﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

6:06 UTC

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists01-Oct-2019
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Retro/Math A massacre PG

### A massacre PG

You maybe know this position: Ke2-Ke7, Shortest Proof Game (Samuel Loyd, New York Clipper 1895)
The author's solution is: 1. c4 d5 2. cxd5 Dxd5 3. Dc2 Dxg2 4. Dxc7 Dxg1 5. Dxb7 Dxh2 6. Dxb8 De5 7. Dxc8+ Txc8 8. Txh7 Dxb2 9. Txh8 Dxa2 10. Txg8 Dxd2+ 11. Kxd2 Txc1 12. Txg7 Txb1 13. Txf7 Txf1 14. Txf8+ Kxf8 15. Txa7 Txf2 16. Txe7 Txe2+ 17. Kxe2 Kxe7 (F. Labelle found
with a computer 292397 solutions. With Anti-Andernach rules, I found in 1999 a solution in 17 moves:
1.d4=bP d6=wP 2.Qxd4 Qxd6 3.Qxa7 Qxh2 4.Qxb8 Qxg2 5.Rxh7 Rxa2 6.Rxh8 Rxb2 7.Rxg8 Rxc2 8.Rxg7 Rxc1+ 9.Kd2 Rxb1 10.Qxb7 Bxb7 11.Rxb1 Qxg1 12.Rxf7 Qxf1 13.Rxf8+ Kxf8 14.Rxb7 Qxf2 15.Rxc7 Qxe2+ 16.Kxe2 Kf7 17.Rxe7+ Kxe7.(non-unique)
It is amazing that G. Wilts found in 2004(with his computer)an unique game with Einstein rules:
1.d4 c5 2.Lg5[=wS] cxd4[=sS] 3.Sxh7[=wL] Sxe2[=sL] 4.Lxg8[=wT] Txh2[=sD] 5.Txg7[=wD] Lxg7[=sT] 6.Txh2[=wD] Txg2[=sD] 7.Dxb8 Dxg1 8.Dxa7 Dxf2+ 9.Dxf2 Txa2[=sD] 10.Dxf7+ Kxf7 11.Dxd7 Dxb2 12.Dxc8 Dxb1+ 13.Txb1[=wD] Dxc8 14.Dxb7 Dxc2 15.Dxe7+ Kxe7 16.Lxe2[=wT]+ Dxe2+ 17.Kxe2.
Can somebody find a massacre game with another fairy rules?

I found a few in a big french database (which is why e and c look francais). However, only the first is doubtless a fairy condition.

wKa8 bKh1
Bernd Schwarzkopf
feenschach 1979
SPG 31
Haan

1.h4 a5 2.Sh3 Sa6 3.Sg5 Sç5 4.S×f7 Sb3 5.h5 S×d2 6.h6 K×f7 7.h×g7 a4 8.g×h8=Q a3 9.Q×h7 a×b2 10.Q×g8+ Kg6 11.K×d2 b×a1=Q 12.Kç3 Q×a2 13.Q×f8 Q×b1 14.Q×é7 Q×ç2+ 15.Kd4 Q×ç1 16.Q×d8 Q×d1 17.Q×ç8 Q×é2 18.Q×ç7 Q×f1 19.Q×d7 Q×f2+ 20.Ké4 Qf3+ 21.K×f3 Kf6 22.Qg4 Ké5 23.Ké3 Kd5 24.Kd3 Kç6 25.Kç4 Kd6 26.Qé6+ K×é6 27.Kb4 Kf5 28.Kb5 Kf4 29.Kb6 Kg3 30.K×b7 K×g2 31.K×a8 K×h1

wKc2 bKg8
Gerd Wilts & Norbert Geissler
Die Schwalbe 1994, special prize
SPG 17 (C+)
The 2nd black move is a capture
(ok, this is a rather unique fairy condition. SH)

