Website founded by
MatPlus.Net Forum General Is there any strategy in twomover?
You can only view this page!
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 |
|(41) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014 21:53]; edited by Sven Hendrik Lossin [14-01-07]|
If you are not like "Homo Faber" you are able to treat those kind of things on a basis of common sense, expert views etc. There is no need in a clear cut definition if you know that the world is fuzzy and if you know that a definition is even more complicated if semantic issues are to play a role.
If you are in such a need, Kevin, then I can only recommend to buy the Encyclopaedia and reading it. Maybe you can find a set of motives, strategems etc. that can build a definition for you.
Strategy is the accumulation and transformation of advantages to fulfill the stipulation. This extended version of what I wrote before should be enough.
It is probably not clear cut but as I said it doesnt need to be. If I want to spend time with definitions then I will take some lessons in maths. Chess composition is first of all an art.
|(42) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014 23:09]|
Is this what you call a definition:
-"any subtle positional evaluation, aimed to achieve some intangible gain"-
What should that mean, any random play without a clear idea, hoping that we'll notice a possibility to mate in one move if it accidentally occurs?
And we all should be subdued to such a nonsense?
|(43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Jan 7, 2014 23:37]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-01-07]|
It is clear that a remarkable number of problemists have bought into a term which has no useful meaning.
In fact, it is impossible to contrive a useful meaning for their term, as indicated by updates in my last post, which dashed all hopes to reasonably define the term (Strategy in chess problems).
Several have proclaimed to know (based upon some ridiculous assertion of a fuzzy common-sense) the meaning of strategy.
If you do not fully comply with their definition (which they are incapable of expressing), then you necessarily must not know the meaning of the term that they pretend to innately know.
If you dare ask them to provide a definition, the best they can muster is to ask that you divine a pretend meaning for the term (as they have done).
We should not laugh at their lost position, or their denial of a definitive outcome.
Instead, sympathize with those stuck in the first stage of grief.
When there is nothing to be gained from victory against an outmatched opponent (read: one incapable of acknowledging checkmate), just walk away... (leave them study their indefensible position).
Until they can produce a definition for their own terminology, here is wishing them a fond farewell.
I leave it as a trivial exercise for the reader to prove that every useful term requires an honest definition.
|(44) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 12:57]|
Kevin, does this battle rotate only around words?
Three little positions from endgame.
Kh1 Pa2 - Kg3
1.a4, wins. White is faster. Pure tactics, if you like.
So plump that you couldn't have published that as a "study"
even a few centuries ago. But note that already this simple
position can be "data-compressed" into the "square" rule.
Kh5 Pf7 - Kh7
1.f8R, wins. Still trivial tactics, but already has a bit of
paradoxical deepness and charm. Any of my chess club kids
have to solve that one once in their life. :-)
I omit a lot of inbetween stuff, ending for the moment at
Kf8 Pe2 Pc3 - Kc5 Pc7 (Zinar)
You can understand (or solve) this completely by a 5 men Nalimov.
So, still pure tactics? Any OTB player would say this falls
under "corresponding fields". Is that a strategic term already?
My argument would be we ask the wrong questions. The Zinar problem
is a masterpiece, regardless whether we call Kg7 a strategic or
a tactic move. We appreciate economy, surprise (=tactics?),
deepness (=strategy?), however we call them. Even I as a 2#
specialist can understand the s# example Sven-Hendrik posted and
what he likes to see in future problems. (Although I would never
rely on common sense in a problemist family consisting of people
who like to castle with a promoted Re8 just for teh lulz :-)
Coda. Unless we do the Wittgenstein ("Wovon man nicht reden kann,
muß man schweigen"), we have to use common language, which can
be annoyingly unprecise. We don't have "God mode" for chess yet...
IDDQD...nope, doesn't work :-)...so expect the one or other
heated discussion and the terrifying possibility that your opponent
|(45) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 15:28]|
I have asked what is the meaning of: "strategy is any subtle positional evaluation, aimed to achieve some intangible gain."
So a patzer's play would be rich with "strategy" and GM's play rich with tactics. Well, a patzer would see only "strategy" in GM's play.
It's not a definition, it's euphemism for playing without an idea and counting on luck.
Strategy is a planned way for achieving clear tangible gains. It is a set of various manoeuvres of any length (including one move manoeuvres) for achieving various gains. Which manoeuvres will be executed, depends on the course of actual play. Everything what was planned is strategy.
The lack of plan is patzer's play!
|(46) Posted by Neal Turner [Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 16:02]|
Strategy: A plan of action ... intended to accomplish a specific goal.
It seems the confusion in this thread isn't so much about the need to define what we mean by 'strategy', but about to what goals the strategy is being applied.
Here we've seen mentioned:
- strategy in composing problems
- strategy in solving problems
- strategy in a problem's solution
The first two, it seems to me, aren't particularly controversial - each composer and each solver will have their own strategy for accomplishing the goal. (But of course it would be interesting to learn more about the strategies of master composers and solvers.)
