Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
0:17 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Helpmates Goethart unpin - Can it be shown in helpmates? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Apr 10, 2012 18:24] |
@ Nikola :
Sorry, I may have little compassion for your headache, but a little explanation on the dialectic presence/absence you use would be welcome, I am afraid I did not really understand.
| | | (42) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Apr 11, 2012 00:52] |
@Jacques
I'll try, hopefully without transferring and spreading the headache. A variety of meanings of one single word does not help. So I tried to use the clear opposite meanings of 'presence' and 'absence'. The 'presence of absence' or the 'absence of presence' seemed pretty clear, but my own headache should have warned me that it was actually confusing.
The Uddgrens problem looked as a pefect example because it shows both the 'upgrading presence' and the 'downgrading absence' of the features directly related to the essence of the idea, that might also be confusing.
- What is PRESENT in a problem = what is shown by the author, how the INTENDED idea is finally REALIZED in the problem.
(A full perception of all features reveals what is the realized content and what remains only as the unsuccessful idea.)
- What is NOT PRESENT in a problem = what is hypothetically altered, not beeing a part of the originally realized content.
(This might indirectly help to reveal the realized content, but only by showing what is not the content)
- PRESENCE(thematic) = the existance of some element(feature) which supports the idea, or of some element which weakens(ruins) it.
- ABSENCE(thematic) = well, the opposite of the thematic presence, hopefully better than saying 'non-presence'
- PRESENT is the realized content, NOT PRESENT is the altered content suggested in a hypothetical version.
(- "the content which is 'ABSENT' in the original realization" - that does not look clearer)
- PRESENCE/ABSENCE of a particular element may be shown both in the PRESENT and the NOT PRESENT content
Well, I spent the whole evening searcing for a clear expression with the words but it doesn't look as an improvement at all.
The examples on the board speak clear. Posts 37 and 38 both reveal the content originally realized in Uddgren's problem - the governing role of wBa1 and the artificial role of wRa6 (of course in the respective phases). But the approach in post 37 is actually Jaques' demonstration of a trap, hunting the wBa1 as a 'hidden weasel' is an absurdity because it relies on the content which is NOT PRESENT in the original. It reveals the true role of wRa6 but distortes the role of wBa1.
| | | (43) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 15, 2012 18:54] |
I thought the example I shew spoke by itself. It does not seem so...
| | | (44) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Apr 15, 2012 22:57] |
It surely speaks for itself.
Your example shows that the idea could have been realized less convincing, my example shows that it could have been realized more covincing.
Both examples show that the actual original realization is not equally covincing with regards to wR and wB.
Of course, that's only what I hear/see.
| | | (45) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 16, 2012 00:30]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-04-16] |
My example has exactly the same content as the original.
Your example adds a "try" or, perhaps a simili-try, for one of the sols only.
If you want this kind of tries, you may do as follow :
Anders Uddgren
Stella Polaris, Tanacsa Jubilee 1966
1st Prize (v)
 (= 5+10 )
h2#
1.Rag2 (1.Raf2?) S×c7 2.e2 Se4‡
1.Rhc2 (1.Rhb2?) S×b7 2.Se2 Sc3‡
for different reasons, and mainly because these tries are completely artificial, I am not sure that it is better than the original.
| | | (46) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Apr 16, 2012 04:44] |
Well Jacques, now I see at least something of your point of view. From that aspect you indeed may wonder what nonsence I am talking about and I am sincerely thankful for your patience and effort to find some sense in my posts. My point of view is basically very simple, I am not talking about the artistic form and about some unique and analogous tries, hypothetically missing in the original. I'm talking about the virtual and real content which reveals what is a weasel (or about a 'degree' of weasel-ness).
In the original Uddgren, wBa1 and wRa6 respectively mate in one of the phases. In the alternate phases they become respectively superfluous in the end. But in those alternate phases they DO HAVE some influence on the play. If you remove one of them, there will be some cooks. But if you remove wBa1, the cooks will be only the dualistic versions of the actual solution, without the essentially diferent solution. If you remove wRa6, there will be only the dualistic versions of a partially different solution (with selfblocks on e7) but without the dualistic versions of the actual solution. wRa6 does not determine where bRb1 must play to, it must play on b6 even without wRa6. So, wRa6 has no influence on the actual solution, it only prevents the cooks. Such white officer is a weasel. On the contrary wBa1 is not such weasel.
It has nothing to do with artistic tries or form. No need to mention it in the 'authors solution'. The differences in the motivations for 1.R1b6 and 1.R8b2 make one piece a weasel and the other not.
The version in post 37 presents both wR and wB as the weasels. It's hardly "...exactly the same content as the original...".
| | | (47) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 16, 2012 20:09] |
the fact that a thematic piece is (or not) also a cook stopper is not, and cannot be, essential to evaluate a problem.
| | | (48) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Apr 16, 2012 21:36] |
In one phase it's not ALSO but ONLY a cookstopper. So it is half-time thematic and half-time a weasel. Some time ago there was a discussion in this forum about such partial 'weasel-ness'. I will not repeat it. Point is to see clearly all of the plain 'chess' content (reasons and motivations), before analizing the 'problem' content. In this particular topic I was not much concerd about evaluating the problems, I was mostly analizing the plain chess-facts. The Uddgren's problem is interesting because intentionally or not, he succeeded to upgrade the role of wBa1. It's a pity that he did not notice it and then made the same with wRa6. Not a great constructional challenge at all, but a great 'detail' in the content.
| | | (49) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 16, 2012 23:08] |
The best, I think, is to stop here. However, I intend to initiate a new file about "weasels".
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum Helpmates Goethart unpin - Can it be shown in helpmates? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