1.é4 d5 2.é×d5 Q×d5 3.Qh5 Q×a2 4.Q×h7 Q×b2 5.R×a7 g5 6.Q×f7+ K×f7 7.R×b7 R×h2 8.R×ç7 R×g2 9.R×ç8 R×f2 10.R×b8 R×d2 11.K×d2 Q×ç2+ 12.K×ç2 R×b8 13.B×g5 R×b1 14.B×é7 R×f1 15.B×f8 R×g1 16.R×g1 K×f8 17.R×g8+ K×g8

wKf2 Kf7
P. Debreu (after Radu Dragoescu & Vasile Tagu)
Europe Echecs 1978
SPG with maximum number of pawn captures

1.d4 ç5 2.d×ç5 b6 3.ç×b6 f5 4.Qd6 é×d6 5.b×a7 Qh4 6.a×b8=S Ra3 7.Sf3 Bb7 8.Sé5 Bf3 9.Sbç6 Rb3 10.é×f3 d×é5 11.Bb5 Ba3 12.b×a3 d×ç6 13.a4 ç×b5 14.a×b3 b×a4 15.Bf4 a×b3 16.Ra6 b×ç2 17.Rg6 Qg3 18.h×g3 ç×b1=B 19.Rhh6 Bé4 20.f×é4 h×g6 21.é×f5 Rh7 22.f×g6 é×f4 23.g×h7 Kf7 24.h×g8=R g×h6 25.Rg5 h×g5 26.g×f4 g×f4 27.g3 f×g3 28.Ké2 g×f2 29.K×f2

The base in question is Win Chloe. Please don't make a bugbear of me: my complain about advertising is not a ban on giving the full information!
I still don't like the (WinChloe) author's disrespect and neglect* of users. I quit updating the WinChloe database simply because I don't enjoy to pay for repeated downloads of the same megabytes over and over again.

Sorry for this interruption and please continue the discussion without any fear (at least of me).

EDIT:
* "disrespect and neglect" relates to forgetting the fact that some providers measure the traffic and charge extra if the quota is exceeded; also that some are still using a dial-up connection. Regarding author's relation to users in other respects I heard only the best about his readiness to assist. I apologize for my "telegraphic" construction which may be misunderstood, as I have been friendly warned.

The position of Bernd can be reached with a shorter game, I think: 1-21 ditto, then 22.Ke3 Ke5 23.Qe6+ Kxe6 24.Kd3 Kf5 25.Kc4 Kf4 26.Kb5 Kg3 27.Kb6 Kxg2 28.Kxb7 Kxh1 29.Kxa8.

All SPG 16.5, all C+ with Popeye 4.52. The list of Transmuting Kings massacre SPGs was already published on the Retros Mailinglist on Mar 2 2009, the vaultingkings massacre proofgames are new.

Transmuting kings: A king in check moves like the checking piece.
VaultingKings X: A king in check moves like a king or an X.

Kb8/Ke2 (Transmuting kings)
1.c2-c4 d7-d5 2.c4*d5 Qd8*d5 3.Qd1-c2 Qd5*a2 4.Qc2*h7 Qa2*b2 5.Qh7*g7 Rh8*h2 6.Ra1*a7 Rh2*h1 7.Ra7*b7 Rh1*g1 8.Rb7*c7 Rg1*g2 9.Rc7*c8 + Ke8*c8 10.Qg7*f7 Rg2*f2 11.Qf7*e7 Rf2*f1 + 12.Ke1*f1 Qb2*b1 13.Qe7*f8 + Kc8*c1 14.Qf8*g8 Kc1*d2 + 15.Kf1*b1 Kd2*e2 16.Qg8*b8 Ra8*b8 + 17.Kb1*b8

Kc2/Kg2 (Transmuting kings)
1.e2-e4 d7-d5 2.e4*d5 Qd8*d5 3.Bf1-d3 Qd5*a2 4.Bd3*h7 Qa2*b1 5.Bh7*g8 Qb1*b2 6.Bc1*b2 Rh8*h2 7.Bb2*g7 Rh2*h1 8.Bg7*f8 Ke8*f8 9.Ra1*a7 Kf8*g8 10.Ra7*b7 Rh1*g1 + 11.Ke1*e7 Rg1*d1 12.Rb7*b8 Rd1*d2 13.Rb8*c8 + Kg8*g2 14.Ke7*f7 Rd2*f2 + 15.Kf7*c7 Ra8*c8 + 16.Kc7*c8 Rf2*c2 + 17.Kc8*c2

