Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:23 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General All issues of StrateGems available online |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (21) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Oct 9, 2022 00:57] |
Joose (10):
It's true that this PG can be controversial for the reasons you (and the judge in StrateGems) described. On the other hand, it is a unique achievement - it doesn't really matter how it was achieved.
By the way, this PG is H36 in FIDE album 2010-2012. Its score was 4 + 2,5 + 4 = 10,5 points. Here is what Michel Caillaud wrote about it on this forum, in a completely unrelated discussion (see answer 70, at http://matplus.net/start.php?px=1665223150&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=2065&pid=15997&mark=yes&#n15997):
"From my point of view, FIDE Album is for compositions, WCCI is for composers, thus the notation attached to a problem has not to be automatically the same in both competitions.
-H36 in Album 2010-12 : I would give 4 for FIDE Album for a historically significant problem, 0 for WCCI as I consider WCCI is for rewarding skillfulness of human composer, not of computer programmer (that is my view ; some may have other views...)."
| | | (22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 9, 2022 01:48] |
Imagine that (1+1) Proofgame had been composed by Bernhard Hegermann in 1934, and computers only verified it half a century later.
Further imagine that Hegermann (after spending all his time working on this proofgame) never found his h#28 (published in 1934), and nobody had found it until a programmer came along in 2012.
Would it change your perception of the value of the artwork?
I confess, I would be FAR more impressed with Hegermann (and I'm already highly impressed by his technical achievement).
It would be a pity if our value of art was contingent upon the creation story of each piece -- merely to value the beauty of nature, we would be forced to tell ourselves that a human artist created the universe.
This is why I never liked the WCCI.
Who makes problems to impress others about their personal composing abilities?
I make problems in the hope that somebody, someday, will appreciate the problems I have made.
ps: I don't believe Hegermann's masterpiece (which was published in The Problemist Fairy Chess Supplement) received any award -- perhaps due to the fact that the problem we know was a version of what was originally published (that's another matter -- the FIDE Albums came along and ignored that this was a version, but they will not ignore a submission which is an improved version of a problem from just three years prior).
It is also astonishingly arrogant to suggest we can judge a problem, when we can't yet determine whether it's even sound.
It's ironic that the 2012 StrateGems award gave nothing to a masterpiece because it was created by a programmer, and awarded 2nd prize to a proofgame that computers would later prove unsound.
What does it say when a solving tool in 2022 could produce a better award?
I think we all appreciate the value of awards as a feedback mechanism. There is no denying awards can motivate us to achieve greater ambitions.
But, we are not geared to concern ourselves about who has the most album points (sorry Petko, I'd rather see your worst problem than your point totals).
We should concern ourselves not with the artists, but with the artwork (regardless the back story -- no matter how the problem was conceived, no matter how many corrections were necessary to get it sound).
There is much truth in what Michel Caillaud claims, but the fact is: even FIDE Albums are not an adequate mechanism to value problems.
FIDE awards those problems which did not need a correction (and before knowing whether the remaining problems may need a correction -- there's no capacity to rescind their awards).
And the FIDE Album requires the composer to submit entries (which is done primarily with the motivation to win individual titles).
I would much prefer that individual titles were a separate matter entirely.
Even FIDE Albums are a supremely failed mechanism when used as the primary criteria in a search for problems of great value.
While a search by awards will reveal neither Labelle's proofgame, nor Hegermann's helmpate, the FIDE Album (to its credit) will not fail you there.
But, the Albums will fail to produce many masterpieces composed by Chris Feather.
I will concede that sound problems which were given 4 points by some judges for the FIDE Album are FAR more likely to have great value (and you can screen out those known to be unsound).
But, FIDE Albums will fail to identify those problems which were unsound when first attempted (and only later corrected).
Further, it will fail to identify those problems which substantially improved upon an idea expressed earlier.
It's not quite true that the FIDE Album is designed to find the best problems (even that is primarily a title pursuit for individuals).
It would be nice if we had a collection of highly valued problems, where the collection was always be open for reconsideration (e.g., rescind entry when a problem is cooked, reconsider problems when they are repaired, allow submission for any problem in history from anyone).
I would suggest that a far better measure of value (far better than the awards given out by contemporary judges -- even FIDE Album judges) is the number of favorable reproductions a problem receives (this is a measure that even academia has come to embrace). And, I would further suggest those reproductions should be weighted more heavily as the years go by (since completion of that problem).
That's the best way to search for valued problems (ignore the initial publication, and show me only the number of times the best version was republished).
