|(1) Posted by Aleksey Oganesjan [Wednesday, Oct 26, 2016 06:14]|
Quick Composing TT-176 (#4-N) C. 26-11-2015
Editorial board of international web project "SuperProblem" (http://superproblem.ru/index-en.html) announces a quick composing thematic tourney for moremovers.
Awards will be published on the website http://superproblem.ru
View the announcement on the link http://superproblem.ucoz.ru/blog/2016-10-26-141#02
|(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Oct 26, 2016 08:27]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [16-10-26]|
Not clear. Whether total units should be 8 or more? ie. whether miniatures not allowed?
|(3) Posted by Aleksey Oganesjan [Wednesday, Oct 26, 2016 19:35]|
Citation: "Minimal total quantity of units in the initial (diagram) position is 8".
So, miniatures are NOT allowed.
|(4) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Friday, Oct 28, 2016 12:31]|
„duals in full length variations are not allowed”
So wKf4, wQa6 vs bKh4, bPf5f6; #2 [1.Qb7 Kh5/Kh3 2.Qh7/Qh1] fulfills this condition, but the same position –bPf5 [1.- f5 2.Qh7,Qh1] not?
|(5) Posted by Aleksey Oganesjan [Friday, Oct 28, 2016 22:15]; edited by Aleksey Oganesjan [16-10-28]|
Yes, you are right, Marcel.
The judge of some another, "ordinary" TT can consider such dual (1...f5 2.Qh1#/Qh7#) as minor dual because the move 1...f5 does not refute both White threats. But the fact is that, in this tourney the condition "Duals in full length variations are not allowed" is used for easy "automatic" judging and ranking of problems.
|(6) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Saturday, Oct 29, 2016 01:20]; edited by Marcel Tribowski [16-10-29]|
Once upon a time, there was an „Old English school“, favoring twomovers in which EVERY black move, naturally a full length variation, had to be answered by a single white one. Much later, a fairy condition, called „exclusive chess“ was invented, which cultivated every such „dual“ as a refutation.
Of course, everyone is free to express his own rules. But in my opinion, these ones are far away from practice of contemporary moremover. Wouldn't a human judge (with some experience) be preferable to an „easy *automatic* judging“?
Welcome to 21st century!
|(7) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Oct 29, 2016 02:40]|
Of course, all human beings should become mere consumers. With so beautiful criteria for automatic judging, the machines would not only be able to judge but also to compose problems with such "profound" ideas. We'll just watch and enjoy.
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Quick Composing TT-176 (#4-N) C. 26-11-2015