Kc7/Kg2 (Transmuting kings)
1.e2-e4 d7-d5 2.e4*d5 Qd8*d5 3.Bf1-d3 Qd5*a2 4.Bd3*h7 Qa2*b1 5.Bh7*g8 Qb1*b2 6.Bc1*b2 Rh8*h2 7.Bb2*g7 Rh2*h1 8.Bg7*f8 Ke8*f8 9.Ra1*a7 Kf8*g8 10.Ra7*b7 Rh1*g1 + 11.Ke1*e7 Rg1*d1 12.Rb7*b8 Rd1*d2 13.Rb8*a8 Rd2*f2 14.Ra8*c8 + Kg8*g2 15.Rc8*c7 Rf2*c2 16.Ke7*f7 Rc2*c7 + 17.Kf7*c7

Kc8/Kb1 (Transmuting kings)
1.d2-d4 e7-e5 2.Bc1-g5 Qd8*g5 3.d4*e5 Qg5*g2 4.Qd1*d7 + Ke8*e5 5.Qd7*c7 + Ke5*b2 6.Qc7*f7 Kb2*a1 7.Qf7*g7 + Ka1*a2 8.Qg7*h7 Qg2*h1 9.Qh7*b7 Rh8*h2 10.Qb7*b8 Rh2*f2 11.Qb8*a7 + Ka2*b1 12.Ke1*f2 Qh1*g1 + 13.Kf2*f8 Qg1*f1 + 14.Kf8*g8 Qf1*e2 15.Qa7*a8 Qe2*c2 16.Qa8*c8 Qc2*c8 + 17.Kg8*c8

Kc8/Kc2 (Transmuting kings)
1.d2-d4 e7-e5 2.Bc1-g5 e5*d4 3.Qd1*d4 Qd8*g5 4.Qd4*a7 Qg5*g2 5.Qa7*b7 Qg2*h2 6.Qb7*c7 Qh2*g1 7.Rh1*h7 Ra8*a2 8.Rh7*g7 Ra2*b2 9.Rg7*g8 Rb2*b1 + 10.Ke1*b1 Qg1*f1 + 11.Kb1*b8 Qf1*a1 12.Qc7*d7 + Ke8*e2 13.Rg8*h8 Ke2*f2 14.Qd7*f7 + Kf2*c2 15.Qf7*f8 Qa1*h8 16.Qf8*c8 + Qh8*c8 + 17.Kb8*c8

Kc8/Kg2 (Transmuting kings)
1.e2-e4 d7-d5 2.e4*d5 Qd8*d5 3.Bf1-d3 Qd5*a2 4.Bd3*h7 Qa2*b1 5.Bh7*g8 Qb1*b2 6.Bc1*b2 Rh8*h2 7.Bb2*g7 Rh2*h1 8.Bg7*f8 Ke8*f8 9.Ra1*a7 Kf8*g8 10.Ra7*a8 Rh1*g1 + 11.Ke1*e7 Rg1*d1 12.Ra8*b8 Rd1*d2 13.Rb8*c8 + Kg8*g2 14.Ke7*f7 Rd2*f2 + 15.Kf7*c7 Rf2*c2 + 16.Kc7*b7 Rc2*c8 17.Kb7*c8

Kd7/Kg1 (Transmuting kings)
1.d2-d4 e7-e5 2.Bc1-g5 e5*d4 3.Qd1*d4 Qd8*g5 4.Qd4*a7 Qg5*g2 5.Qa7*b7 Qg2*h2 6.Qb7*c7 Qh2*c7 7.Rh1*h7 Ra8*a2 8.Rh7*h8 Ra2*b2 9.Rh8*g8 Rb2*b1 + 10.Ke1*b1 Qc7*c2 + 11.Kb1*b8 Qc2*e2 12.Rg8*g7 Qe2*f2 13.Rg7*f7 Qf2*f1 14.Rf7*f8 + Ke8*f8 15.Ra1*f1 + Kf8*f1 16.Kb8*c8 Kf1*g1 17.Kc8*d7

