Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:54 UTC
ISC 2022



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum General obtrusive force: what say you?
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5
(81) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Feb 7, 2013 23:51]


If my memory is right, it seems to me there was a concerted effort (by some problemists) to see chess problem composition added to the list of olympic sports.
While I certainly feel problem solving is worthy of such consideration, I would be deeply troubled (as any Olympic Committee) to accept composition -- particularly given the fact that little has been done to remedy a number of widespread misconceptions (some held even by sanctioned judges) about even the most fundamental terminology.
Perhaps my memory is bad here, but I seem to recall that the Olympic Committee rejected this effort.
(Read Only)pid=9766
(82) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Feb 8, 2013 01:03]; edited by Nikola Predrag [13-02-08]

Ian, concerning your sentence:
>As for "natural" / "supernatural" in the discussion above, surely a better labeling of this duality would be "orthodox" / "unorthodox" (or Fairy)...<

I was deliberatly avoiding to mention "orthodox chess", keeping the words orthodox/heterodox for the goals or purposes, not for the fundamental (natural) laws. "Orthodox" and "heterodox" deal with the beliefs, not with the laws of nature.

Goals in a chess game are "orthodox", while h#, s#, hs# have heterodox goals (but generally there's nothing fairy/supernatural in them).
Since I was talking only to myself, there is no reason to write any more about that.
(Read Only)pid=9767
(83) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Friday, Feb 8, 2013 12:02]

Thanks, Kevin, for the reply. Pity that the clarifications are not of any real help.
(Read Only)pid=9768
(84) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Feb 8, 2013 23:29]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-09]


The point remains: because sanctioned judges and titled "experts" are easily proven to be completely misinformed (or should they only be mistrusted?) about the most fundamental divisions in problem composing contests, any credible sanctioning body (or Federation) has an obligation to reject this competitive artform, for its systematic abuses of fairness.

It is rather telling that WFCC has specifically sanctioned judges to preside over a given genre (a jurisdiction), yet the judges are unable to even define their own territory!
Without clearly defined boundaries, a judge has no jurisdiction.
Thus, the "FIDE International Judge of Chess Composition" title can not be awarded for Fairies, to a judge unable to define the very term (and unable to distinguish the purpose for such a terminological distinction).
You may as well hand out unicorn riding trophies (to chums)!

It's not just about "experts" having lost the meaning for some elementary terminology -- it is more about an atmosphere of erosion, under which even the function of fundamental distinctions (like separation between stipulation and condition) are routinely lost.
At best, you have an atmosphere of widespread collective doping; and, with the dopers commonly occupying the entire judging platform, whom, pray tell, if not WFCC, is going to restore fairness?
You will not obtain credible standards from misinformed poll respondents -- and following such misguided advice certainly can not be considered leadership.

Though it is commonly done, it requires a real fool to dismiss the significance of our underlying terminology -- because this forms the foundation for the entire judgement system.
Not only does it define the jurisdiction of judges, it also disparately divides the various sub-album territories... and we all know what occurs in the rogue genre territories, which are carved out by no more than a fictional favoritism!
Without terminological integrity, there is no way to measure (or protect against) erosion -- whether by greed, or abject stupification.

Judges are sanctioned, by PCCC/WFCC, to render principled verdicts within the confines of a particularly defined genre, but how can they even begin to weight the compositional elements of a problem, if they can't even bother to ask the terminological questions that every beginner must ask?!!
Their judgement is not based upon any material evidence -- they'll find a rainbow wherever the collective oujia-board tells their gavel to fall.

The erosion of credibility in composing contests is no accident -- it has been deliberately, systematically undermined, and the present atmosphere only hastens a faster pace.
Judges today are willing to delay publication of awards (even for years!) while awaiting key corrections.
It happens all the time -- sometimes, the publisher is blamed (sometimes repeatedly), but I ask you: whom do you trust?
Do you know why nobody bats an eyelash (not even those who were cooked out of the award, shortly after the so-called "deadline", and not even those whose problems remain sound, only to wind up competing with problems from a transcendental deadline)?
Because those composers don't have a Federation capable of demanding fair contests -- those composers will have to face the same judges, and the very same injustice, over and over and over again.
They all know the difference -- but they drink the sand because they don't have a Federation capable of providing a refreshing alternative.

Is the fear of complete collapse really so much more powerful than the need for a little honesty?
Tell me, what function does WFCC serve by existing, if not to insist upon fair contests?
And, if WFCC can't educate the misguided judges they have sanctioned, as to the significance of fundamental distinctions (factors in their very specific judging title), who is going to do it?

Not me -- I have tried having rational discussions with a number of self-titled fairy experts.
In my experience, most behave like children.
I'm not going to carry them through the elementary concepts, while they fight and claw and bully, just to hold on to some unearned sense of privilege.
Many of us have tried, and we have only the scars to prove our effort.

I have nowhere else to lay this failure, except at the feet of WFCC.
And, I would even accuse specific delegates of collusion to deny fairness, if the failure were not so widespread.
So, either the voters share responsibility (in which case the entire community is stained by a collective doping), or somebody is going to have to offer reform.
And, this I can promise: you will get no refreshment from those who can neither elucidate the elementary terms, nor appreciate their distinct function.