It's true we are unlikely to see frequent reproductions of three-quarter Babson problems -- unless such a problem is outstanding for other reasons, they will tend to be constantly overshadowed by the emergence of something grander; such is life.
But there are iconic problems which are likely to forever endure in republications (like the longest helpmate, Forsberg's masterpiece, the most economical Proofgame, etc).
The best measure of an artist's dignity is found in their best works, thus the best measure of art can not be the humanity of the artist (as this would constitute circular reasoning).
It would be nice to have a collection that appreciates only the best illustration of a given idea (doesn't show twenty great two-movers showing a specific theme, doesn't favor who did it first, doesn't care how many versions it took to get it sound -- just shows the most artistic illustration achieved, and credits all who directly contributed).
Print those problems on collectable cards, and package them with bubblegum. I have no use for player cards for individuals.
| | | (23) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Oct 9, 2022 09:57] |
A modest proposal: In science, everybody is obsessed with the
citation index. (Of course, self-citations must be subtracted.)
Thus, the number of reprints of a problem elsewhere at least
gives a hint of its value (maybe the value is more historical
and as a breakthrough - think of the first Indian or Babson,
which could and were done better later, from a purely
artistic standpoint).
Compiling such a reprint index would be, eh, work :-)
(At least for the SCHWALBE it could be done more or less
automatically via the content files...)
| | | (24) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Oct 9, 2022 19:52] |
@Hauke,
Fair point. Self reporting of reproductions might not involve so much work. Perhaps a publication crawler could do the work.
Otherwise, we are reduced to counting clicks and likes, and railing about algorithm manipulations (if not outright censorship).
We must be capable of something better than some social media popularity contest, and self-promotion campaigns.
And some of our judgements are clearly far worse.
I can hear it now: "Ask Lawrence Trent what a chess problem agent can do for your helpmate."
You had me at Hyvinkaa theme.
ps:
Did you know grasshoppers existed long before dinosaurs?
So, when are we rolling out the dinosaur fairy units? Hello. Nature finds a way.
Think of it: "Tyrannosaurus Rex Inclusive," or "Tries with the Triceratops." Can we put a Pterodactyl in a Cage Circe problem?
Where are our marketing people?
| | | (25) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Oct 10, 2022 10:13] |
@Kevin: I did a quick check on Hilmar's online lexicon: "Dinosaurus m = Schlagende Dame [J. de A. Almay, Budapest; FCR 4/5/S. 83]" Maybe one with access to FCR could complete the list? Bronto is Läufer, but no more "saur" was listed (as crossref under "S"). But this wouldn't exclude e.g. a Pterodactyl (which does exist too), so still more critters may lurk...
Nothing new under the sun :-)
| | | (26) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Oct 10, 2022 14:25] |
About the Labelle - of course it is a fantastic achievement and should have featured in the original award.
But I do have some sympathy with the judge's reported opinion of it 'lacking artistic merit'.
I'm no specialist, but it seems that the type of content that's considered 'artistic' in proofgames - Pronkins, Frolkins, Schnoebelens, Platzwechsel, Rundlauf, Switchback, Un-castling etc - is missing from this example as the sides are so busy devouring each other.
It is after all a task, and it's often the case that most extreme task problems are found to be wanting on the artistic level.
Some might even object to the term 'problem' as it's virtually impossible for humans to solve!
Of course it could be that in this case the judge's view was derived, not from the above considerations, but from a prejudice (which is not uncommon) against any form of computer generated 'art' - but that's another debate.
| | | (27) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Oct 10, 2022 14:35] |
@Kevin.
Please publish a book or an article (with perhaps many parts) of your favourite problems.
| | | (28) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Oct 10, 2022 19:15] |
@seetharaman kalyan,
Books are static diagrams and notation -- not interactive enough.
Readers want to solve some problems for themselves, and step through the solutions of other problems.
I'd prefer to continue striving to create a problem (or two) that might make it into somebody's favorites list. The best problems are waiting to be discovered.
If a problem database allowed users to make a list of their favorite problems (those they have participated in composing, and those composed exclusively by others), I might be encouraged to share my lists (certainly, I would be encouraged to read the lists shared by others).
| | | (29) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Oct 11, 2022 09:15] |
Uh, oh, Kevin, don't give me ideas (i.e., I plan to relaunch my
online problem collection in a better format and now I immediately
thought how to implement Reddit-style karma - but wasn't it
Naomi Klein who said in her book that this lil innocent-looking
uparrow brought down our whole civilisation? ;-)
| | | (30) Posted by Joost de Heer [Tuesday, Oct 11, 2022 10:19] |
Is there an author index for the originals somewhere in these issues? I know I have published a few originals in SG, but no idea which issues.