Kf1/Kb2 (Transmuting kings)
1.e2-e4 d7-d5 2.e4*d5 Qd8*d5 3.Qd1-h5 Qd5*a2 4.Qh5*h7 Qa2*b1 5.Qh7*g7 Rh8*h2 6.Ra1*a7 Rh2*h1 7.Ra7*b7 Rh1*g1 8.Rb7*c7 Rg1*g2 9.Rc7*c8 + Ke8*c8 10.Qg7*f8 + Kc8*c2 11.Qf8*g8 Qb1*c1 + 12.Ke1*e7 Qc1*d2 13.Qg8*b8 Qd2*f2 14.Qb8*a8 Kc2*b2 15.Qa8*g2 Qf2*g2 16.Ke7*f7 Qg2*f1 + 17.Kf7*f1

Kf8/Kg2 (Transmuting kings)
1.d2-d4 e7-e5 2.Bc1-f4 e5*d4 3.Bf4*c7 Qd8*c7 4.Qd1*d4 Qc7*c2 5.Qd4*g7 Qc2*b2 6.Qg7*h7 Qb2*a2 7.Qh7*g8 Qa2*b1 + 8.Ke1*b1 Rh8*h2 9.Ra1*a7 Rh2*h1 10.Ra7*b7 Rh1*g1 11.Rb7*b8 Ra8*b8 + 12.Kb1*b8 Rg1*f1 13.Qg8*f7 + Ke8*e2 14.Qf7*d7 Ke2*f2 15.Qd7*c8 Kf2*g2 16.Qc8*f8 Rf1*f8 + 17.Kb8*f8

Kf8/Kc7 (VaultingKings N)
1.d2-d4 e7-e5 2.Bc1-g5 e5*d4 3.Qd1*d4 Qd8*g5 4.Qd4*a7 Qg5*g2 5.Qa7*b8 Qg2*h2 6.Qb8*b7 Qh2*g1 7.Rh1*h7 Ra8*a2 8.Rh7*g7 Ra2*b2 9.Rg7*f7 Rb2*c2 10.Rf7*d7 Rc2*e2 + 11.Ke1*e2 Qg1*f2 + 12.Ke2*h8 Qf2*f1 13.Kh8*g8 Qf1*b1 14.Ra1*b1 Bc8*b7 15.Rb1*b7 Ke8*d7 16.Rb7*c7 + Kd7*c7 17.Kg8*f8

Ke7/Kb1 (VaultingKings RO)
1.e2-e4 a7-a6 2.Bf1*a6 Ra8*a6 3.Qd1-g4 Ra6*a2 4.Qg4*d7 + Ke8*e4 5.Qd7*c7 Ra2*b2 6.Qc7*b7 + Ke4*h1 7.Qb7*b2 Qd8*d2 + 8.Ke1*d2 Kh1*g2 9.Qb2*g7 + Kg2*f2 10.Qg7*h7 Kf2*g1 11.Qh7*g8 + Kg1*a1 12.Qg8*f8 Rh8*h2 + 13.Kd2*f7 Rh2*c2 14.Qf8*c8 Rc2*c1 15.Qc8*b8 Rc1*b1 16.Qb8*b1 + Ka1*b1 17.Kf7*e7

Ke7/Kc1 (VaultingKings RO)
1.e2-e4 a7-a6 2.Bf1*a6 Ra8*a6 3.Qd1-g4 Ra6*a2 4.Qg4*d7 + Ke8*e4 5.Qd7*c8 Ra2*b2 6.Qc8*b7 + Ke4*h1 7.Qb7*b2 Qd8*d2 + 8.Ke1*d2 Kh1*g2 9.Qb2*g7 + Kg2*f2 10.Qg7*h7 Kf2*g1 11.Qh7*g8 + Kg1*a1 12.Qg8*f8 Rh8*h2 + 13.Kd2*f7 Rh2*c2 14.Qf8*b8 Rc2*c1 15.Qb8*c7 Ka1*b1 16.Qc7*c1 + Kb1*c1 17.Kf7*e7

