Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
11:06 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General obtrusive force: what say you? |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 | | (21) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 14:01] |
@Hauke,
Very nice! ... but, I expect you realize, this will not suffice for direct comparison.
The flaw in Robert Lincoln's key must be judged according to an entirely different set of standards (from your non-checking key) -- specifically, we must consider this key from the perspective of an additional economy constraint (7 men, or less), which we may infer that the author has imposed upon himself.
Perhaps this is something of an achievement to express this R-P Grimshaw, in miniature form.
Whether it inspires may be another story, entirely.
My point is only that a good judge must first strive to appreciate the context of a given flaw (any flaw, from any composer).
And, composers (I must include myself here!) should remember to inform the judge of the context under which the problem should be considered.
I think judges are often willing to consider flaws from respected composers, which they would not permit from anyone else.
This can shackle some composers to operate under a much tighter set of constraints, which significantly damages the prospect of fairness.
For the sake of understanding, I want only to know what constraints this was composed under.
For the sake of fairness, I would prefer that everybody operated under on clear set of standards.
But, for the sake of art, there can be no absolute standard.
| | | (22) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 16:32] |
Where do you see Grimshaw?
| | | (23) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 18:08]; edited by Hauke Reddmann [13-01-20] |
@everybody: Of course. Frolkin, not Pronkin. I'm no retro buff and always mix those two up :-(
@Nikola: Unlike the Pickabish, a double R/P interference works only with a pin included, be it in the miniature example (90° lines) or in mine (180° lines - hope you all noticed that!)
Naturally, this weakens the impression that it's an interference.
@Kevin: full ACK to post #21.
Hauke
| | | (24) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 19:18] |
@Kevin No, this was not the problem I had in mind. I was not talking about proof games. I think I have published a few more proof games with extra-set material in the final position. This is a completely different story, not in the context of this discussion. I was referring to a helpmate with a fairy condition, which had two light-squared Bishops:
Kostas Prentos & Harry Fougiaxis
Springaren 1991, 3rd h.m.
 (= 6+8 )
h#2 2.1.1.1 Madrasi
1.b1=T a8=L 2.Sf5 Kd5#
1.b1=L a8=T 2.Dc6 Kf6#
| | | (25) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Jan 20, 2013 19:21] |
Names should make the simple interference, Holzhausen, Grimshaw etc. mutually distinctive.
| | | (26) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Jan 21, 2013 00:43]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-21] |
I am still seeing unsubstantiated assertions here along the lines of 'obtrusive force is a flaw' without any supportive reasoning beyond 'because it was regarded as such in the past', which is of course a non-argument. @Nikola et al.: Can you please provide a valid ARGUMENT as to why obtrusive force in the diagram of an orthodox directmate is in any way a flaw?
| | | (27) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Monday, Jan 21, 2013 04:00] |
@ Ian
Since Europe is sleeping at this time, I will attempt to provide an argument. So, the obtrusive force is a flaw because it violates the basic principle of economy. It is up to you to decide whether this is a valid argument, but it is good enough for me. The past generations did very well to regard it as a flaw, and I see no reason for present generations to change that attitude. In my view, obtrusive force is a much heavier flaw than an uneconomical position. For example, I would add 5 or more units, in order to avoid a third rook in a problem, orthodox or not.
| | | (28) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Monday, Jan 21, 2013 09:42] |
Ian, my reaction was about the repeated term Grimshaw.
About the obtrusive force, there are general principles which a community instinctively accepts without proofs. They might be wrong and eventually rejected with time.
Correspondence chess became a game for man+computer. In a tournament hall, computers are still obtrusive force but before the game starts, they are tolerated. It seems that the possibility and efficiency of the control of regularity makes the difference between the correspondence chess and "hall-chess". There are suspicions that some players cheat and somehow use a computer during the game. If the control would be proved as inefficient, the computers should be allowed in tournament halls.
Orthodox positions are generally easy to "control", so we see the obtrusive force. Fairy positions could be by far more tricky and the tolerance is much greater.
| | | (29) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 05:32]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-22] |
@Kostas "So, the obtrusive force is a flaw because it violates the basic principle of economy."
No - your post confuses blatantly promoted force (e.g. 3 wRs) with obtrusive force (e.g. wBf3 with wPe2 and wPg2). The latter uses absolutely nothing extraneous to the original game-array, hence in no way violates economy [of force] - although, of course, obtrusive officers are promotees (a sub-class of promoted force).
@Nikola "Orthodox positions are generally easy to "control", so we see the obtrusive force. Fairy positions could be by far more tricky and the tolerance is much greater."
I'd have thought that the very opposite were true! - i.e. that the innate flexibility of fairy chess (where one can modify the rules, men, and/or board accordingly) makes it much easier to control than, say, orthodox directmates. As for readily "seeing" obtrusive force, have a look at some of the introductory problems in Dawson & Hunsdorfer's "Retrograde Analysis" book: I recall some instances therein where the detection of obtrusiveness required some pretty hard retroanalysis, and in one case (a problem which contained an obtrusive Rook), it was impossible to confirm exactly which Rook was obtrusive!
