MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

15:46 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 General Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(61) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Friday, Apr 5, 2013 21:06]

Since my story is a long one, I will first give views on 1958 decision (thanks for the details, Hannu!), and leave the current situation for the next days.
Let’s fly back to the most successful time of the PCCC, when Album and Codex were created. If I remember well, the first several Albums were printed in 5.000 copies, 4.000 for the USSR + 1.000 for other countries (+ other editions and pirate copies). Composition had at least 10 x wider audience than today, thanks to chess players, and the Soviet composers and solvers.
Many composers had in mind the interests of the audience. And, the most useful products to offer have always been – endgame studies. Just take a look at the Nadareishvili’s “The Endgame in the Eyes of a Grandmaster”, to sense the widest market and the highest social importance of this genre of chess composition. Wasn’t it worth a higher price? I’m not sure if 1.66 is a right number, but couldn’t complain about it.
Besides, a good and correct study was very difficult to create. Today, a study could easily be checked, but a good human-friendly study is still a most difficult goal. I tried, and felt how difficult it is to enter the Album this way. The study judges set most severe criteria (see the WCCI and Album marks). Study has the longest history, long as the chess itself. This sole fact makes it most difficult to match the heritage, even with the help of Table Bases.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10136
(62) Posted by Daniel Keith [Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 06:02]

Studies of C. Poisson are not in the FIDE Album.

A problem may have multiple solutions. For example, a mate in two, can also be solved with a mate in three or four or more.
But a study has only one solution and there is a second solution then the study was cooked.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10138
(63) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 18:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-04-06]

I see lots of nostalgic nonsense -- selfmates are older than the Game of the Mad Queen.
It is a muddy lens looking at compositions through the eyes of a chess player -- no way for a problemist to judge.

And, @SDidukh,

Based on how you treat other people in this forum, I'd say your Elo is hyper inflated.
Probably due to the fact that no self-respecting human would care to play a game with you.
Did you study under Bobby Fischer?
His disdain for all humanity was tragic enough -- it should never manifest within a player of lesser talents.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10141
(64) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 19:46]

I remember reading 20+ years ago some excellent chess almanacs named "Chess Planet", published by Uly Friedberg-Valureanu.
In these books there were many games, interviews, but also some portraits of Romanian chess composers.
One of them wrote: "The etudists and the problemists don't speak, unfortunately, the same language."
At that time I did not really understand what he meant, but after reading this whole thread, I sadly understand now.


My opinions on this delicate subject are:
1. The current rewarding system (according 1.66 points / endgame) does not really make justice to the endgame composers. Actually, in most of the cases, the real interest of OTB players to chess composition comes through studies.
2. Another solution for granting titles for endgame composers is not increasing / decreasing the number of points allocated per selected composition, but changing the scale for granting international titles, as suggested in post 60. "Non multa, sed multum".

I am pretty sure many top Russian endgame composers will instantly get at least closer to their well deserved titles obeying to these new rules.


I also believe that OTB players are generally NOT interested in FIDE Albums, but chess composers.
So we must adjust the expectations to the real audience and ask ourselves the question: what do chess composers want / expect the from FIDE Album?

And, honestly, I don't see any reason to keep ourselves divided between "etudists" and "problemists"!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10142
(65) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Apr 7, 2013 02:49]

@Vlaicu,

That is certainly a reasonable compromise.
I'm not necessarily opposed to it, I just wonder: what is the justification for carving out a special section for studies.

If the important aspect here is the nature of the stipulation, why not allow special titles for all types of studies?
Why not include Chess960 studies, and other fairy studies?

If the important aspect here is the rules, why not allow special titles for all problems which obey the present FIDE rule book?
Why not include #2, #3, #n, h#2, h#n, s#n, hs#n, =n, etc?

You are suggesting that the important aspect is both (rules and stipulation -- according to a present FIDE rule book).
What about modifications to that rule book (which problemists can not control)?

We can't even agree what constitutes an orthodox study, given the changing rule book.
Why classify problems according to a game?
Why not classify them according to the key elements of a problem (the elements of a stipulation)?

I will say this much -- your solution is certainly better than an arbitrary multiplier, in that the titles would be explicitly separate.
But, now there is not one Grandmaster title to be earned for composition, there would be two.