Ke7/Kc2 (VaultingKings RO)
1.e2-e4 a7-a6 2.Bf1*a6 Ra8*a6 3.Qd1-g4 Ra6*a2 4.Qg4*d7 + Ke8*e4 5.Qd7*c8 Ra2*b2 6.Qc8*b7 + Ke4*h1 7.Qb7*b2 Qd8*d2 + 8.Ke1*d2 Kh1*g2 9.Qb2*g7 + Kg2*f2 10.Qg7*h7 Kf2*g1 11.Qh7*g8 + Kg1*a1 12.Qg8*f8 Rh8*h2 + 13.Kd2*f7 Ka1*b1 14.Qf8*b8 + Kb1*c1 15.Qb8*c7 Rh2*c2 16.Qc7*c2 + Kc1*c2 17.Kf7*e7

Kh1/Kb1 (VaultingKings RO)
1.d2-d4 Sb8-c6 2.Bc1-h6 Sc6*d4 3.Bh6*g7 Sd4*e2 4.Bg7*f8 Se2*g1 5.Bf8*e7 Ke8*e7 6.Qd1*d7 + Ke7*c2 7.Qd7*f7 Kc2*b2 8.Qf7*g8 Kb2*a1 9.Qg8*h7 Ka1*a2 10.Qh7*c7 Rh8*h2 11.Qc7*c8 Rh2*g2 12.Qc8*b7 Rg2*f2 13.Qb7*a7 + Ka2*b1 14.Qa7*a8 Rf2*f1 + 15.Ke1*f1 Qd8*a8 16.Kf1*g1 Qa8*h1 + 17.Kg1*h1

Kf7/Kb2 (VaultingKings ZR)
1.e2-e4 Sg8-f6 2.Qd1-h5 Sf6*e4 3.Qh5*h7 Se4*d2 4.Qh7*g7 Sd2*b1 5.Ra1*b1 Rh8*h2 6.Qg7*f8 + Ke8*a2 7.Qf8*d8 Rh2*g2 8.Qd8*c7 Rg2*g1 9.Qc7*b8 Rg1*h1 10.Qb8*a8 Rh1*f1 + 11.Ke1*a7 Rf1*f2 12.Qa8*c8 Rf2*c2 13.Ka7*b7 Rc2*c8 14.Kb7*c8 Ka2*b1 15.Kc8*d7 Kb1*c1 16.Kd7*e7 Kc1*b2 17.Ke7*f7

QUOTE
wKa8 bKh1
Bernd Schwarzkopf
feenschach 1979
SPG 31
Haan

The correct stipulation for this problem is:
Wie war die Stellung vor 62 Einzelzügen?
Haaner Schach
(What was the position 62 single moves ago? Haaner Chess)

mario

QUOTE

The correct stipulation for this problem is:
Wie war die Stellung vor 62 Einzelzügen?
Haaner Schach

The complete fairy condition used is 'Haaner Schach seit Partieanfangsstellung'.

Kh7/Kb1 (VaultingKings 16)
1.d2-d4 Sb8-c6 2.Bc1-f4 Sc6*d4 3.Bf4*c7 Sd4*e2 4.Bc7*d8 Ke8*d8 5.Qd1*d7 + Kd8*c2 6.Bf1*e2 Kc2*b2 7.Qd7*b7 + Kb2*a1 8.Qb7*a7 Ka1*b1 9.Qa7*e7 Ra8*a2 10.Qe7*f8 Ra2*e2 + 11.Ke1*f7 Re2*f2 + 12.Kf7*g7 Rf2*g2 + 13.Kg7*h8 Rg2*g1 14.Qf8*c8 Rg1*h1 15.Qc8*g8 Rh1*h2 16.Qg8*h7 + Rh2*h7 + 17.Kh8*h7

