|(1) Posted by Aleksey Oganesjan [Saturday, Jan 1, 2022 08:15]|
Quick Composing TT-266 (PG, SPG) C. 28-02-2022
Editorial board of international web project "SuperProblem" (http://superproblem.ru/index-en.html) announces a quick composing thematic tourney for Proof Games.
Awards will be published on the website http://superproblem.ru
View the announcement on the link http://superproblem.ru/htm/announcements/our_tourneys-2022.html#TT-266
|(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Jan 2, 2022 06:26]|
"the diagram position should not have promoted pieces"
This is slightly misleading or ambiguous.
|(3) Posted by Michel Caillaud [Sunday, Jan 2, 2022 11:31]|
Sorry for that.
Less ambiguous(?) : only pieces from a "single box" (also not 2 Bishops with same color and same color of square) on the diagram
2, 4 and 5 are thematic; 7 is not thematic.
|(4) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Jan 2, 2022 11:39]|
Black Bf1 with white pawns on e2 and g2, and the bishop from c8 missing?
|(5) Posted by Michel Caillaud [Sunday, Jan 2, 2022 19:02]|
Hmmm. The problem with "obvious" promotions is where to put the limit. If this were eliminated, what about more elaborated "cages" such as bBb1 with wPb2,b3,c2?
The limit is subjective so the "objective" criteria of "single box" looks better to me.
Cases of more or less "obvious" promoted pieces, such as obstrusive bishops, are flaws, but are not prohibited.
My goal with this criteria was to avoid reproducing the many examples I found in the Retro Mailing List that were composed at the time of the topic "shortest proofgame ending with a given mate", such as example 7.
|(6) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Jan 2, 2022 19:05]|
Something like "The position should be reachable without promotions"?
|(7) Posted by Michel Caillaud [Monday, Jan 3, 2022 00:05]|
Too sophisticated. Consider a case typical of "economical Pronkin" with 16+15 or 15+16 position, doubled Pawns on a file and an adjacent file free of Pawns; a promotion can be demonstrated and I don't want to exclude this kind of problems...
|(8) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Jan 3, 2022 02:47]|
There is a garden option: “no non-standard material”. This is pretty much what Michel is saying with “single box” except this is a fairy condition already and also is insensitive to bishop shade, which is an important part of the “standard material” notion, as implemented in PDB.
Otherwise we are in the jungle: conditions for deducing that promotions happened, whether specific pieces are promoted, deciding whether the promotions are obtrusive or obvious or whatever. It’s a mess. All of this thinking originated before retrograde analysis was a thing, and even then tastes were not uniform.
And then there’s the question of whether matters of taste should form part of the entry conditions of a tournament. On the whole, I think “yes” because the judges should articulate their preferences for honesty purposes and to save composers from wasting time. Generally, restrictions foster creativity, and the “tangram-like” constraint of using standard material has been a foundation for generations of composers. That said, if the material or theme warrants, we should not hesitate to go beyond it to explore the rich design space that lies beyond.
Here I think that the original intention probably was “standard material only”, but translation issues etc meant that this was expressed clumsily and so people in this thread are wandering around the jungle. Let us standardise on “standard material” as the term. The fact that even a world champion like Michel struggles for le mot juste in this simple matter indicates we have a hole to plug.
|(9) Posted by Michel Caillaud [Monday, Jan 3, 2022 14:52]|
Thanks Andrew. Yes, "standard material only" or shortly "standard material" seems the right wording.
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Quick Composing TT-266 (PG, SPG) C. 28-02-2022