The third one is more difficult, with the added complication that the word 'strategy' has a different meaning in the game from problem chess.
For problemists 'strategy' refers to the interplay of the pieces as explored, for example, by the Good Companions, while for players it's more in line with the above definition - long-term planning.
I assume that Darko's question is about the third option and is asking whether we can use the chess player's idea of strategy in problems.
Is there strategy in chess problems?
- in longer logical type problems: maybe
- in two-movers: no!
(Sorry if this post, with its lack of sarcasm, is slightly boring)
|(47) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 17:11]; edited by Darko Šaljić [14-01-08]|
What about corection themes in #2?
I have a main plan, but it doesnt work, than I think on something that I must do before.. (isnt it strategic thinking?)
But what inetersted me the most, if for example we recognize halfpin as a tactical theme,
can it be a strategic tool in the hands of composer to achieve something else?
|(48) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Wednesday, Jan 8, 2014 20:59]|
1. I think if you try to use the vague definition I have given here, then I don't see that difference between OTB chess and chess problems. Strategy in both worlds is about gaining and transforming advantages. No need to make a difference here. Strategical play can be shown in studies and selfmates, in orthodox direct play this is a lot harder.
2. You used the word "logical" that I think is not in the right place here. The logical school usually works like "A doesnt work because of B. C removes B. I play C so that A works afterwards." Camillo Gamnitzer is the main person in the strategic school when it comes to selfmates but his selfmates are seldom logical ones. The one I have shown here is also not a logical s# I think (if somebody sees logic in my selfmate, please tell me ;).
|(49) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Jan 9, 2014 00:24]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-01-09]|
A complex manoeuvre can be compound of several manoeuvres. And beside a main complex manoeuvre, there can be alternate manoeuvres, prepared for altered circumstances.
The execution of a main plan could at certain point require precise combining (and switching) of various manoeuvres. This combining is also a part of strategy. When that point occurs transiently in an exact and unique moment, some strategic manoeuvre may have a switching tactical function.
Tactics utilizes a transient possibility for a successful combination of several strategic manouevres in an exact moment.
(= 4+4 )
Strategic manoeuvres are: line-closing of a2-g8(1.Sb3?) and h4-a4(1.Se4?). Since single strategic manoeuvre would fail, White combines them into a complex strategy 1.Sc4 by closing the both lines at once. This strategic combination has a tactical function.
Due to a short stipulation, everything is transient, White can't wait anyway, because the problem is over even if later there could hypothetically be a second chance for the same combination. Everything is transient due to a stipulation. But this means that the strategy which IS PRESENT in 2# will ALSO have a tactical function.
It's quite reasonable to say that when speaking about strategy, we expect more than some transient tactical function of short strategic manoeuvres. It's about a personal approach or perhaps a mutual agreement of composers, what might be (or not) distinctively recognized as strategy in 2#. Complex multiphase twomovers may surely present a great richness of strategic background. Tactics is only a conveniently chosen combination of strategic manoeuvres/elements.
(Even the simple sheme above shows a "clash of W/B strategies". Strategic functions of bB/bR might be easily maintained after 1.Sb3/1.Se4 by tactical function of "annihilation strategy" Bxb3/Rxe4. One of these functions would remain after annihilation on c4 but the strategic function of wS unwillingly takes a black piece. Such Nowotny tactically utilizes the maintained black line-clearing strategy for maintainig the white line-closing strategy. Of course, this should be analyzed in real compositions.)
That's what I see now. A deeper insight, convincingly presented might extend my perception. A tirade about my foolish effort won't be of much help.
|(50) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Thursday, Jan 9, 2014 08:38]|
I could not agree more!
|(51) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, Jan 9, 2014 09:54]|
In the old days the Master would announce 'Mate in 6'.
They'd been playing a game with all the tactics and strategies involved in Chess, but suddenly with the announcement all 'strategy' comes to an end, and all we're left with is a forcing tactical sequence culminating in mate.
Those arguing that there is strategy in chess problems have to explain what the difference is between a player announcing 'Mate in 6' to end a game, and a problemist presenting a position with the stipulation 'Mate in 6'.
|(52) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Thursday, Jan 9, 2014 13:58]|
In problem chess strategy and tactics must be viewed in the context of the theme and as constuctional elements, not just from solvers poit of view.
|(53) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Thursday, Jan 9, 2014 21:52]|
In the problem above, in the game sense strategy would be to get to the a-file or 8th rank and the tactics 1.Sc4 enable to carry out that strategy without being intercepted on a4 or captured on g8.
So to say there is no strategy in twomover from a game point of view would be already wrong in my opinion.
But in problem chess the terms are used differently.
|(54) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 06:06]|
Neal, it's about the approach.
In my view, any move or sequence is a strategic manoeuvre, including "a forced (calculable) tactical sequence". Any strategic manoeuvre can have a tactical FUNCTION. Tactical function is to COMBINE or SWITCH several strategic manoeuvres in a certain moment.