I don't see OTB Chess offering Grandmaster titles in rapids/blitz.
Is it fair that composition should be offering additional GM titles?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10143
(66) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Apr 7, 2013 16:03]

@Siegfried and Sven-Hendrik: Better clobber me already in the opening,
as I tend to win 90% if I survive until endgame. Even against GMs. :-)
(@ Sergiy - GMs, which tend to be amazingly weak in the endgame, given their
ELO - at least the one I played - or it must be the modern type of GM who
overdoes the opening. So much for the correlation of ELO/study/endgame.
Oh, BTW, my own studies are mostly crap. But my c3!! against GM Rausis
was brilliant. Superfluous but brilliant :-)

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10147
(67) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Apr 7, 2013 21:27]

@Vlaicu and Sven Hendrik

There have been attempts to change the rules for composing titles. Some of the proposals were very reasonable, but they were all rejected or a decision was postponed indefinitely (I am not sure which of the two is true; this is out of memory, from reading the minutes at the time).

@Daniel (post 62)

I used C.Poisson's studies as an example of how the use of tablebases has influenced study composing. Using the chess programs is not enough for a good study or problem. It is just a tool and nothing more.

I don't understand the second comment. Are you implying that studies are the only type of chess problems that is pure, therefore superior? Win or draw (without a specified number of moves) is just another stipulation. Just as a direct mate in 2 moves. Anything that does not meet the stipulation of the problem is not a cook. So, for a study, if there is another way to meet the stipulation (e.g. win), it is a cook. In a mate in 2, a mate in 3 does not meet the stipulation, so it is not a cook. You can't treat the problems as studies; they have different stipulations.

@Marjan

I am looking forward to reading the rest of your comment, about the present situation. Reading the statistics Hannu kindly shared with us, I have the impression that studies were not treated as equal or superior, but as inferior to the other genres. 11% seems like a small percentage, especially at a time when the studies were at their peak. So, 1.66 points per problem and a special study sub-commission seemed like a reasonable way to compensate for the small percentage of the studies in FIDE album. When all limitations ceased to exist, the 1.66 points remained. The studies sub-commission is a nice initiative; I wish there were more sub-commissions in other genres (e.g. retros).

@Sergiy

I do not agree at all with the rating separation. Trust me, there are not only good study composers without a rating, but also solvers who can solve studies without being strong chessplayers. I am a FIDE Master in o.t.b. chess, but what does this have to do with this discussion? Does this give me the right to claim that my opinion is correct, because I have a high rating? I understand studies, as I understand the other types of chess problems. My opinion is not influenced by my rating, or by a lack of a higher one.

@Kevin

Attacking people on a personal level does not make your argument stronger. We are on the same page as far as arguments, but not on the method.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10149
(68) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 03:01]; edited by Marjan Kovačević [13-04-08]

It isn’t 1 or 1.66 that hurts me here. Problem chess as a whole (OTB chess, too) has been dangerously going down since that 1958. Our community is getting smaller, older, more divided and self-oriented. We keep losing the audience, losing respect for the heritage and each others small genres. This Forum illustrates it.
Singular changes of rules couldn’t be an adequate help, especially if they hurt some of our most deserving members without making any progress.
During the last decade some lights appeared in the darkness. Solving entered the youth chess competitions in some countries, attracted a new blood. Naturally, based on endgames and orthodox problems.
I’m fascinated with Yochanan Afek’s achievements in popularizing our hobby. He made it right to the top of the chess world, to the Wijk aan Zee tourney. He uses some #2s to activate solvers, but all else is about endgames: solving and composing. Yochanan and the ARVES managed to stimulate the new endgame masterpieces and to present them to the much wider audience. Have you seen the Bazlov’s 1st Prize in the Wijk aan Zee 2013? In the Chess Club Belgrade where problemists gather each Monday we had it on the board the whole month. Players couldn’t stop analyzing it. Take a look,it isn’t a computer’s creation!
At the most popular chess website ChessBase, there has never been more of chess composition than today, thanks to OTB IM Yochanan Afek, OTB GM John Nun, OTB FM David Friedgood, OTB FM Steve Giddins, and other chess players. These people deserve all the respect. They try to attract the new generations of chess composers.
All our sub-genres came out of chess. With about 1.000 x more members, the game of chess (not the FIDE!) is our root and the only reliable source for the future.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10150
(69) Posted by Daniel Keith [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 06:49]

@ Kostas

First, I want to clarify that my English is very limited and it could create misunderstandings.
I do not like the word "pure" I did not used elsewhere.

In a problem mate in two, for example, there may be several solutions, provided that the solution (mate in two) is unique against the best black moves.

A second solution (even very artificial) in a study demolish this study. Other constraints are comparable between different types of composition.
Judges and competitive players often compare the position of a study with the real game otb.
For these two reasons, I think the conditions for creating a good study are particularly severe.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10151
(70) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 08:38]

@Marjan,

I don't want to give the impression I only disagree -- your post mostly contains good and agreeable insights.
But, the end bothers me...