"About the obtrusive force, there are general principles which a community instinctively accepts without proofs. They might be wrong and eventually rejected with time."
Whilst that's true, both my instinct and my reasoning confirm to me that obtrusive force is in no way and flaw and that hopefully, with time, objections to it will disappear. Indeed, that process has been under way for at least three decades already.
| | | (30) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 08:51] |
@Ian
By obtrusive force, I meant all types of promoted pieces in the diagram of a problem. I see now that the term is used only in cases like the example of a bishop outside the pawn cage. I consider it as the least offensive case of a promoted piece, but still a flaw. I would try to avoid it, if possible, in any type of problems, even fairies. I am not sure I can provide a good argument for this. In my mind, it is equivalent to bad construction. I would accept it, only if it were impossible to avoid and if the result compensated for its use. I would never ignore it, and I would expect any judge or solver to criticize the flaw. For the same reasons, I believe that you would not ignore obtrusive force in your problems, even if you did not consider it a flaw.
| | | (31) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 09:23]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-01-22] |
Illegal positions which are often judged unacceptable, may also not be a flaw. And the reasons, I think, are the same.
The question "Where does this piece come from ?" or "Where does this position come from ?" are of the same kind. Sometimes it asserts itself, sometimes it is out of the matter (and sometimes perhaps both).
You may discard the problem, you may discard the question.
In any case, to avoid it, when possible, seems fair.
| | | (32) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Tuesday, Jan 22, 2013 11:26] |
Next example:
http://www.schach-udo.de/pdf/tr91to04.pdf Page 12
The judge said about the second honorable mention that this would have been a prizewinner if there wasn't the obtrusive force. Additionally he wonders why the author did not put the position to the left.
If I were the judge I would try to ask the author if it is okay for him if his moremover appears in the award in that version. I have seen a selfmate award where the judge did something alike: he asked the author to cut the first move who agreed.
| | | (33) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 04:02]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-24] |
Here is my _only_ chess composition with obtrusive force (in Ye Olde 1920s style):
Ian Shanahan, 1st Hon. Men., "Problem Observer", 1995.
 (= 8+12 )
#2.
1.Qxb7! (>2.Qe4)
Schór theme etc.
The obtrusive bBf3 is truly intrinsic to the matrix, so how can it be a "flaw"?! (Neither the magazine's editor nor any of the solvers [who were also the judges] commented on the obtrusiveness!) Therefore, a challenge: 'improve' the position (without any loss of content).
| | | (34) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 09:23] |
I have absolutely no experience with orthodox twomover aesthetics, but it seems to me that the bBf3 can be forgiven in Ian's problem. Especially since it seems impossible to avoid.
Here is a theoretical question, which might be interesting to discuss: Suppose that instead of a Bishop, a black Queen on f3 would preserve the thematic content, with everything else unaltered. Would the Queen be preferable, even if she were practically used only as a Bishop? In other words, what is the price we are willing to pay, in order to avoid an obtrusive piece?
| | | (35) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 13:14] |
An extremely tricky question you have there, Kostas. And the tricky
answer is: Hide that fact from the solver by giving the Q some
assorted use. Maybe it could move on the pin line to defend Qe4
by opening the line for a bish...
...
...
Rats. :-)
Hauke
P.S. To answer Ians implicite question, it took me ten seconds to
throw the obtrusive bishop out...together with the two unpin
variants. No sirrre, that ain't an option.
| | | (36) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 05:02]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-24] |
@Kostas. I would regard a bQ replacing an obtrusive bB as a flaw (a breach of economy of force) - particularly if the bQ has no other work to do. Indeed, to my mind this example shows just how silly the objections to obtrusive force really are!
@Hauke. Yes, agreed! That's why I wrote "without any loss of content". :)
| | | (37) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 06:19] |
@ Ian - What about  (= 10+11 )
#2
1KnQ1B2/2p1p3/2p4R/1pr3kP/3N3p/4Pbb1/5N1n/3B2R1
+ wR and P; but new defense and new mate (1...Bg2 2.Rg6 !? *( C-)
| | | (38) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Jan 24, 2013 12:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [13-01-24] |
@Ian,
I think we can all agree on this.
Illegal force is a flaw.
Promoted force is a lesser flaw.
Obtrusive force is an even lesser flaw.
Hidden promoted/obtrusive force (e.g., evidenced by the pawn structure) may similarly be viewed a flaw, but the least of the group.
None of these aesthetic guides is the 10 commandments -- and, nobody could keep that simple covenant.
I define flaws to be nothing more than aesthetic differences -- like distinct lines in a coloring book.
We are all politely asked to color inside these lines.
However, you may, at your discretion, decide to violate the integrity of these lines.
What you cannot do is erase the lines.
These lines document the constraints under which composers have historically operated.
Without understanding these lines, you can not fully appreciate the compositions of the past.
It is not surprising that the orthodox genre is where the fight about aesthetic distinctions (flaws) takes place.
With the genre so heavily worked, it becomes natural to want to tear down fences (to expand the territory for new ideas).
