MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

17:54 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions 25th Czech Chess Solving Championship 2017 & 26th Branko Atanackovic Memorial - Same problems H#3
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Jul 23, 2017 09:07]; edited by Miodrag Mladenović [17-07-23]

25th Czech Chess Solving Championship 2017 & 26th Branko Atanackovic Memorial - Same problems H#3


It's interesting that H#3 from this competition (K):
http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017-07-16-CZE-Pardubice-Champ-Problems.pdf

has been one of the problems that solvers were solving couple of months earlier at rated tournament in Belgrade (26th Branko Atanackovic Memorial):
http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017-04-01-SRB-Belgrade-BAM-Problems.pdf

The positions are almost identical. Original problem had a cook and I fixed it by adding bPa5 and the other version has a bPa3.

Apro Laszlo
Magyar Sakkszovetseg versenye 1971, III dij.)
(= 3+16 )

H#3 4 solutions

No wonder why the problem difficulty score for this problem in Belgrade was 2.21 and in Pardubice 3.75 . I bet that many solvers knew this problem by seeing it at wfcc.ch site.
 
(Read Only)pid=15716
(2) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Sunday, Jul 23, 2017 12:21]

Blake's 4-mover from the same contest was also given in the past : in the Serbian championship 2005 and the Czech championship 2006. But I am not sure many competitors took advantage of this.

Still funnier : a difficult 4-mover from Jean-Pierre Boyer was given in 4 national championships and in European ch from 1996 till 2013 !
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15717
(3) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Jul 24, 2017 11:42]; edited by Neal Turner [17-07-24]

It's not surprising we have these coincidences.
Even though there's hundreds of thousands of problems out there, the fact is that less than 1% of them are suitable even to be considered for modern solving competitions.
For me the problems should be firstly of good quality.
They should be 'clean' - free from duals or other defects, with lines featuring varied play, introduced by good keys.
Not an easy ask, so it's quite logical that directors sometimes hit upon the same examples.

Notice no mention of 'difficulty'.
We've all seen that recently tourneys have become tougher and tougher with sometimes even grandmasters struggling to reach 50%!
It's understandable that with the advent of the Supersolver, directors are worried that somebody will get up after an hour, but making a whole set difficult for the top men makes it impossible for everybody else!
The fact is that in a set of 12 you only need 3 or 4 tough problems to sort out the contenders.
The real challenge for a director is choosing the problems of intermediate difficulty - err on one side and the set becomes too easy, err on the other it becomes too difficult.
So the last criterium is to ask how does a problem fit into the set - how does it affect the balance.
Of course in the WCSC format with multiple sets of just 3 problems it becomes even more difficult to get it right.

Nowadays with the explosion of solving competitions the possibilities of duplication are multiplied.
Maybe not all directors are aware of Luc Palman's excellent database of past examples, but even this doesn't include very recent tourneys so it's inevitable that this situation will occur occasionally.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15719
(4) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Monday, Jul 24, 2017 17:15]

Neal, I agree with you. But a small difference : there are more than 1% of problems suitable for solving competitions. Your number is probably more exact about studies, where is needed a clear main line. And where the solution must be well-written. This is one of the reasons why I think studies should be excluded from solving contests. And you know how I love passionately studies (even trying to compose some), just like John Beasley (he was editor of the magazine BESN) who thinks exactly the same.

About the problems repeated in many contests, I am not so worried like Miodrag. It happens that we recognize a problem, even we seem to remember the key, then we have difficulties to see what happens after, we have doubts about our memory (!) and, at last, we take more time than usual... Anyway the best solvers always win !

You are right about tourneys which "have become tougher and tougher". Did you see the 2-mover round of the Russia championship 2016 (all composed by Feoktistov) nearly more difficult than... the studies round !

http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2016-05-07-RUS-Sochi-Champ-Problems.pdf
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15723
(5) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Jul 24, 2017 19:11]; edited by Neal Turner [17-07-24]

Alain, I agree with you about studies - it should be a dream job compiling a solving competition, but the studies can turn it into a nightmare.
Unfortunately we're stuck with them - in the interests of 'staying closer to the game'.
Ironically the content of the great majority of studies is nothing like anything you'll find in a game.
According to Tim Krabbe something as basic as the Saavedra position has never appeared in any game.

Yes - when solvers mention that they recognised a position, they often report that they spent their time trying to remember the solution rather than solving it!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15724
(6) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Monday, Jul 24, 2017 23:19]

Barbier-Saavedra COULD have appeared in a game, but very few of the contemporary studies. This study, known over the world, probably could not have a prize nowadays, because it has a minor dual in 4th move !!

Neal, you have perfectly summarized the situation : studies are supposed to be "closer to the game" but they are not. Once again the "hypocrisy" that I mentioned in my last intervention (about points in album fide). I have the chance (or the displeasure) to know both players and problemists : these are certainly most cultivated than those, but not always more honest !