Kh7/Kf1 (VaultingKings 16)
1.d2-d4 Sb8-c6 2.Bc1-f4 Sc6*d4 3.Bf4*c7 Sd4*e2 4.Bc7*d8 Ke8*d8 5.Qd1*d7 + Kd8*c2 6.Sg1*e2 Kc2*b2 7.Qd7*b7 + Kb2*a1 8.Qb7*a7 Ka1*b1 9.Qa7*e7 Ra8*a2 10.Qe7*f8 Ra2*e2 + 11.Ke1*f7 Re2*f2 + 12.Kf7*g7 Rf2*f1 13.Rh1*f1 + Kb1*h2 14.Qf8*c8 Kh2*g2 15.Qc8*g8 Rh8*g8 + 16.Kg7*g8 Kg2*f1 17.Kg8*h7

Ke7/Kf2 (VaultingKings LI)
1.d2-d4 Sb8-c6 2.Bc1-f4 Sc6*d4 3.Bf4*c7 Qd8*c7 4.Qd1*d4 Qc7*h2 5.Qd4*a7 Qh2*g2 6.Qa7*b7 Ra8*a2 7.Rh1*h7 Ra2*a1 8.Rh7*g7 Qg2*f1 + 9.Ke1*a1 Qf1*g1 10.Qb7*d7 + Ke8*e2 11.Rg7*f7 Qg1*b1 + 12.Ka1*h8 Qb1*b2 + 13.Kh8*g8 Qb2*c2 14.Qd7*c8 Qc2*c8 15.Rf7*f8 Qc8*f8 + 16.Kg8*f8 Ke2*f2 17.Kf8*e7

Here is a new idea, a combination between massacre proof games and Losing Chess rules:
P. Raican
(= 2+2 )

PG 16 Losing Chess
1. d4 d6 2. Bg5 Be6 3. Bxe7 Bxa2 4. Bxd6 Bxb1 5. Rxa7 Bxc2 6. Qxc2 Bxd6 7.Qxh7 Bxh2 8. Qxg7 Bxg1 9. Qxg8 Rxg8 10. Rxa8 Rxg2 11. Rxb8 Rxf2 12.Rxb7 Rxe2 13.Rxc7 Rxe1 14.Rxf7 Rxf1 15. Rf7xf1 Qxd4 16. Rf1xg1 Qxb2.

Cook (Popeye):
1.Sb1-c3 a7-a6 2.e2-e4 h7-h5 3.Bf1*a6 Ra8*a6 4.Qd1*h5 Ra6*a2 5.Qh5*f7 Ra2*b2 6.Qf7*e7 Rh8*h2 7.Qe7*d7 Rh2*g2 8.Qd7*c8 Qd8*d2 9.Qc8*b7 Qd2*c3 10.Qb7*b8 Qc3*e1 11.Qb8*c7 Qe1*e4 12.Qc7*g7 Qe4*c2 13.Qg7*f8 Qc2*f2 14.Qf8*g8 Rg2*g8 15.Bc1*b2 Rg8*g1 16.Ra1*g1 Qf2*b2 dia

Losing chess isn't exactly the helpful rule for massacre PG,
since you have to capture like mad anyway :-)

Here is my idea: N-chess (dunno the official name but replace
from the beginning, eat yourself through to a7 and mop up
with the rooks...anyone want to give it a try if you can get
away with captures ONLY?

Hauke

There are two 3-piece cavalier majeur proofgames in 14.5 moves, IIRC.

One of them is P1017482 , but this was already discussed on the retros mailing list somewhere end '90s.

@Hauke,

Your idea -- to speed up the massacre using fairy units -- is interesting.
It might be better to employ some type of fairy Kings (e.g., Royal Nightriders, Transmuting Kings, Swapping Kings, etc), since the royal units must survive.

