Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions BIT 2019
You can only view this page!
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
|(1) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Mar 8, 2019 16:56]|
Belgrade Internet Tourney 2019
|(2) Posted by Eric Huber [Sunday, Mar 10, 2019 23:09]|
Question about Group C – Protean Chess HS#3
The announcement says:
"Computer testing: Programs Popeye (condition ProteanChess) or WinChloe (condition Francfort). Please indicate which program you have used (and what version of it, if possible)"
Problem: there is a difference between ProteanChess and Francfort.
In ProteanChess, a captured pawn continues in the same direction. A captured black pawn becomes a backward-moving white pawn.
In Francfort a captured pawn becomes a pawn of the opposite colour. A captured black pawn becomes a normal white pawn.
Are both conditions ProteanChess and Francfort accepted for the tourney?
|(3) Posted by Petko Petkov [Monday, Mar 11, 2019 11:43]|
Yes, the two forms are allowed. For this reason, it is written in the announcement that the solving program must be mentioned.
|(4) Posted by Mario Parrinello [Thursday, Mar 21, 2019 18:33]; edited by Mario Parrinello [19-03-21]|
I have two questions about GROUP C-Protean chess HS#3:
1) are twins allowed?
2) are more than 2 solutions permitted?
|(5) Posted by Petko Petkov [Thursday, Mar 21, 2019 21:44]|
Allowed only HS#3 with exact 2 solutions (no twins!). This form would be best for eventual inclusion of problems in a tournament for solvers.
|(6) Posted by Mario Parrinello [Friday, Mar 22, 2019 16:24]|
|(7) Posted by Dragan Stojnić [Wednesday, Mar 27, 2019 00:15]|
Example A1 by Paz is illegal setting- the Black Pawns has at least 6 captures (missing only 4 White units!).
As thematic condition we have ,,reciprocal changes of 2 mates spread over 4 phases according to the pattern presented in the examples,,.
If thematic example regarded as illegal setting then composers can also to compose illegal twomovers for this thematic tourney?- in announcement it is not unallowe
|(8) Posted by Paz Einat [Friday, Mar 29, 2019 16:14]; edited by Paz Einat [19-03-29]|
I received such a note from the WCCI director. Personally, the fact that the position was not arrived at by playing a game doesn't means much to me. Still, placing a black knight on c4 (instead of a black pawn), and removing white pawn a4, keeps the position legal.
|(9) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Mar 30, 2019 00:58]|
Honestly, Paz, your comment really surprised me. I always thought the legality of an orthodox problem to be one of the few values that remained intact in modern chess composition. It is good you were able to save the problem with a simple change.
|(10) Posted by Paz Einat [Saturday, Mar 30, 2019 08:33]|
When I compose a problem I do not play a game of chess. So why does it matter? It is just a convention, no more
|(11) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Saturday, Mar 30, 2019 09:49]|
Most judges would disqualify your problem from the award, based on the Codex:
Article 14 – Legality of Positions
(1) A position is legal if it can be reached by a sequence of moves from the initial array. Otherwise, the position is called illegal.
(2) In studies and problems that apply the FIDE-rules, illegal positions are not acceptable for composition tournaments unless the tournament conditions so stipulate.
True, it is just a convention, but a very basic one. You don't want your compositions to have flaws, let alone one of such importance.
|(12) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Mar 30, 2019 14:42]|
- "It is just a convention..." -
"it" is not a convention at all.
An 'illegal feature' is simply NOT CHESS, in the first place. Chess is defined and confined by its laws.
Acceptance of any 'illegalities' in CHESS-composition would require first a clearly formulated and logical ALTERATION of the chess-laws.
Such an alteration perhaps might be called 'a convention'.
- "When I compose a problem I do not play a game of chess. So why does it matter?" -
For instance - both kings in check is perfectly fine to you, Paz?
Or we must guess what is acceptable in YOUR chess, and what is not?
I'm just curious :-)
|(13) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Mar 30, 2019 20:06]|
Well, Kostas, Nikola
I have most respect for both of you, I hope you will excuse me, but I don't agree with you.
Promoted pieces, illegal positions, legal positions, and whatever you want may give a good or a bad problem.
Just try to make, and show, good problems other criterions have no value for me.