Hope to continue this conversation with you over a glass of good wine !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15725
(7) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 00:21]

Sorry, not "cultivated" but "cultured". My english is catastrophic !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15726
(8) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 09:21]

Studies are closer to the game in the sense that White's goal in a study is the same as in a game. The process of solving a study is similar to solving a tactical "White/Black to play and win/draw" exercise from a real game. I find many of the classic studies to be excellent training for OTB players. The Saavedra position may not have happened in a game, but you can find several elements that do happen:
- Battle between a pawn and a rook (to a beginner, it is surprising that a pawn can beat a rook).
- Stalemate defense.
- Underpromotion to avoid stalemate.
- Double threat (the final position, where White threatens both Rc1# and KxR).

That said, I agree that many of the themes shown in modern studies aren't very game-like. And I can easily see that many of them don't fit for solving competitions.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15727
(9) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 14:31]

"Excellent training for OTB players". Yes, with Troitzky, Platov, Rinck, Mattison, Kubbel, Moravec, Prokeš, etc. I give their works for solving to my pupils since 40 years. With modern studies, I often must use stratagems like this : I put the position after 4th move and ask : do you prefer move A or move B ?

Suppose a study you enjoyed, but you ask to the composer : "In a variation, White must win a 2 bishops vs knight (without pawns). Do you know how to play this ?". He will surely answer : "No, but the computer says it is a win". You may congratulate him for his frankness (even Timman, vs Speelman in 1992, was happy Black resigned, because he did not know exactly how to continue) but consider this answer unsatisfactory for too "far from the game".

10 years ago was elected as "study of the year" (and 2nd prize in the contest) a work in which, instead of permitting a smothered mate, Black have the choice between 3 moves leading to a difficult win including Q/B+N, proved by computer. And another study, from the same author, almost the only "digestible" of this contest in my view, received only a commendation ! You know why ? Because of the use of computer !! Isn't it hypocrisy ?

A bit later, was the jubilee of a great composer. The 1st prize went to a terrible thing that I could not understand, even with solution before me. But there were echo-mates ! What could be done by the judge ? The others studies were equally esoteric, but without echo-mates !

I don't feel all this like very "close to the game". But of course there are exceptions. See this one (antepenultimate example) from a "young norvegian composer" !!

http://lecoursdumaitre.e-monsite.com/pages/tools/cb-2013/les-2.html
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15728
(10) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 15:44]

Obvious question: Are there *any* studies that were anticipated or
precipated (that shall be the opposite :-) by a game? If I would have
to bet on an offhand example, the Lasker RP/RP win comes to mind.

With todays giant databases, this shouldn't be THAT hard to find out.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15729
(11) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 18:18]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [17-07-25]

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1091257
Ljubojevic - Browne, 1972
39.-Kd5, anticipated by Grigoriev in Izvestija 1928.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15730
(12) Posted by marcin kolodziejski [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 18:25]; edited by marcin kolodziejski [17-07-25]

International Polish Championship( 05.03.2017), Warsaw and LithuaniaChess Solving Championship (22-23.04.2017), Vilnius = s#5!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15731
(13) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 19:21]

@Alain,

First of all: Thanks for the link! I was not aware that my study had been reprinted anywhere.

I think we generally agree. But I still think even non-game-like studies are closer to the game, than other genres. Solving a position with the aim to win/draw is the same as you would do in a chess game, which is different from directmates, and very different from selfmates and helpmates.

@Hauke,

I don't remember any exact anticipations (thanks, Siegfried!). But some studies are directly inspired by games. I have done that before; the following position from one of my studies is a mutual zugzwang that happened in a game, except there were pawns on a3 and a6 as well, and Black missed the chance to play 1...a5!

(= 5+5 )


And I am about to send an original study where the only difference from an actual 50-year-old game is that the white king is moved one square. The effect is that the desired solution is the only one that works, while in the game, it was possible to win in another way too.

Besides, there are a lot of games where elements from studies are relevant. I'm sure there are tons of examples where sort of Reti manoeuvre occurs in a game.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15732
(14) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Tuesday, Jul 25, 2017 20:23]

In the direction (study and THEN game), see also the game Gulko-Short 1995 here

http://lecoursdumaitre.e-monsite.com/pages/cours/cat-2008/30-septembre-2008.html

and the Costantini's study 1979 (Kf2/Kg8) in the Van der Heijden base.

Marcin, I noticed this too ! In Poland nobody solved it, in Lithuania 2 solvers managed to. But it had no effect on the 1st place. By the way, apologies to Miodrag for distracting this thread !
 
   
(Read Only)pid=15733
(15) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Wednesday, Jul 26, 2017 08:11]

@Alain(14)
No reasons to apologize. Very interesting discussion. Unfortunatelly I am not an endgame expert so I cannot add any value.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=15735

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions 25th Czech Chess Solving Championship 2017 & 26th Branko Atanackovic Memorial - Same problems H#3