MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

11:07 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 Fairy chess expert
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 00:29]

Fairy chess expert


In an interesting discussion, the following question has appeared:

If you had to name expert(s) on fairies, who should be named and why?
 
(Read Only)pid=2757
(2) Posted by Eric Huber [Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 04:24]

That's interesting indeed. So, what was the result of the discussion? Violent fights? ;-)

First we should make a short and non-exhaustive list of the expert's qualities. Someone is an expert when :
- he/she is widely recognised by his/her peers as a reliable source of knowledge.
- they consider he/she can judge or decide in a pertinent and objective way.
- he/she has good communicating skills (especially with the novice or layperson).
- he/she is considered to be honest and independent.

Other contributors will probably refine the definition. Anyway, all the former criteria being considered, the first name that crossed my mind was... Juraj Lörinc.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2758
(3) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Saturday, Sep 27, 2008 21:39]

Thank you, it is a nice feeling to be considered as an expert, however... I think I should have provided slightly more from the discussion as I would like to utilize the considered people for further discussion about something like the future of fairies. And to discuss the complicated theme with oneself would be, *cough*, *cough* :-)

I have already received some other tips using other means, but for the time being I would like to concentrate the discussion here.

The first result of our discussion was indeed a need to define at least some criteria, non-exhaustive, non-exclusive, non-compulsory, more something like indicators. My view on the so far given set is the following (limiting to masculinum for the time being :-))

A. He is widely recognised by his peers as a reliable source of knowledge. - Good one.

A1. He is able / willing to share his knowledge. -

B. They consider he can judge or decide in a pertinent and objective way. - "Objectivity" in the chess composition is in my view moot point, "pertinent" seems to be much better description of what I have in mind. Taking into account that any two experts would e.g. make different judgements and there always might be somebody not satisfied with it, good judge for me is someone who regularly raises eyebrows of the least number of people.

C. He has good communicating skills (especially with the novice or layperson). - Not necessarily

D. He is considered to be honest and independent. - Also independence is not necessary in general and probably impossibly in what I have in mind, but it would be very useful to have honest expert.

E. (in the area of chess composition) Composes regularly in fairy chess area. - Important, I would especially like not narrowly specialized experts (e.g. only complicated fairy twomovers or only seriesmovers without fairy pieces).

Well, that is why I have asked "why" in my question. Any other ideas for criteria?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2762
(4) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 14:07]

Ref. E:
A "fairy chess composition expert" doesn't need to be a good composer himself!
Just think about Yves Tallec: he is considered a h#/s# expert, although he seldom composes.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2763
(5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Sep 28, 2008 23:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [08-09-29]

This entry (which had been removed for redundancy) actually comes after the following post...
I decided later that the following post wasn't as clear as it could have been...

So, here's perhaps a better way to make my point...

Suppose somebody asks, "who is Juraj Lorinc?"
I would sincerely expect to hear the compliment, "fairy expert," in the answer.

What if somebody asks, "who is Reto Aschwanden?" or "who is Michel Caillaud?"
Though arguably two of the leading experts in fairy problems, I would not necessarily expect to hear this term used, primarily because they are both regarded as experts in several genres (proofgames to name but one obvious example).

Finally, what if somebody asks, "who are the leading experts in the fairy genre today?"
Thankfully, nobody asks such questions (except those already in possession of a handy checklist, and it's no fun name-dropping against a predecided version of the ultimate truth).

I have favorite problems, and I credit the composers of them.
Why should anybody go beyond this, and compare art at the level of the artist?
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2765
(6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Sep 29, 2008 00:02]

A handful of names come to mind, but most are experts in numerous genres (not only fairies).
Can an expert in all genres be called a fairy expert?

What exactly is the intent here -- are you looking for the experts on fairies at present, or are you looking for THE experts on fairies at present?

If you're looking to pronouce one (or a few) with such a title, you could easily follow the paper trail of awards, then weed out those who are really specialists in sub-genres (but not a wide variety of fairy problems). Similarly, you could base this on uncomposed contributions.