Solution of #6 with a threat and 2 variations, starts with a tactical function of a short strategic manoeuvre (key) which combines 3 longer strategic manoeuvres in one moment. Threat is the initial strategic manoeuvre and the variations are the alternate strategic manoeuvres, prepared to start with a (tactical) switch in 2nd move.
Strategy is a planned way HOW to achieve some goal. A general complex strategy (for achieving the ultimate goal) is compound of various simpler sub-strategies for achieving smaller goals. Each move in the solution of any problem has some planned purpose, that means strategy. And there is a combination of White and Black.
A solver must find all these (longest and shortest) strategic manoeuvres AND their possible tactical functions in precise moments.
To often I see every single strategic detail and then I waste time to find a proper TACTICAL FUNCTION (combining/switching) of one of these details in a precise moment :-(
In a twomover, all thematic moves have a tactical function exactly because they activate, passivate and change a combination of strategic details.
Even for a chess game I would say that general strategy of positional play relies on strategic manoeuvres without too often or sudden combining and switching of sub-strategic manoeuvres, while general strategy of combinatory (tactical) play relies on strategic manoeuvres full of sudden combining and switching of sub-strategic manoeuvres. Both may be rich with strategy, the difference is in a functional use of strategy.
|(55) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 11:14]; edited by Neal Turner [14-01-10]|
You say: 'Strategy is a planned way HOW to achieve some goal.'
The difference seems to be in what we consider the 'goal' to be.
For you it seems to be the mating position itself.
For me, in Chess, the goal has been achieved as soon as a forced mating sequence appears on the board.
Any play from this position is tactical rather than strategical - and of course these are exactly the positions that are presented in chess problems.
For those taking your point of view maybe there is an interesting discussion to be had about the nature of strategy in chess problems, but I hope you'll forgive the rest of us if we just shrug our shoulders!
|(56) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 14:19]|
@Nikola: In a OTB game, usually the opponent can play chess too :-)
and tactics works like you describe: Attack the Q with the S?
Meh, the Q runs away. Ah, fork K and Q! Take that, patzer! Two
motifs needed to make it work.
But still, take again my example Kh1 Pa2 - Kg3: You get a new queen
and Black can't do anything about it. Any interpretation of this
in terms of TWO tactics seems forced to me. (Happens in n# too,
look up "Wilmers type". If I spelled it right, that is.)
@Neal: "For me, in Chess, the goal has been achieved as soon as a
forced mating sequence appears on the board." Fine, but who declares
inevitable mate? God (AKA Nalimov)? Rybka? You? Me? Consequently, in any
correct n#, the goal is already achieved in the starting position ;-)
(More and more, I think in this thread we reenact the old philosophy
clash of platonism vs. pragmatism.)
|(57) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 16:49]|
Our perception seems to depend on the size of the space or time.
For example, in the game Go, which is considered as the ultimate strategic game, when you reduce the board to 5x5, all comes down to tactics.
The same is in chess problems, only here is limitation of time in question, as it is less, less strategy we see or feel.
But, I think it is wrong. The reduction of space/time must not be explanation for it. This would mean that the human inability to evulate a larger number of combinations automatically draws more strategic thinking.
|(58) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 18:06]|
we should focus on the question: is there strategy in #2 (or generally in problems).
One approach is insisting on what the concept of "strategy and tactics" means. I don't see a clear unanimity about this. For instance, you and I differently see the goal of strategy, at least.
The other approach is to try to formulate some concept of "A and B" with a distinction in the essence of A&B. Those who "see a clear", or at least "feel some uncertain" distinction between A&B, should try to formulate it. If such concept could be achieved with sufficient consistency, we can apply it. It's quite irrelevant to me, if A would be named "strategy" and B "tactics".
I tried with conditionally named "strategic" elements/manoeuvres and their "tactical" functions (combinations and switches). Static elements are combined and switched into many short manoeuvres which are combined and switched into long or complex manoeuvres.
So, (with a conditional meaning) "tactics" is a particular choice and change of existing and creation of new "strategic features" in a particular moment.
You may give the other names but it's the essence of concept what we are looking for.
|(59) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 20:59]|
I see your point Neal, although in OTB chess, mate in 5 moves is Kawoshdosh, Pang, Boom while in problem chess it is not as noisy.
There are a lot of selfmates by Gamnitzer which are called "strategic selfmates". This is a common use of the word. What do you think about that? Do you think that strategy is not the right word for it? Is this a semantic issue or a misunderstanding?
I pose this question because I think that it doesn't make sense to define/understand the word "strategy" in a specific way when a lot of problemists have used it another way.
|(60) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Friday, Jan 10, 2014 21:07]|
In chess problem we do not have fight between white and black, rather its simulation (in h# there is no fight at all!).
Because of it, all the elements of chess we must look trough thematic/constructional context.
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Is there any strategy in twomover?