>"...the game of chess (not the FIDE!) is our root and the only reliable source for the future."

Such nostalgic statements about chess are based upon a fantasy.

First, FIDE (the player's federation) owns the rules of chess.
Second, chess (in the present form) came several hundred years AFTER chess problems.
If you know the history of chess & problems well, you know modern day "orthodox" chess is NOT the root.
Let's not put the pawn in front of the King.
Remember, chess has origins in fairy variants; and even Capablanca considered it an imbalanced evolution.
Beyond that, the game has many modern shortcomings (which Fischer tried to address: opening preparation).

It is highly likely to evolve further, in the near future (especially as computers improve, and memorization becomes more and more important).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10152
(71) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 11:26]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [13-04-08]

Dear Kevin,

 QUOTE 

First, FIDE (the player's federation) owns the rules of chess.


FIDE might set standards for tournaments, but not for chess itself. If they tried to make a real change to the rules - such as implementing nightriders - nobody would follow them unless there already was a majority who wanted that change.

 QUOTE 
Second, chess (in the present form) came several hundred years AFTER chess problems.
If you know the history of chess & problems well, you know modern day "orthodox" chess is NOT the root.

Some Arabic and European masters indeed created interesting problems, but they also were bound to the chess rules of their time with or without fairy conditions and stipulations.

 QUOTE 
Remember, chess has origins in fairy variants; and even Capablanca considered it an imbalanced evolution.

I think the nightrider will once replace the knight. I agree with Pierre Drumare there.

 QUOTE 

Beyond that, the game has many modern shortcomings (which Fischer tried to address: opening preparation).

You can not blame it on chess that a "random" position with 32 pieces has become the standard starting position and also was kept at the modernisation of chess, and subsequently everyone and his dog analysed the ways to play from that position.

 QUOTE 

It is highly likely to evolve further, in the near future (especially as computers improve, and memorization becomes more and more important).

This is not of any matter for us. If it evolves, it does, and if necessary we can adapt to the new rules.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10153
(72) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 16:20]; edited by Sergiy Didukh [13-04-08]

@Kostas
You ask what your title of FIDE Master in o.t.b. chess has to do with this discussion. I don't know. Surely, it doesn't make you a stronger composer. High ratings don't turn players into strong composers. Everyone knows it.
I only mentioned Elo rating to support my assumption that studies are much closer to chess than any other genre. Seeing this relation not only in identical rules, stipulations, but also in a number of ideas which cannot be shown in problems (e.g. strong and weak pieces, squares, initiative, realization of a small material advantage ...). That's why I opined that good study composers have to achieve a certain level of play in order to master these ideas well enough. And established this level at 2100. If you know some good study composers who play chess under 2100 (real or virtual), please name them, maybe I set the Elo number too high indeed. I thought about 2100 because my Elo is almost 2100.

@Hauke
Studies are more than endgames. In some of my studies I realized ideas taken from the openings.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10155
(73) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 18:05]; edited by Frank Richter [13-04-08]

Martin Minski and Wieland Bruch don't have any Elo.
Their national ratings are not high: 1979 and 1281 (!!! absolute beginner level !!!).
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10157
(74) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 19:05]

Marjan: „Problem chess as a whole (OTB chess, too) has been dangerously going down since that 1958.“

If the 2/3 extra points per study once were intended to honour a (real or virtual) advertising effect, we have to state now that this concept obviously didn't work.

A mentality treating chess composition as otb games' little brother – 'the more similar to them, the better' could be the summary of the „pure chess“ argumentators - is in my point of view a fundamental misunderstanding of our art as a whole. So I've some doubts that the crisis of popularity can be solved by pleasing otb players.

The earlier one gets learning about the difference, the better.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10159
(75) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 21:02]

@Siegfried,

>FIDE might set standards for tournaments, but not for chess itself. If they tried to make a real change to the rules - such as implementing nightriders - nobody would follow them unless there already was a majority who wanted that change.

Incorrect. FIDE controls the rule book, and has made changes.
FIDE need not make drastic changes in order to spoil what was an orthodox composition.
This has happened, many times -- even to studies (last time was 1997; but, that will not be the last time).

>Some Arabic and European masters indeed created interesting problems, but they also were bound to the chess rules of their time with or without fairy conditions and stipulations.

You keep missing the point:
1) today's version of FIDE chess is NOT the root, and
2) today's version of FIDE chess is NOT permanent (we don't even control it).