Either way, I suspect the genre is too vast -- and growing moreso everyday -- to allow anyone the dominion of such a title. Fairies have the capacity to house all other genres combined (directmates, helpmates, selfmates, PGs, Retros, and even studies, not to mention thematic genres -- cyclic/alphabetic direct problems). Plus, some genres (like series-movers and stalemates), are typically considered to be entirely fairy.

Doubtful you can find somebody who has made contributions in such a wide variety of sub-genres, who is not already an expert in numerous other (non-fairy) genres. To label such a person as a "fairy expert," imho, would ring somewhat hollow.

And -- I don't want to get into a political discussion, but... -- remember, here in the United States, we claim to have many experts on foreign policy. They have not served us well, for quite some time. Knowledge is power, but judgement should be.

Instead of titles, I'd be more interested in some kind of intrade market for chess composers (and problems themselves). Better yet, imagine a market of problems being traded in the form of baseball-cards, where the solvers -- rather than the elites -- determined values by a free-market system.

In that vein, you could poll people here on who are the real fairy experts.
But, you might want to make a case for what exactly this means, and why it matters...
I, for one, don't yet see any value in responding.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2766
(7) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 01:21]

Thank you, Kevin, for your elaborate comments. Indeed, you have touched on two points I would like to follow in the near future:

1. to research the fairy awards from the near past both from two view points: persons involved (judges & authors of awarded problems) and sub-genres of awarded problems

2. fairies are already too vast and growing. Therefore I would like to think about definition of widely acceptable "standardized" sub-genres of fairies.

Nature of fairies is that they escape "quick and easy" segmentation, more precisely, there are always borderline cases. As an example one can used tries of original sections of various magazines to make this segmentation. Phenix, feenschach, also our Pat a Mat in the past tried various approaches. Yet the outcome is not always satisfactory. Therefore I would like to do some research - and not by myself only. Rather, I would like to have opponents (or collaborators) in the form of real fairy experts.

By the way, I have received another view by e-mail from experienced problemist. He points something useful in my framework too. The expert should think about various fairy elements and then formulate its own well-founded view on their properties. Not only what does he think, but preferably why his opinion is such and such.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2800
(8) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Aug 29, 2010 20:22]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-08-29]

@Jural Lorinc
Any conclusions?

@Kevin Begley

<What if somebody asks, "who is Reto Aschwanden?" or "who is Michel Caillaud?" Though arguably two of the leading experts in fairy problems, .........because they are both regarded as experts in several genres (proofgames to name but one obvious example).>

Why not? Why is their expertise in other genres a disqualification?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=5809
(9) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Aug 29, 2010 22:21]

"Why not? Why is their expertise in other genres a disqualification?"

Such a label simply would not do some composers justice.... that's all.
If it makes for a poor headline, in telling their story, it is probably a poor label to pin on them.
That's just my opinion... but, I'm not a labeling expert. :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=5811
(10) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Aug 30, 2010 10:34]

Maybe an example from science helps to confuse the matter further.
Eh, did I write confuse? Freudian :-)

My prof is publishing on area X (don't force me to explain X :-)
since decades. Obviously he's an expert on X.
Now in science we have peer review, meaning that publications on X
will be sent to a colleague being an expert on X to judge them.
My prof *rarely* does peer review (he prefers to do science on X,
proper peer reviewing can be very time-consuming).

Thus:
I am just a scientist on X.
My prof is an expert on X.
If asked for a peer reviewer on X I would automatically
name someone else than my prof.

Does this make clear that expert.NEQ.judge?

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=5812
(11) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Aug 30, 2010 13:09]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-08-30]

Hauke, we all know what "area X" is... duh, X=51, and you are studying ufology... hehe. :-)
[strange that the aliens did not crash-land onto a prime-numbered area.]
 
   
(Read Only)pid=5813
(12) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Aug 30, 2010 15:15]

Definitely no conclusions yet. In fact, the serious research has not yet started. I have some ideas for the research, but data gathering would be too time consuming for me to do it in my free time, considering other chess composition commitments. My current wish is to find some university student in need of a project and to assign it to him, together with my ideas and vast literature I have available. The season of assignments is coming, so...
 
 
(Read Only)pid=5814

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General Fairy chess expert