Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:12 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General twomovers: tries which take flights |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Sunday, Apr 20, 2014 18:36] | twomovers: tries which take flights
I've been thinking a lot about this lately. It seems that there has been a relaxation of one of the major tenets about composition in order to breathe some life in today's twomover.
I first encountered this in a lightweight twomover(black defense cycle) by Joseph retter which won a 1PR in 1984 Problemist. key and try took two flights!
Certainly, the over-the-board(OTB) player looking to enter the composition field will not mind these, but the serious solver will never look at an overall flight-taker try. Now if one is told that there are tries, one has a greater chance to see these but I'll personally recoil when I see them....
Are we at the point now where flight-taking tries will be a norm? What say you?!
| | | (2) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Apr 20, 2014 19:47] |
We should first see what is chess problem as a puzzle and what as a chess composition.
A good thrilling puzzle would offer some apparently strong ways to get close to solution, to mislead a solver and to hide a subtle way to the right solution.
The purpose of chess problem is not being a puzzle. The form and logic of puzzle is only a tool, solving a puzzle discovers the unique play. That play is not interesting as a solution of a puzzle (mere fulfillment of the stipulation) but as a revelation of the author's idea (thematic content).
Several different one-phase twomovers might show the same theme. Bad keys or other flaws would be unacceptable in each of these problems.
These different problems could be skilfully united into a single n-phase twomover = one position with n potential solutions (n-1 of them will be refuted).
If the author claims that there are n thematic phases, each of them must have esthetic qualities of a separate twomover.
There could exist some flight-taking tries to add the thrill to a puzzle, but those n-1 thematic tries have a meaning of n-1 separate twomovers.
That is of course a very generalized reasoning. Twomover composers should decide when and why such reasoning may be abandoned.
| | | (3) Posted by Rajendiran Raju [Sunday, Apr 20, 2014 20:14]; edited by Rajendiran Raju [14-04-20] |
Here is the Problem
Josef Retter (Israel)
1 st Pr The Problemist 1984
 (= 9+4 )
Judge Comments
A problem with rich cyclical content.
The Black moves and White mates appear in cyclic fashion in tries 1.Rxb6/Bxe3? Kg5/Kg6! and key 1.Rxg3 - White taking 2 out of 3 flights in each phase. The Black cycle is AB/CB/AC and the White one instead AB/AC/CB/, but as the whole idea is based on taking flights, this has no significance. On the contrary this is an original idea executed in a light construction.
Aaron Hirschenson (lsrael)
| | | (4) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Sunday, Apr 20, 2014 21:30]; edited by Darko Šaljić [14-04-20] |
A flight taking moves (FTM) are not a flaws just because thay violate the aesthetic and basic principles of Chess Problem,
but because they are serious constructional flaws wich make complex ideas to look simple and banal, like in this twomover.
Try to make this idea without FTM. Even if you succeed I am sure it would not be in a light construction,
but you will have a problem of a true value.
And my attitude is that every chess composition should aim, in its final form to become a Chess Problem.
| | | (5) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Apr 21, 2014 14:20] |
Incidentally, three greek gods had to judge over this problem
(in some Reverse Paris situation).
And Apollo thundered: "Cheating! I get an eclipse just LOOKING
at that crap!"
And Hermes smiled: "Cheating, but very clever cheating. Me gusta."
And Dionysos burped: "Chess schmess, I gonna git bombed. Skal!"
And thus we still don't know :-)
Hauke
| | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Apr 26, 2014 02:02]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-26] |
It has been observed that timing and tragedy are the only ingredients necessary for good comedy.
The same could be said by anyone struggling to appreciate chess problems -- their beauty is resilient to all but an entirely holistic appraisal.
The trouble is, even the experts routinely fail to appreciate the specific context of their own valuations.
There is no flaw we can dogmatically deem universally unacceptable (flight-taking keys included).
Every principle may be bent, or broken -- including even the ultimate rule: soundness (and not only in the context of Joke Problems).
By willful ignorance, we all may tolerate (and even acclaim) the improvable en-passant try, which is commonly refuted by numerous legal retractions.
As such, this can neither be deemed a fully sound try, nor can it be completely dismissed as nothing -- it can only be appreciated holistically, within proper context (something must make this offense meaningful and worthwhile).
Thus, abandon ye olde dogmatic principles -- the complete dismissal of flaws could never offer an intelligent means to appreciate any art form; instead, we should prefer to keep a healthy perspective about the nature of flaws.
Flight-taking can never be understood as a thematic flaw -- such a lazy understanding would only forget its purpose (which resides entirely in the context of the solving audience).
Ask yourself: Why are flight-taking keys (and tries) generally considered inferior?
