stipulation is given and I can see the whole solution with all variations, multiple solutions and duals. I can not say who is the author/owner of this position+stipulation+solution, but I am certainly not. Probably, my sense is not very common.
| | | (54) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 12:22] |
For me this quote from the artist Janet Badger sums it up:
"I've been trying for years to explain to people what an interesting and involving challenge creating art is, and that it's the process that's important, not the result. It's the process that fascinates, distracts, involves, challenges, inspires, aggravates, infuriates, satisfies, and rewards those of us who will engage in it. The results...some are better than others. In the end, it's good to have a few wonderful results, but it's the glorious Process that makes a life well lived."
Trawling tablebases gets results for sure, but without the Process what's the point?
| | | (55) Posted by Arno Tungler [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 14:19] |
Thank you Neal! I waited for (something like) this - and it came!
| | | (56) Posted by Torsten Linß [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 14:45] |
DM:
QUOTE
auto-database-search + auto-anticipation-check <> composing
auto-database-search + auto-anticipation-check + review/evaluation/selection = composing
I agree with this statement.
KB
QUOTE
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!
Sorry, my English is not good enough, but somehow I get the feeling you'r are hinting at illbehaviour.
There are various reasons why the s#TBs are not online
(a) They are incomplete.
(b) There is barely an internet provider that will give you 5+TB of disc space for free.
(c) Give me a software engineer who is willing to write an interface for free, I'm just a decent programmer.
(d) And yes, it took me more than a decade to develop the program. It is my damn right to harvest it first and to do so exclusively.
(e) Ask Victor Zheglov if he's willing to share his s#TBs.
KB
QUOTE
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.
Wrong. Any odd programmer would have failed, because he/she doesn't know what to look for.
KB
QUOTE
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.
Nonetheless, this problem underwent a review/evaluate/select process. And it's only because of this it came into existence and publication.
NT:
QUOTE
For me this quote from the artist Janet Badger sums it up:
"I've been trying for years to explain to people what an interesting and involving challenge creating art is, and that it's the process that's important, not the result. It's the process that fascinates, distracts, involves, challenges, inspires, aggravates, infuriates, satisfies, and rewards those of us who will engage in it. The results...some are better than others. In the end, it's good to have a few wonderful results, but it's the glorious Process that makes a life well lived."
Trawling tablebases gets results for sure, but without the Process what's the point?
Many thanks for this quote, Neal. It perfectly describes what has been driving me for years to continue mining the TB. If it were as simple as some people think I would have given up years ago. It is about finding a few gem stones in *billions* of formally sound positions. [I'm deliberately avoiding the word "problems".]
| | | (57) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 15:36] |
KB: "Chess compositions are considered a form of speech, and the codex grants no agent the authority -- on any grounds! -- to deny this right.
Not for objective reasons (unsound/anticipated), and certainly not for the subjective reasons you seem eager to selectively impose."
If expecting a "composer" to review his/her own work before publishing is "subjective", then I am guilty as charged.
| | | (58) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 20:54] |
DM>"If expecting a "composer" to review his/her own work before publishing is "subjective", then I am guilty as charged."
No, you are not guilty of hoping (or "expecting") composers to review their work...
Where you did cross the line is:
1) DM: "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."
a) You assume that one of your colleagues did not review his work.
b) You suggest a form of censorship be applied to this colleague (by attempting to redefine "chess composition" to exclude, entirely, his publication).
The codex provides no support for your definition, nor does it grant anyone (not even you) the authority to censor a colleague's compositions.
2) DM>"...blindly extracting thousands of [cataloged] positions and publishing them as one's own work seems tantamount to piracy."
As already noted, there are known forms of piracy in this chess composition -- there are many cases of plagiarism.
It is slanderous to accuse a person of piracy for composing with the EGTB.
And, Nikola seems to have joined you on the same, completely wrong track.
NP>"[A potential EGTB] licence might not recognize a thief, but ... common sense will recognize it."
Is this how the problem community exercises good companionship?
I consider these bogus, concocted double-standards to be a prejudicial disgrace.
| | | (59) Posted by Dan Meinking [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 22:15] |
KB: "a) You assume that one of your colleagues did not review his work."
And you assume he did, despite the staggering number of new "originals" that suggest otherwise. Of course, said 'review' is rendered moot when one cites CODEX as supporting a position that a published composition need not involve human intervention.
KB: "b) You suggest a form of censorship be applied to this colleague (by attempting to redefine "chess composition" to exclude, entirely, his publication)."
The 'censorship' accusation is pure fantasy although, as stated previously, I do wish Mr. Poisson had exercised discretion.
KB: "It is slanderous to accuse a person of piracy for composing with the EGTB."
My exact words were: "...seems tantamount to piracy". If there's a better word, feel free to correct me.
KB: "Is this how the problem community exercises good companionship?"
