﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

18:03 CET

Remember me

 Rating List1st January2019
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Selfmates Logical selfmate - for your enjoy!

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

### Logical selfmate - for your enjoy!

Aleksey Oganesjan
"Die Schwalbe", 12/2018
(= 9+8 )

s#10

Main plan: 1.e4+? fxe3 e.p.+ 2.Bxf3#
1.Bh1!! bxс6 2.Qa7! Kd4 3.Qa1+ Kd5 4.Rb2 Kd4 5.Rb7+! Kd5 6.Qa8! Kd4 7.Qh8+ Kd5 8.Rg7 Kd4 9.Rg2+! Kd5 10.e4+ fxe3 e.p.#!

Happy New Year to all!!

This is a very entertaining problem. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks, Alexey, I'm absolutely delighted!
The main plan itself, with strong e.p. effect, looks intriguing and much in the spirit of S#.
Next, the main part of preparatory plan Bh1-Rg2 is impressive and typical S# plan.
However, the road to it, between 1st and 9th move, isn't less striking. It makes the whole board being activated and position widened to the corners.
So, all elements of the story are touching: the beginning, the flow of the middle part, and the ending. The logical form itself seems least important in comparison with the spectacular play.

Thank you for these pleasant words, Kostas and Marjan!

I agree with Marjan entirely. The problem is fantastic or even brilliant, to say the least. I will always wonder what's going on if this problem doesn't receive at least 11 points in the FIDE album. Why are the judges often so rigid when judging for the FIDE album? Where has their sense of excitement gone? Is it possible that they are envious of such an achievement. If you want to get your problem reproduced and to cause excitement, you have to do the same for other problems and their authors.
This reminds me of those weird school teachers who never give mark A to their students because only they deserve the highest mark. If this problem doesn't enter the FIDE album, it would be a disaster for chess problem world.
Bravo Aleksey!!

Thank you, Branislav!
Of course I very hope that this problem will enter the FIDE album. But it is not the most important thing for me. The most important was in pleasure of creativity that I have got during a composing of the problem. And second important thing is that many composers, to whose I showed this problem, were very glad to see it - this is the best compliment for any "creator".

A thrilling conception: all four corners are visited in a single line play and the piece visiting the corner gets subsequently interfered.
Now that's really a sparkling solution, which will stick in the memory for a very long time. Congratulations!

Thank you, Vlaicu!
Yes, it turned out as "economic", "reduced" version of SuperProblem TT-220 theme - "Two pieces, four corners" :)

I am no expert and can't make such erudite comments as above. But this I can say- I thoroughly enjoyed it, the clockwise precision in the moved-order.Thank you, Alexi Organsen!

I really enjoyed it too. Bravo, Aleksey!

Thank you, Ganapathi and Geir Sune!
The comments from "non-experts" of selfmate-genre are, in a sense, even more valuable and indicative because this says that the problem brings a pleasure to a wide range of chess composers.

Nice one. Such complex play and crystal clear logic, is forced by just using the need to control c3. Expert touch!

Thank you, Seetharaman!
Yes, White is forced to keep Black King "on a short leash", so as not to let him go through c3.

@Aleksey

But it is important for chess problem history. It looks that the FIDE Album has lost its purpose because of the invisible battle between creativity (beautiful problems) on one side and the competition in collecting points for titles on the other. I am very sensitive to the judging in the FIDE Album having a bitter experience in the last cycle. Chess study composers know what I'm talking about. This thing was covered up, and some of the most beautiful and intriguing studies were left out of the Album. At the same time, one of the judges convincingly scored even 26 points, more than double when compared to the runner-up World champion. With those points he became a grandmaster and almost disappeared from the stage. A lot of people were bitter, but the show must go on! You are right in that the most important thing is creativity versus competition. That's why we enjoy composing and analyzing other author's problems. Therefore, I recommend the book "Big Magic" by Elizabeth Gilbert from 2015, where the author writes about creativity as a divine gift, as if she had us, the chess composers, in mind. This can especially be seen at the beginning of this book where she writes that one and the same idea can be created in the minds of different authors.

This shall not lead to a further discussion on Albums and judging/selecting processes and principles, but I fully agree with Branislav's opinion.
And - yes, a very entertaining problem.

(16) Posted by Aleksey Oganesjan [Saturday, Jan 12, 2019 11:00]

Thank you, Frank!
And of course I agree with Branislav and you too...

I am very reluctant to start this reply, because this thread is probably the wrong place to have a discussion about the FIDE album and judging. However, there are certain comments with which I do not agree and I would like to offer a different perspective. If the administrator finds the subject of the discussion out of place, he can move the relevant comments to a new thread.