To let people know that there is no error in the diagram, it may be written "promoted piece(s)" or " illegal position" or "no white king" or whatever is needed
If such problems disturb you, please ignore them, but, why do you want to forbid other people to appreciate them, if they are good problems ?
|(14) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 00:59]|
My first reaction to Dragan Stojnic's post No.7 was to consider the question rhetorical (and a bit provocative). For a moment, I intended to reply that the announcement of the tourney did not specifically forbid illegal positions, because the Codex did. That would be the obvious reply for everyone, I thought, so I didn't bother. Now, it seems imperative that the question does not remain unanswered.
Jacques, no, I don't forbid anyone to appreciate Paz's problem. How could I? I expressed surprise for Paz's casual attitude about illegality, satisfaction that the problem was saved, and finally quoted the rules most of us follow. Illegality of the position can take many forms: The most common, and one that sometimes escapes the composers' attention, is when the pawn captures are not justified by the missing material. But, it can also be more obvious, like 9 pawns of the same color, or a pawn structure like bPg7,h7,h6, or bBh8,bPg7. What qualities should a problem have, in order to overlook such anomalies and appreciate the content? These are rules that were stipulated in the beginning of chess composition and survived to this day. Are they bad rules? Let's say these rules make the difference between orthodox and fairy problems. Maybe some day they will be considered too strict and many composers will opt to change them. Personally, I would continue to compose orthodox problems, helpmates, etc, with legal diagrams, even if it weren't a requirement.
|(15) Posted by Joose Norri [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 08:08]|
From the introduction: "The codex is intended to be descriptive, rather than prescriptive, and it is also intended to offer constructive guidance in areas where there has been no central guidance before. It is not intended to be a body of established law which problemists must observe on pain of being condemned of heresy or worse; problemists are independent spirits, and it would be pointless for the WFCC to attempt to legislate in that way."
|(16) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 11:32]|
The gap between players and problemists is wide enough. It is not necessary to expand it by tolerating illegal positions.
|(17) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 16:57]; edited by Nikola Predrag [19-03-31]|
Jacques, you're welcome to disagree, I just don't see what I've claimed that you disagree with.
I said nothing about this particular Paz's problem nor generally about unacceptable original creation.
I'm just curious about what in the chess-laws 'does' and what 'does not' matter.
And I would agree that in chess-composition, 'chess' doesn't have to mean exactly the same as 'FIDE-chess'. But in which cases we must admit that the genuine nature of 'orthodox chess' was altered essentially to become 'fairy'?
|(18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 18:07]|
if a problem is not "orthodox", and not "fairy", and not "heterodox" and cannot enter usual tournaments or Fide albums or Judgements this is called rejected. And we should think twice before doing so.
I am just asking why ? This is not chess ? and to mate in two is chess ?
We are in any case busy in artificial things - more artificial, less artificial... is not the matter at all.
To understand what is a good problem is much more challenging and interesting.
Rejecting or not tolerate things on other criterions than quality seems to me a non sens.
The gap between problemists and players will be always smaller than the gap between a good problem, and ... a less good one
|(19) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 20:50]|
Jacques, your post is so indeterminate that it has hardly any real meaning.
Even a best puzzle is not a chess problem if there's no chess in it. Mere evaluation of good/bad problem can't tell which one is a 'chess problem'.
So, WHEN something would be recognized as 'chess'? Black&White board resembles chess - would that be enough to recognize chess?
Creativity must not be suffocated by dogma. However, creativity relies and lives on some relevant principles. The deeper the principles, the more convincing the creation.
Violation of chess-laws, absence of clear principles - for what? To overcome some constructional difficulties?
And to gain the advantage over those who are careful not to distort the ancient game?
And even when I violate the laws, e.g. by an illegal position, and write that under the diagram as you suggested, I should at least explain 'my principles' of what is chess, if not presenting 'my laws' exactly.
Otherwise, the note 'illegal position' might let out the monsters which obey no laws at all (while the fairies obey the respective specific laws).
|(20) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Mar 31, 2019 21:56]|
in other words :
in " chess problem " the main word is "problem"
The expression " chess problem " is by itself a kind of oxymoron
"chess" is a problem by itself and we don't have the solution
"problem" is a small place where we have a solution so it is where chess is not a problem!
now you speak of rules of chess
is there a rule of chess that asks to "mate in 2" ?
or to selfmate ? or to helpmate ?
We are, by nature, not exactly inside the rules of chess. We play with chess, we don't play chess.
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions BIT 2019