Website founded by Milan Velimirović in 2006
23:47 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net Forum General How long does it take to create a good chess problem? |
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | (1) Posted by Oliver Petrov [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 10:23] | How long does it take to create a good chess problem? ? | | (2) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 11:06]; edited by Dan Meinking [10-09-27] | Anywhere between "5 minutes" and "20 years". :-)
This problem "occurred" to me, away from the board, so closer to the 5-minute category:
DM, Chess Life 1982(v)
(= 4+2 )
#3 (4+2) C+ [the version (v) is from reflecting the published position]
1.Bc6? Ke1!
1.Be8!(zz)
This one took nearly 8 years and 3 composers to realize:
DM + George P. Sphicas + Radovan Tomasevic, StrateGems 2010
(= 14+5 )
s=16 (14+5) C-
The solution is pending for the latter, so I cannot divulge it here (yet). | | (3) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 11:40] | Well, I can only confirm with Dan's observation. It can range from an instant to as much as thousands of hours (working on the same problem), and even then one might not be able to finish it, as Pierre Drumare's story with the Babson task shows.
Sometimes it comes in a bad moment. On the German Solving Championship where I was as a visitor, on the night at 2:30 AM it occured to me a nice idea...
With some introduction and improvement, this was the final product:
SH & Martin Minski
(= 6+4 )
White to move, draw
Schach, August 2010
On the other hand, another study (Valladao + AUW) still is not finished. The best I found was three promotions (König & Turm, study U530)
(= 10+7 )
White to move. Win.
The study was quoted in EG by (I think) Oleg Pervakov. | | (4) Posted by Oliver Petrov [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 12:12] | I see that there are guys who made 1000-2000 chess problems. It looks like it took them a couple of days to make a problem. | | (5) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 12:27] | No, no, no! This is multitasking! They do several problems at once, like 20 minutes with this and 20 minutes with that problem and another 10 minutes each with two more problems. And then they get a good idea for the problems and they are finished. Or the like.
And of course, if problems only have other differences but the same theme, then the composer has experience enough to create problems like that quickly. | | (6) Posted by Oliver Petrov [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 13:01] | I didn't think of this at all. | | (7) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 16:10] | The time *vastly* varies with componist and even genre.
From inspiration to a finished 2# I usually need ten minutes.
(If I need more, the theme was fiendishly difficult to realize.)
On the other hand, problemists sometimes reported that they needed
years for a problem.
Hauke | | (8) Posted by Michael McDowell [Monday, Sep 27, 2010 21:06] | The amount of time spent on a composition is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the problem. There have been great composers like Loyd and Dawson who had incredibly quick sight of the board (Dawson could compose 20 problems in an evening), but quick composers are usually poor composers, because they are happy just to find a sound setting for their idea and can’t be bothered to take the trouble to polish their work and find the best setting.
Quite often you see an awardwinner from a Quick Composing Tourney (usually a tourney lasting 3 hours, held at a problem meeting) published in an “improved setting” produced by the composer after the meeting is over. It seems to make a lie of the source details! | | (9) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Sep 28, 2010 18:10] | Michael wrote: QUOTE The amount of time spent on a composition is irrelevant. What matters is the quality of the problem.
Doubtlessly correct, but irrelevant to the curious poster's question :-)
QUOTE There have been great composers like Loyd and Dawson who had incredibly quick sight of the board (Dawson could compose 20 problems in an evening), but quick composers are usually poor composers, because they are happy just to find a sound setting for their idea and can’t be bothered to take the trouble to polish their work and find the best setting.
Well, Wieland always accuses me of wham-bam-thankyoumam :-), but he's probably
the only one. Since what I call "Entmüllen" (seeing a problem of doubtful economy
and improve it) also just costs me a few minutes, my problems mostly ARE in
"Letztform". Just for the lulz, I tried to improve my earlier problems (early
SCHWALBE days, that is - everything before that mostly belongs to dev/nul)
and could improve only very few of them.
This does not invalidate Michaels general claim, of course.
Hauke | | (10) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Wednesday, Sep 29, 2010 02:04] | The answer to the question depends on how good “the good problem” should be. In the 21st Century a really good problem could never be composed in a half an hour only. If you manage to compose a problem so quickly, either it is not good enough, or it is anticipated. (From Peter Gvozdjak I heard a nice expression: fast food).
Dan, check the computer bases and you will find your threemover published somewhere between 1850 and 1920! Loyd and Dawson had this advantage of being the first in many fields, but we don’t have it.
In the fairy field, one could invent a new condition, and (with some luck and the help of computer) quickly compose a problem that looks good … only until the field becomes popular and other composers prove it offers much better works.
Michael made a good point about later versions of QCT problems. However, even the very good problems that were completed in 3 hours (and there are many of them) were not completely original. The theme (the crucial part) was invented by someone else (usually the judge), and the quality of the final product mostly depends on the imagination and the years of experience of the unsung hero behind the author’s name.
The same mathematics works when both idea and its realization belong to the same person. We should not forget the hours and the days he spent in relaxed contemplation before coming to the idea. Then, as more this composer works, as more collateral ideas he gets, for the multitasking Siegfried mentioned. As in the story about Picasso: 5 minutes plus 50 years of experience. At the end, only hard work produces the good results, and it allows the composer to quickly find the most suitable matrices. | | (11) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Sep 29, 2010 09:10] | Speaking solely for the fairy field... while it is relatively easy to compose something original almost in all fairy genres, looking back at my 19 years of composing I can say the best problems took their time, days of work as a minimum. The first correct position is never the best and often substantial improvements are possible.
One of the reasons (in addition to the orthodox composition) is that almost no one is accustomed to all tricks and subtle motifs offered by individual fairy elements. Possibly only a few experts specializing in specific fairy genres (let's name e.g. Frantisek Sabol in Circe or Yves Cheylan in Anticirce) can realize effortlessly the fairy ways how to make the idea work. All of us other fairy composers have to dig our tunnels in relative darkness in hope we would try all possible ways. and would find the right one.
Not that I don't like exploring unknown areas... :-) | | (12) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Sep 29, 2010 18:25]; edited by Hauke Reddmann [10-09-29] | Marjan wrote: QUOTE If you manage to compose a problem so quickly, either it is not good enough, or it is anticipated.
Guilty as charged on the second point, I know this too well... :-(
(And of course I know only of the anticipations that pop up due to
a judge searching or a fellow problemist with a good memory -
I really *don't want* to know what checking my problems against
the Degener CD will come up with...Such are the hazards of a "classic"
style.)
Hauke
(EDIT - when will I learn to use edgy brackets and lower case quote :-) | | No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General How long does it take to create a good chess problem? |
|
|
|