If you know why a law exists, you have earned the right to break in letter what you follow in spirit.
There is no specific objection to the pattern of flight-giving keys, on thematic grounds; it is considered a flaw, I believe, because it represents an unsubtle motivation for filtering an intended solution -- that is: it may offend solvers by allowing a deduction of the story, without requiring the discovery of its significance.
Solvers appreciate best what they *must* find, in the course of revealing the solution.
For solvers, the value of a try is not inherently equal, by formula -- it varies according to how tempting the idea, how clear the lines, how well concealed the refutation, etc.
Depending upon the solver, a flight-taking try may be considered all the more tempting, or it might be rejected on principle. Experienced solvers only consider such tries, when perceived likely to reveal some nature of the position; that is not a temptation to believe.
A funny thing happens when flight-taking tries are of no thematic relevance -- sometimes they are not reported (as if tries do not inherently exist within a problem, as if the composer's solution may dictate).
Nobody will address this matter to your satisfaction, because most would prefer to format solutions according to how it suits their whim (the same whim that may be inconsistently imposed upon others).
Short answer: contests are rigged, so don't worry about a thing.
Today, chess problems are increasingly appreciated (especially by judges!) according to realization of formalized patterns -- and not necessarily patterns of any inherent beautiful, often they exist to provide a degree of difficulty for contestants to achieve.
This form of appreciation is completely divorced from both the puzzle value of a problem, and the solving audience.
Patternists appreciate best what they *can* find, after the complete solution has been revealed.
While both perspectives are important, neither is individually sufficient to provide an holistic appreciation.
Many today favor the theory that thematic content is King -- achieve by whatever means necessary (avoiding the violation of what are presumed to be thematic principles).
The solving audience might still prefer a paradoxical solution (a concept deeper than mere entertainment value, and with no regard for difficulty level).
The truth is, it is artistry which should be appreciated as the paramount concern -- the overall story matters most (the ends, the means, and the audience in between), in a way that no singular prism may establish its full value.
The study of successful formulas is only helpful for those who resist the impulse to reduce a story to its formula.
| | | (7) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Saturday, Apr 26, 2014 08:03]; edited by Darko Šaljić [14-04-26] |
I agree with almost all that has been said by Kevin.
Most of artists use such an trump only when they are sure that it is really justified,
but I am afraid that many would do that just because it's much easier way and it became acceptable.
I know a lot problemists which never published their problems, that they dedicated half of their lives because they did not have agreed to such a compromise.
| | | (8) Posted by Neal Turner [Saturday, Apr 26, 2014 17:34]; edited by Neal Turner [14-04-26] |
It seems to me that there are 3 types of tries:
- accidental tries where a white move happens to fail to a single refutation
- tries intended to deceive the solver
- thematic tries as part of a pattern scheme
In the first case taking a flight would be no flaw as it's not part of the composer's idea.
In the second case it would be a major flaw as such a strong move is hardly likely to deceive anybody.
It would also be a flaw in the third case, but only a minor one as the emphasis is not on the move itself but on the ensuing play.
| | | (9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Apr 26, 2014 23:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-26] |
Neal,
I expect we can all agree that tries may inherently exist in the direct-problem, as a consequence of the fact that they may be objectively determined, according to some definition (e.g., the set of all threatening moves -- including zugzwang -- which are refuted in singular fashion).
Unfortunately, even if all are willing to accept your sub-classification of tries (into three distinct categories), this does not provide an answer to the key question: do the 'reported tries' (the set of all tries which *belong* in the solution) inherently exist in a direct-problem?
Either:
1) 'reported tries' are a function of the composer's whim (in which case they are not an intrinsic value of the problem), or
2) 'reported tries' can always be determined by some objective computer algorithm (or some expert system capable of correctly sub-categorizing all tries, presumably into one of your three definitions), and therefore they do inherently exist in direct-mate problems.
The first option pretends to have it both ways (tries absolutely exist in theory, but in practice they are reported according to a perpetrated conspiracy to defraud their inherent existence).
The alternative presupposes that no case exists in which the tries we intend may defy the logic of the reporting algorithm.
I'm not certain it is so easy to develop a consistent algorithm, which always correctly identifies the tries which merit reporting.
However, I'd be interested to learn more about the possibility of a logical sub-classification.
Finally, of your three sub-categories of tries, you never specifically clarified which should always/never be reported in the solution.
| | | (10) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 27, 2014 03:29] |
see this "old" discussion :
http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1398564502&app=forum&act=posts&tid=228&fid=xshow2&page=1
posts 25 & 40
another example :
W. Speckman
Die Schwalbe 1975 Special Prize
 (= 3+1 )
2#
1.Rb4! Ka7 2.Qa1‡ (Qa5??)