Bertrand Russel (A History of Western Philogophy) calls Euclid's Elements "a flawless monument of the Greek intellect."
There are many such monuments which still stand today, but Euclid's Elements offers the most flawless, sound, and complete foundation.

I ask you, Harry: what does it say about the world's collective intellect today, roughly 2500 years later, that our foundation to a chess problem composition monument has been lain in the shifting sands of an undefined terminology (e.g., our failure to provide a distinction between: fairy condition, stipulation, aim, etc)?
I'm not talking about subjective aesthetic appreciation -- I am talking about the accepted falsehood of our objective elemental structure (which pervades our judgement).
What does that say about the chess problem community?
(Read Only)pid=9773
(85) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Feb 9, 2013 01:01]

Dear Harry, you have got exactly what you asked for - a surgical answer to anything but your simple question. Did you expect anything less?
(Read Only)pid=9774
(86) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Feb 9, 2013 02:13]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-09]


That's the first time a reply of mine has been described as surgical.
I appreciate the compliment; but, it is more than a reply to Harry's factual inquiry (to which I hope others may be able to help provide some clarification).

Even if my factual memory should prove incorrect (that is: even if there was never an effort to allow Chess Composition to participate as some form of Olympic competition, which was rejected) -- and I don't believe this is the case! -- my larger point remains worthy of consideration...
That being: the lack of healthy objective standards would provide good reason for any credible federation to reject chess problem composing contests.

We have all seen scandalous claims of unfairness leveled against international judges, based upon subjective matters of aesthetic determination.
It should be remembered that such claims are commonly made only out of partisan interest.
Those same accusers display no interest in discerning even the most elemental objective truths (such as the purpose of definitively distinguishing a stipulation from a fairy condition)!

My partisan interest is only to encourage a more perfected realization of (and healthier respect for) an objective categorization system (which is largely inherited, but not without exceptional mistakes), and to provide more fairness in contests (which reflect, often negatively, upon us all).
I am not asking for a free step up on some podium, yet my suggestions to objectively improve the system are commonly treated as a hostile threat to a ubiquitous favoritism.

When folks like me stop fighting for objective improvements (e.g., in categorization), that's when you should start worrying.
It is not only easier to accept this broken system, it is reasonable that many would expect a personal benefit from such surrender.
Are those really the folks you want judging your problems?
Imagine if nobody suffered the effects of hollow victories.
(Read Only)pid=9775
(87) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Feb 9, 2013 15:28]

Kevin, I shall be a bit mean, just for the picturesqueness, don't take it too seriously.
You are tireless to mimic a surgical way, using a blunt scalpel and butchering a wrong kidney :)
(Read Only)pid=9778
(88) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Feb 10, 2013 02:18]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-02-10]

You're on the wrong ward, Nikola, to be searching for supernatural healing.
And, you need not say "ahhhh" out loud ... but, if you're not already thinking it, this might hurt a little...

Any calf willing to critique the technique of it's own selected butcher, should know enough to scrub its own hooves.
If you can't heal your own bedside manner, offer the guidance counselor a seat on your couch.

You should not accept your own first diagnosis, even when it comes from a Ouija Board.
(Read Only)pid=9780
(89) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Saturday, Apr 16, 2022 17:39]

Sorry if I revive this thread, but this must be record:

Michal Hlinka & L'ubos Kekely, Schwalbe 2021, EDIT: Draw (looked at the diagram beside it -
one should not copypaste with brain on standby :-)
(= 3+4 )

Obtrusive Bishop in a miniature :-)
(Read Only)pid=23053
(90) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Apr 16, 2022 21:33]

Of course! The silly fellow promoting to bishop deserves to lose.
(Read Only)pid=23061
(91) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Sunday, Apr 17, 2022 09:44]

Would be nice if also the wB was on c8, so both players have under-promoted :-)
(Read Only)pid=23068
(92) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Apr 19, 2022 00:31]

wB @ a8 works, as well.
Maybe this miniature conceals an illegal cluster twin.
(Read Only)pid=23089
(93) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Apr 19, 2022 08:54]

Well, for teh luz...
(= 3+4 )

HR, after Hlinka/Kekely and suggestions by Begley/Buchanan
1.c4! (Not 1.Kc3? Kc1! - straightforward attack
on d7 loses the bishop ending)
1...Kb2 2.Kd3! (not fearing d5, since either
Bxb7 or Kd4 suffices) Kb3 3.Kd4! Kb4 4.c5!
(Not 4.Kd5? Bxc4+, the bishop ending after
5.Kd6 b5 6.Kxd7 is still lost) and now White simply
gobbles d7.
Is da Siegfried in da house? Maybe with another
position of kings and wP (or bB) this could be made
a bit more study-like.
(Read Only)pid=23094
(94) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, Apr 19, 2022 09:14]

Cool, Hauke

(= 3+4 )

Here's an alternative position which might be built on
(Read Only)pid=23095

No more posts
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5

MatPlus.Net Forum General obtrusive force: what say you?