Tearing down aesthetics distinctions will not provide much elbow room.
If judges want to reduce the penalties for certain flaws, which are justified, I have no argument.
But, if you want to claim that these are no infraction whatsoever, it contradicts the entire history of aesthetic development.
Consider Milan Vukcevich's excellent article on Bristols.
I particularly enjoy this old article, because it provides a wonderful perspective on the long arc of historical aesthetic development, centered around a single theme. As a result, it helps us all to better understand the composers of the past, and the direction of the future!
Milan never claimed that "purity of aim" (in Bristol motivation) was no longer a flaw.
He simply came to appreciate (after some initial reluctance) that there may be good justification for coloring outside of that particular line.
And, he left a number of stellar examples.
Is obtrusive force a flaw?
The answer is yes -- there is absolutely no point denying that this is an aesthetic distinction, which we all should prefer to avoid (whenever possible).
On the other hand, if you want to advocate that there are good reasons to color beyond that line, and weight this tradeoff differently, nobody is stopping you from exploring that...
In fact, do like Milan did -- collect/compose some quality examples of how to exploit this particular aesthetic transgression, and compare them directly with other flaws (like those raised by Kostas).
I expect every composer would enjoy reading about another composer's struggle to balance aesthetic infractions.
Providing, of course, that you don't simply ignore the lines that you are crossing.
I suggest an irrational philosophy: break every rule if necessary -- never allow aesthetic flaws (or some judge's penalty) to constrain your imagination.
| | | (39) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Jan 25, 2013 00:31]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-25] |
@Zalmen. That looks good. Well done! I haven't checked its soundness yet [edit: it's now C+!] The extra thematic variation is, I think, worth the additional force. Getting rid of the obtrusiveness at least circumvents any controversy.
@Kevin. Most of what you write I'm in agreement with. But I still don't see obtrusiveness as a different skein of 'colour': I *cannot* view it as in any way a flaw. Maybe I'm 'colour-blind'!? *wink* As for the history of aesthetics, in music, if composers (like myself) had have stuck to 19th-century aesthetics, then we would now be deprived of the myriad glories of 20th-century art-music! Personally, I don't see any reasonable basis for frowning in the slightest upon obtrusive force, either in the diagram or in the problem's proof-games - unlike illegality (a fatal flaw!) and promoted force. The old-timers got this one wrong: chess problems have a gossamer-thin connection with the game of Chess (even more true nowadays!); this prejudice is just a vestige of that crusty old furphy, seeking to make the position more 'game-like'.
| | | (40) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Jan 25, 2013 05:04]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [13-01-25] |
a small story related to the debate may be interesting :
Jean Oudot published in 1966 a clear cut fairy 6# :
A
Jean Oudot
Themes-64 1966
Dedicated to J.M. Trillon
1st Prize
 (= 12+11 )
  Grasshopers  Nightrider
6#
1.b5!
1…c×b6 2.Kg3 Kg1 3.c7 Kh1 4.c8=N Kg1 5.Ne7 Kh1 6.Kf2‡
1…a×b6 2.Kf3 Kg1 3.a7 Kh1 4.a8=G Kg1 5.G×d5 Kh1 6.Kf2‡
with echo of fairy promotions with indian-like variations.
I think it is usefull to recall that Jean Oudot (1926-1974) was a prominent figure of the chess problem. He held the column "Le coin du problème" in Europe-Echecs till his death and made it famous.
Many years later, this problem, after computer checking, appeared cooked :
1.R×e2! [2.Re1 [3.R×b1 [4.R×f1‡]
3.R×f1+ Gg1 4.R×g1‡]
2.N×d5 [3.Ne7‡] Gg1 3.Ne7+ Gg3 4.N×g3‡
2.Nc8 [3.Ne7‡] Gg1 3.Ne7+ Gg3 4.N×g3‡]
in 2012 was published in the french site Problemiste a correction by Millour (http://www.problemiste.fr/#/a03-oudot-6-1966/3956558)
B
Jean Oudot (Version René J. Millour 2012)
Themes-64 1966
Dedicated to J.M. Trillon
1st Prize
 (= 12+9 )
Grasshoper Nightrider
6# C+
after a quick look, I found easily the following position :
C
Jean Oudot (Version J. Rotenberg 2012 ?)
Themes-64 1966
Dedicated to J.M. Trillon
1st Prize
 (= 11+6 )
Grasshopers Nightrider
6# C+
with - how you'll call that ? - obtrusive pawn ?
And now ? here things begin to be interesting.
After a few months R.J. Millour mailed to me the following story (I don't translate literally) "...giving a comment on his problem (diagram A) Jean Oudot said to me : "... it is "legal" because you can imagine the pawns took fairy pieces. Would it be possible to put three white pawns on g2, h2, h3, all would be so simple!..."..."
So ? it seems that Jean Oudot was aware of the possibility of diagram C (or something alike), yet he preferred A. In his times would he publish it as C, probably the problem would have been discarded by the judge {and perhaps also by the editor}
To my mind, of course C is far better, with no doubt.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5
MatPlus.Net Forum General obtrusive force: what say you? |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