1.Rg7? Kb8! (Qh8??)
1.Qb4? Ka7! (Ra4??)
1.Qg7? Kb8! (Rg8??)
| | | (11) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Apr 27, 2014 16:03] |
I see it like in modern art: the artist has the right to declare
that his art shows XYZ, and we, the public, have the right
to tell him he is one bat short of a belfry.
Likewise, I say the problemist has the right to declare anything
a try or not a try. We, the solvers, have the right to declare his try is
esthetically bad, or that no sane person would try that try.
Anarchy? Not rly. Time will tell.
Hauke
| | | (12) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 27, 2014 20:06] |
Hauke,
You have here 3 examples (or 4) :
- the Banaszek - Piliczewski (and its version)
- the Seneca
- the Speckman
Can you tell me
1) that you like none of them
2) that you can say : it is because the key takes a flight. ?
| | | (13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 00:29]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-04-28] |
@Hauke,
>"Anarchy? Not rly. Time will tell."
Anarchy is hardly a reasonable concern -- chaos will unashamedly see to itself (you may depend upon it, without fear).
Not for the sake of anarchy do people conceal fundamental truths.
Corruption and cronyism, in my estimation, are the primary concerns, here.
You may claim to have reasonable suspicion of this, when inconsistencies are consistently advanced.
We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us -- our right to be heard has eclipsed our duty to be honest (especially with ourselves).
It has never been demonstrated that reported tries (flight-taking or otherwise) have any inherent relationship with the problem.
We do know that no logical function exists for reporting tries; like a forged fingerprint, they falsify the inherent value of art.
Except in cases where all tries are reported (or until a consistently logical algorithm is adopted), all methods of reporting tries must be considered misleading (a basis upon which problems resist fair judgement).
@Jacques,
We may agree that each example provides some good reason to forgive the unsubtle flight-taking motivation.
I expect we can all find something to appreciate, in every example given.
But, for any of the examples given, can you tell us
1) that flight-taking keys/tries do not somewhat diminish the motivation of the problem presented?
2) that such motivation should not remain an important consideration, in assessing the problem's quality?
This leaves little hope to escape the need for an holistic appreciation.
Every problem has flaws -- the good problems are only separated by the feeling (illusion?) that their flaws were intelligently earned.
| | | (14) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 06:13]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [14-04-28] |
These keys are not "unsubtile", nor have "unsubtile motivation".
And there is nothing to forgive.
"We" may agree that the fact that these keys take a flight (flights), is more a quality than a defect.
| | | (15) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 10:32]; edited by Darko Šaljić [14-04-28] |
The key question is: to whom we compose?
What is and is there a the ideal prototype of solver/problemist, or audience for our work?
Perhaps each of us has someone like that in the subconscious to whom he devote his problems.
Whether it should be some superb mind with all the knowledge, or humble lover of chess, or one of those gods of Hauke's Olympus?
Or some premium artist who will be thrilled with the a bord with only one white pawn on white square with thirty books of philosophy that goes with it?
I am satisfied if my problem provokes at least one smile among my friends at the club.
@Jacques,
Speckamans problem doesn't show "2x mutual interference" it shows "2x mutual interference in wenigsteiner form"
and there is a big diference. That is why this problem is a masterpice and no one cares for FTT.
| | | (16) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 11:15] |
The Speckmann example is a very fine one for this discussion :-)
Darko has a valid point: to whom do we compose?
I think we must accept that the problem n00b[tm] will play
Rb4 without much ado and...eh, how do you say "sich freuen wie
ein Schneekönig" in English? Jump with joy?...that he has solved
a problem of a master. When we show him the mutual interferences,
he'll only say: What?
The problem expert will notice that a) yes indeed, the interferences
are indeed somewhat unmotivated but b) done with 4 pieces! Gasp!
(to be continued after I went out for lunch :-)
Hauke
| | | (17) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 12:43] |
I'd always prefer a cycle of flightgiving keys because flighttaking keys are by far less paradox. And yes, Jacques, this is the reason why Retter's work is not a masterpiece in my view.
With Speckmann's twomover I am a bit clueless why Qg7 and Qb4 should be seen as tries it is just trivial mating with Q and R against rex solus with try 1.Rg7. I mean why awarding it a price when the solving is that uninteresting as it is here?
| | | (18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 13:33] |
Retter's ??
| | | (19) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 13:41] |
Post (3).
| | | (20) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Monday, Apr 28, 2014 13:42] |
see (3) above, can you email me Jacques?
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General twomovers: tries which take flights |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