I know Branislav Djurasevic personally and have great respect of him as a problemist. I agree with many things he wrote about the FIDE album and its role, but there are also some things with which I disagree:

QUOTE
Why are the judges often so rigid when judging for the FIDE album? Where has their sense of excitement gone? Is it possible that they are envious of such an achievement.

There have been cases of very strict, but also of very generous judges. The judges' duty is to grade each problem so that "their individual scores should always reflect the true value of the compositions in the view of each judge." When two persons have to judge the same problem, very often they end up with completely different evaluations. When the number of problems raises to the hundreds or thousands, the differences can be significant. Getting excited by a problem is one of the parameters that influence the judge's decision. Envy is very unlikely. I prefer to see that the judges take their duty with responsibility and do the best they can to produce a fair judgment.

QUOTE
Chess study composers know what I'm talking about. This thing was covered up, and some of the most beautiful and intriguing studies were left out of the Album. At the same time, one of the judges convincingly scored even 26 points, more than double when compared to the runner-up World champion. With those points he became a grandmaster and almost disappeared from the stage. A lot of people were bitter, but the show must go on!

I remember the discussion in the MatPlus forum about the studies section of the previous FIDE album. It is the policy over the years that the scores of the judges are kept secret. Although there are strong arguments in favor of this policy, my opinion is that we would be better off if the complete scoresheets were made public. The judges' work for the FIDE albums is monumental and to a great extend unrewarding. Disclosure of the judges' scores would help educate the composers to the direction of submitting higher quality problems (consistently getting a score of 0.5+0.5+0.5 points would probably convince those composers to make a better selection). In case of complaints, the judges would have the option to explain their grades, if they wished. Transparency is always better than allegations of cover-ups, especially when there is no way for the accused individuals to respond. In this case, I believe that the complaint was discussed in the FIDE Album committee in 2017. The minutes with detailed account of the discussion are published on the WFCC website. Please read the document carefully, before making unfounded allegations of cover-up.

The most serious allegation is in this case personal, even if the name is not revealed. It is easy for anyone to see the results in Section D and find out the details. I don't understand how one judge's strict grading can help him score more points overall, unless we subscribe to the far-fetched theory that this judge hoped that the threshold would be lowered and compositions with 7.5 or even 7 points would be selected.

Claiming that the judge in question reached the goal of becoming GM only to "almost disappear" afterwards, is also wrong and unfair. Let me share a quick story. The only two times I ever had email correspondence with him (never met him in person) were to submit an original to his column in StrateGems and to ask him about receiving his certificates that were handed to me during the Dresden Congress and subsequently I mailed to him. His short reply was: "The package arrived in perfect condition. Thanks very much for sending it to me. Just a few sheets of paper, but they mean a lot to me. Now things are so crazy busy at work that I have almost no time for composing. I'm sure things will be back to normal in time for WCCT-11. We will do even better next time!"

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with Aleksey's post No.6.
QUOTE
Of course I very hope that this problem will enter the FIDE album. But it is not the most important thing for me. The most important was in pleasure of creativity that I have got during a composing of the problem. And second important thing is that many composers, to whose I showed this problem, were very glad to see it - this is the best compliment for any "creator".

Let's leave bitterness out of this discussion and appreciate the pleasure of composing that we all share. Competition is one thing, but the ultimate goal is getting satisfaction and why not, pride from what we do.

Hola.

Sadly the director needs to judge the judges' entries. So if the director is more generous than the judges are overall, this happens.
And it would be to Harry Fougiaxis - or an internal inquiry team - to analyze and tell if I was more generous as a judge than the other judges. Unless it is decided to make all scores public. Personally, I would not be against this, for the reasons given above, but it is not in my power to legally distribute the scoresheets. Only the WFCC can decide so.

(and to get on the thread topic - as I wrote to Mr. Oganesjan per PN here, I very much like that the batteries are rebuilt in each corner, eventually shutting up the bishop on h1 to enable the selfmate - for me this is a selfmate of the highest level)

Siegfried, in case my comment was not clear, I was talking about making the results of all sections public in the future, not this particular section, nor past FIDE albums that followed this policy. This is already happening with the WCCI and the WCCT. Why should the FIDE album be different?

QUOTE
Sadly the director needs to judge the judges' entries. So if the director is more generous than the judges are overall, this happens.

This is one thing, but the judge's own results would be the same, whether he was strict in his judgment or not. Being strict is not a priori beneficial to a judge.

One very weak point is in my opinion, that a director - knowing the given points - may lift up or reject an entry, if this is possible according to the judgements. So it would be better, if all directors have to rate entries of the judges before the other 2 ratings are sent to them.