The chess rules of a given time period do not endure, Siegfried.
Marjan calls chess "the root (of problems)" -- what do you suppose he is talking about?
a) The "FIDE 1997" rulebook?
b) The "FIDE 1996" rulebook?
c) All previous rulebooks, clear back to Shantraj and Chaturanga?

His statement dismisses the history of chess evolution, and takes a naive view of its future.
It does not provide a valid justification for unfairly favoring compositions based upon a particular stipulation (win/draw) and set of rules (whatever today's FIDE rulebook reads)!

>You can not blame it on chess that a "random" position with 32 pieces has become the standard starting position and also was kept at the [modernization] of chess, and subsequently everyone and his dog analysed the ways to play from that position.

I think the word you want is arbitrary, not random.
Blaming chess? I simply parroted Capablanca (and Fischer): the game has some shortcomings!
There is nothing magical about it -- chess is not some miraculous final realization at the pinnacle of a long evolutionary process.
It is just an arbitrary game, which used to be well suited to the interests of players; but, no longer.

Chess was imbalanced at conception (called "Game of the Mad Queen").
The starting position was flawed -- an ideal game only rewards problem solving, not memorization (look at the reams of opening theory, and how today it is driven by intensive computer analysis).
The number of moves required to achieve finality can be excessive.
The threshold to overcome equality, for top players (and top computers), can be considered somewhat excessive.

Computers has eroded this game, and will continue to do so...
Chess will eventually evolve -- it is both naive and "orthocentric" (if you will) to pretend chess is any more a root than Shantraj (or Chaturanga).

So, let's dispel the false nostalgia -- chess is not the root, will evolve beyond your recognition, and this argument does not validate an unfair number of points for studies.

>This is not of any matter for us. If it evolves, it does, and if necessary we can adapt to the new rules.

Yes, chess will continue to evolve -- like all things, it is in a constant state of flux.
And, yes, humanity will eventually adapt.
But, some problemists need to start adapting now -- we have yet to adapt to the changes from 1997 (which seemed minor, but had a major impact upon problems).

The point is: studies are not permanent.
Today's version of chess is not the center of the universe.
It would be foolish to cheat the future, in order to glorify the present, flawed game.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10160
(76) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 8, 2013 21:51]

@Marcel,

Beautifully stated.

If Problem composition is to be a competitive art form, the title process must not damage the integrity of the art.
But, the explicitly unfair reward for studies makes clear that the integrity of this art has been badly compromised.

If people want to dedicate themselves to serving the OTB chess players, they should grade themselves on how well they deliver (let OTB players judge the Studies sub-Album, like a popularity contest). In fact, who needs endgames -- tactical puzzles should suffice (I wouldn't even worry about duals -- just go for smothered mate)!

Problemists are dedicated to serving the artistic aspect of problem composition.
Well, they are supposed to be... but, everywhere you look, you will find them serving their own interest (even if it means corrupting competition, to gain greater adulation).
Corruption offends our beloved art; no applause from players can justify a compromise of our integrity.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10162
(77) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2013 21:32]

@ Torsten:
“About 20 years ago PCCC allowed an unlimited number of problems/studies in the Album. Before the limit was 800. Now we have 1100-1300. This led to an inflation of titles.”

Numbers say this may be the reason to reduce the points for heterodox problems, not the studies. This change directly produced the huge inflation of heterodox problems, jumping in percentages from 24% in 1956-58, to around 60% of 2007-09 Album. In concrete numbers – from 145 to 843. Endgames stood at about the same 11 %, while #3s drastically fell down from 20% to less than 7%. Believe it or not, there is a deflation in #3, from 120 in 1958, to 93 in 2009.

@ Marcel:
“Isn't it amazing that it's actually possible to achieve a title like „Master of chess composition“ by specializing on just one of its various genres?”

If this concerns one of 9 Album groups, the wonder is far greater. It is actually possible to earn this title by specializing on just one of tens of fairy sub-conditions. We do have such masters.

@ Marcel:
“A mentality treating chess composition as otb games' little brother – 'the more similar to them, the better' could be the summary of the „pure chess“ argumentators - is in my point of view a fundamental misunderstanding of our art as a whole. So I've some doubts that the crisis of popularity can be solved by pleasing otb players. The earlier one gets learning about the difference, the better.”