The 'problem community' is not at fault. Mr. Poisson made an error in judgment. It is my hope that he reads this thread and considers his actions more carefully next time.
For the record, I have no ill-feelings towards Mr. Poisson.
| | | (60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2011 22:57]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-09-14] |
@Torsten,
You say you agree with this: "auto-database-search + auto-anticipation-check + review/evaluation/selection = composing"
Are you not aware that Dan has offered this statement as some justification to deny that Christian's publication contains "chess compositions" ?
It is one thing to say review is a healthy part of the composing process.
It is quite another to suggest a colleague be censored based upon presumptions about his commitment to such a process.
Regarding your S#TB...
No, I certainly did not suggest that you committed any "ill behavior."
Yes, I did admit that I -- only initially -- considered your S#TB provided an unfair advantage (based upon something other than composing talent).
But, I clearly state, this was a "failing" moment (for me personally).
TL> "it took me more than a decade to develop the program. It is my damn right to harvest it first and to do so exclusively."
I completely agree with this statement (though, it did require some time for me to accept the imbalances this creates in composing competition).
I also concede that there may be a significant difference in the "quality threshold setting" that you apply to your harvester -- versus the setting generally found in the Problemesis publications.
Frankly, I happen to much prefer your setting.
But, one [can] not define a "chess composition" based upon the harvester settings.
I said:
"...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."
You said: Wrong. Any odd programmer would have failed, because he/she doesn't know what to look for.
OK, I will revise my statement:
1) Any odd programmer who happened to see Forsberg's problem (or something like it),
2) Who also happened to have some basic appreciation of the value of Forsberg's twinning theme,
3) Who also had the idea to make a S#TB (and the ingenuity, and the free time, and the disk space, to pull it off!),
4) And, armed with this, they had the CREATIVE IDEA to query their database for such a twinning theme...
I have no doubt in my mind, such an individual could have easily obtained -- without any considerable composing skill -- your problem, as the result of intelligently querying their database.
I don't know how many others might have been returned, along with your problem -- this is a difficult thing to estimate.
So, they would be required to do some "review/evaluation/selection" of their results.
Or, they might simply publish the entire result -- hey, why not?
The main point here is: a different skill set is required -- it leans more towards programming, less towards traditional composing skills.
And, this threatens people.
Oddly enough, these same people are not threatened by solving tools -- because solving tools are freely provided to them!
They are not provided a free tool which will query the EGTB, and filter out studies which contain duals.
Provide them a free tool which allows intelligent queries of the EGTB (and filters out duals), and it would be open harvesting season on the EGTB.
In its present form, the EGTB has no value to them -- it is no more effective than generating random twins with a solving tool.
TL> Nonetheless, this problem underwent a review/evaluate/select process.
TL> And it's only because of this it came into existence and publication.
I don't know what you consider "existence."
The position certainly "existed" (in your S#TB) -- before anyone could apply any review/evaluate/select process to it.
It is absolutely conceivable that a good programmer (as mentioned above) *COULD* have discovered this (and published it) without any such process.
Yes, it's probably true that this programmer might need to publish thousands -- if not millions! -- of selfmates, before they hit upon something this good.
So, essentially, you are arguing that a chess composer must also be selective.
This is, of course, the real crux of the issue -- but so far, it has been obscured by slanders & phony definitions, and dubious standards.
It all goes back to the "infinite monkey theorem."
There is no question whether a monkey (with no finite constraints, such as time) could realize Shakespeare's works on a typewriter.
This is "mathematically certain."
So, unless the monkey publishes selectively, there is no evidence of any appreciation (or intelligence) of his masterpiece.
There are questions as to whose interest this selectivity would serve; but, maybe that's too philosophical a matter...
But, the concrete reality is: there is no good mechanism to enforce your recommendation -- there is no legitimacy in the act of censorship.
You can not shame composers into being more selective -- these casual forms of slander can not be tolerated.
Beyond that, the present title system fails to provide any incentive for composers, to be selective.
Titles are bestowed upon individuals, based entirely upon arbitrary quantities of their "best" works (rather than an "overall" rating).
This cherry picked data is then graded by completely arbitrary genre-albums, according to a percentage of that album's entries.
I'll just stop here, because the story only gets worse.
In fact, many opt out of our corrupted title system -- thus, for them it provides no positive incentive.
@Neal:
I do appreciate the quote, from the artist Janet Badger...
I too, find the process rewarding.
But, I only engage in this process in the hopes of achieving a result that others (whom I share it with) will find rewarding.
>Trawling tablebases gets results for sure, but without the Process what's the point?
As I'm sure Torsten can testify, this too is a creative and artistic process!
A great artist does what great art demands of them.
Sometimes, great art demands an intelligent sifting process -- through the billions of tablebase entries.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum General A new era in chess composition? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