If not, perhaps someone can create one?
| | | (31) Posted by Adrian Storisteanu [Tuesday, Oct 11, 2022 14:35] |
Vaclav (http://www.kotesovec.cz/) combined them into one PDF, which is easy to search.
| | | (32) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Tuesday, Oct 11, 2022 16:26] |
You can search across all PDFs in a specific folder using the Adobe Acrobat Reader "Advanced Search" tool. For example, "Joost de Heer" was found in 33 PDFs.
| | | (33) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 12, 2022 01:10] |
@Hauke,
If an up-arrow could bring down our civilization, our foundation was questionable.
Just the same, you might want to offer your site users a second option -- I am referring, of course, to the "special up-arrow."
Preoccupied by the heavy burden to understand the exact meaning of "special up-arrow," users should be sufficiently oblivious to an internet collapse.
| | | (34) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Oct 12, 2022 07:19] |
@Kevin
The idea of a favorites list is indeed interesting. I suppose like the playlists in music websites.
You can easily publish your list here or in your webpage. You just need a few hours of work creating 100 links.
| | | (35) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Oct 12, 2022 10:46] |
@seetharaman kalyan,
It is a fair analogy to describe favorite chess problems as a music list.
From the inside, sadly, problem chess certainly can resemble the music industry (and everybody can seem a record producer).
That needs to change.
I used to imagine a social media page, but for problems (not for persons).
That was before social media proved so destructive -- I mean way back, when it was the place we went to see our favorite people in the world.
Now, it's just a place people go looking for a verbal rumble. Nobody wants to be there.
Problems could be displayed in a better tone.
Classical problems should be displayed like works you'd find in a fine art museum.
Others should look more like a modern art museum.
Joke problems might be a fun house.
Problem databases serve predominantly as a search function. They serve insiders, not the public at large.
I wish they were more like a museum which invites everyone on a tour of discovery.
In fairness, a few websites have done a good job of presenting some great problems; but, it's too limiting.
I might like to spin the wheel, and visit some of the favorite problems of a random composer -- but, I want it to be a guided tour.
I don't want to see anything unsound, or anticipated -- I only want to see their best version. I sure as hell don't want insider commentary (click this link to see a similar problem etc -- don't get me wrong: insider commentary serves an important function, but the default should require users to ask to see it).
I much prefer a place where we can enjoy the dignity of the problem.
This is why you need a museum atmosphere -- so people can just shutup and enjoy. :)
The irony is that articles do such a good job of conveying problems to the general public, yet they are the least accessible to outsiders.
Maybe we need a public database of problem articles!?
As for my personal favorites -- I have much yet to discover. I don't pretend to be remotely fit to render an authoritative opinion on the matter.
Many of my favorites were found in the 100 issues of StrateGems (and there's plenty more in those volumes I have yet to discover).
Many favorites are like those songs you don't want to confess you really, really enjoy (for reasons you can't begin to explain).
Just don't ask me to share my favorites list.
Let's be honest: if I gave a list of favorites here, I would never hear the end of it.
I'd be instantly mocked for forgetting this and that problem, and for including problems the experts deem terribly out of place.
Thank you, but no. I will not volunteer for that cruelty (I am already exceeding my capacity in that regard).
I'd only reveal my actual favorites anonymously. And even then, I'd know insiders could probably guess it was me.
| | | (36) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Oct 16, 2022 00:55] |
A note for the perfectionists: Issues 23, 68, 71, 74 are corrected (see my initial post) and re-uploaded on the StrateGems website. A missing file (Supplement to No.4) is also added.
| | | (37) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Oct 17, 2022 16:28] |
Thanks to Kotesovec also. I have downloaded the collection of StraGem issues. Great treasure trove of reading. Thanks to the Strategem team.
| | | (38) Posted by Geoff Foster [Saturday, Oct 29, 2022 23:42] |
QUOTE
Vaclav (http://www.kotesovec.cz/) combined them into one PDF, which is easy to search.
Where is the combined PDF? The only relevant item I can see on the Kotesovec site is a link to the StrateGems site.
| | | (39) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Oct 30, 2022 07:47] |
The combined pdf file is no longer available. Vaclav Kotesovec had a note that the file would be there for a limited time (until October 20th, or so).
| | | (40) Posted by Geoff Foster [Sunday, Oct 30, 2022 23:07] |
Many thanks to the kind people who have sent me the combined PDF!
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General All issues of StrateGems available online |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