The “fundamental misunderstanding of our art as a whole” is the mutual misunderstanding between us. Blame it on my English, but I wasn’t talking about “pleasing otb players”, being “little brothers“, or “more similar to them”. My point was that chess players, especially the young ones, make the widest possible source of new composers. Millions of active chess players, including at least 1.000 in the Under-8 years category. (Are there 1.000 composers today, how many under 30?). Where else to look for the new generations to continue our work? Are you concerned about these facts? Do they mean less to you then the “justice”? I don’t know about your experience in attracting new generations, but I do have a long and positive one. Many study composers and chess players do the same. This doesn’t earn a study 1.66 points, but it earns it more respect.

@ Kostas:
“I have the impression that studies were not treated as equal or superior, but as inferior to the other genres. 11% seems like a small percentage, especially at a time when the studies were at their peak. So, 1.66 points per problem and a special study sub-commission seemed like a reasonable way to compensate for the small percentage of the studies in FIDE album.”

I believe the old reasons may have been a mixture of several elements: the smaller overall output because of the difficulties, the importance of the link with the game, and surely some interests – of individuals and groups. John Roycroft may be the one to know the old reasons, he was in Piran, 1958.
If the word “inferior” means something that should be protected, I could agree. This is what I try to do in this discussion.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10166
(78) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Wednesday, Apr 10, 2013 03:45]

@ Marjan,

I was intrigued by your reply to Torsten and did a little homework. The 1956-1958 album was the very first to appear (in 1961) and reflects the decisions of the 1958 Piran Congress. Here is the actual distribution of problems per section in this album:

Total of problems (including the annex) = 661
#2 = 207 (31%) - #3 = 147 (22%) - #n = 80 (12%) - eg = 76 (11.5%) - rest= 151 (23%)

A further analysis of the 151 heterodox problems:
selfmates = 48 (7%) - helpmates = 61 (9%) - fairies = 34 (5%) - retros = 8 (1%)

If you really believe that these numbers correspond to the current situation, and that heterodox problems are responsible for an inflation in titles, I will applaud a decision that gives each retro (or fairy) problem 1/10 of a point.

I did a quick count of the number of original problems in the latest issue of three main problem magazines (I excluded Orbit and feenschach, for obvious reasons - they don't have any orthodox problems or studies, at all). The combined total of all orthodox directmate and study originals is 81 problems, while for the other sections (s#, h#, f, r) the number is almost double: 152. These numbers suggest that things may have changed a little in the last 50 years. Competitions like WCCT have failed to keep up with these changes; the only change I can tell is that the twomovers from two sections in early WCCT, have now one. But this is a different story.

You wrote:
"I believe the old reasons may have been a mixture of several elements: the smaller overall output because of the difficulties, the importance of the link with the game, and surely some interests – of individuals and groups. If the word “inferior” means something that should be protected, I could agree."

I very much agree with the possible explanations, all three of them. Studies were out of most problemists' scope and understanding. They were different and they were treated in the same way minorities are being treated; hence, the word "inferior". I sincerely think that there should be more studies in that album. Deciding to give more value to each study was in my view, a compromise for the low number that was enforced.

However, such restrictions no longer exist. Studies are judged in the same way as all other genres, without any particular restrictions. The output is not smaller because of the difficulties past study composers had to face (maybe this is replaced by the difficulties all composers face today, namely originality). Finally, I hope that the interests of individuals and groups are not decisive anymore. The only element that remains the same as before, is the link with the game. But if we give more value to this element, then why not give a little extra to directmates, or give less points to fairy problems. Would that be fair?

Remember, we are only discussing the logistics, that is, how many points a problem or study should receive for title reasons, with nothing else changing. The same number of problems will be in the album, studies will still have the important position, as a link with the game, that they have today. The only difference will be that their composers will have equal (not lower, and not higher) rights towards titles. If you prefer, we can discuss raising the points of all the other sections to 1.66, to achieve equality, but doesn't that guarantee instant inflation of titles? I would go as far as to say, give study composers twice as many points per problem in the next two albums, so that from the third album on, they become equal with everyone else. But, I believe that this has to change someday.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=10169
(79) Posted by Marcel Tribowski [Wednesday, Apr 10, 2013 08:26]

Marjan,

this topic is about a historical decision, not about justice. None of my statements is addressed to anyone personally, and I'm sorry if you had a contrary impression.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10170
(80) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Apr 10, 2013 09:58]

1.66x the points is supposed to attract new chess composers?
C'mon, Marjan -- this is absurd.
Why don't we promise them the FIDE Master title, and a balloon, if they compose a good study?

You are going to lose composers, with this unfairness.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=10171

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

MatPlus.Net Forum General Should studies be given 1.66 points in FIDE albums?