Also, I think various Circe/Acirce forms probably offer an interesting setting for massacre (or near-massacre) proofgames, especially in cases where rebirth avoidance helps to set the play.
Another idea is to use Atomic Chess, where you can reduce to a single unit; personally, I don't prefer the hybrid form, but there are some alternatives.

In general, I don't think massacre proofgames earn the credit they deserve -- they have the potential to be remarkably iconic problems (for any given set of rules).
The reason is clearly a bias, based upon a misunderstanding of the true nature of the composer -- folks interested in appeasing the ego with declarations of "mastery," I find, will tend to devalue projects which require significant assistance from computerized composition techniques.
Problem composition probably contains the least objective evaluation system ever devised.

Anyway, I enjoy following the solution of massacre proofgames, despite the clear downside: they provide little interest for human solvers.
Of course, solver interest was never a concern for judges in the past (e.g., when supersized boards were employed, along with massively excessive fairy elements, to achieve the false paradox of some grotesque cyclical theme). So long as the diagram was awash in human fingerprints, the crime scene was considered legitimate, I suppose...

Evaluations are, of course, subject to change -- faster computers will reduce the time required to produce a sound massacre PG, and the rarity will shift.
In the next 20 years, we might easily see hundreds (or even thousands) of massacre proofgames emerge, with all variety of fairy elements; but the impediments will mount against publication. The interest of human solvers is likely to become an increasingly important criteria (read: a means to project a predetermined bias), despite the precedent of complete disregard set by direct-play enthusiasts.

At some point, maybe we will see (or even come to expect?) the incorporation of thematic content, in these massacre PGs.
But, I frankly doubt that many judges would bother to notice.
Few judges will objectively notice the elements of a good work, instead they tend to look for evidence of a good boy (like any good quantum physicist, they'll find it where they look for it; and the act of looking alters the distribution).

If you care about shaping the scatter pattern of awards, you can always do what others do: create your own thematic tourney, dictate your own set of compulsory content, and then turn around and enter your own problem...
This actually happens in Thematic Tourneys, though more discrete ways are advised (e.g., let a friend with a very similar interest dictate the terms).
Better yet, who would see through the old "two brothers and a stranger" scam?

Admittedly, there is scant evidence to argue there are any routine patterns of such unethical behavior (let alone to suggest widespread collusion), but the data is extremely limited -- we have only the transparent cases to test; where racketeering was overtly possible, it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of legitimacy.

Imagine if it was discovered that a chess960 player was allowed to dictate the starting position, for every game in a particular tournament, and this starting position was only announced a short time before the big event.
Actually, in chess960 you would expect that several players could overcome the far superior opening preparation of a competitor; in problem chess, the advantage of dictating the mandatory thematic elements could, very easily, be designed as insurmountable.

I am sorry to have obviously gone way off on a tangent here, but maybe somebody should propose that WFCC consider altering their own process for dictating content in thematic tourneys.
I think we all know that massacre proofgame themes have zero hope of consideration, and therefore, such bias is an inherent indication of an unfair process.

I plan to petition a higher authority than our elected delegates -- that's right: the Russian Embassy!

As usual Kevin has many things to say!
One thing I did find interesting was his reference to how the products of computer assisted composing are to be judged.
It seems we are approaching the same place as the endgame study people with their table-base controversy which seemed to split the community down the middle.

The problem is that 'computer assisted' covers the whole spectrum - from the guy who makes his problem 'by hand', just using the computer to check for cooks or do a bit of polishing, on to those problems which obviously couldn't have been produced without the computer (I recently saw a h#3 with 4 white pieces!), right up to those positions/solutions which are 100% computer output.

In my own composing career I've been from one end to the other, and have concluded that the less computer input the better - but that's just my own opinion based on the idea that it's the 'composing process' that's important, rather than the end product.

I appreciate however that for many the computer is an invaluable resource, speeding up their exploration of Chess Space, helping them to boldly go where no man has gone before. This is a good thing as it opens up new, previously unimagined vistas.
But how to judge them? Should they be judged alongside the hand-made stuff?
Of course this is leading us down the same path as the study people - where exactly did they end up?