Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
10:15 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions WCCI 2019-2021 - Results |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | | (81) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 07:02] |
Kenan, please place a diagram and also stipulation if you want me to comment your problem. I do not have time to enter this problem on my own. As I mentioened to you before there is a blue questionmark below the post with instructions how to enter diagrams.
| | | (82) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 07:16] |
@Marcos(79)
Of course cycle of all three moves. Not 2nd and 3rd move. My trivial mistake. Thanks for correcting this mistake.
| | | (83) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 08:30] |
I tried to insert a diagram, unfortunately it did not work out.
H#3 2.sol. 1.Bxc7 Se4 2.Be5 Rc1 3.Se2 Sc5# (MM)
1.Rxg5 Sd5 2.Re5 Bc1 3.Se4 Sf4# (MM)
| | | (84) Posted by Marcos Roland [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 10:37] |
Note: This text is not formatted due to unbalanced command strings!
Kenan, it's easy. The format for inserting a diagrama is: first, double brackets [[; second, the type of notation (Forsith F, Algebric A); third, the notation (in your case, 1bR5/1pN4K, etc.); last, double inverted brackets, closing the inserton.
| | | (85) Posted by Marcos Roland [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 10:39] |
 (= 8+12 )
h#3 2 sol.
| | | (86) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 10:44] |
Thank you very much, dear Marcos!
| | | (87) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Sunday, Sep 11, 2022 11:22] |
@Kenan (85)
This is a very nice problem. However I cannot tell it if it should be in the FA or not. I did not follow up on helpmates for a while so I do not know if this problem is anticipated by some other problem or not. I am assuming that judges knew some other similar problems. Or some judges do not like position with white powns that are only on the board to prevent cooks. Yes, there are judges that do not like heavy positions. And yes, I know it was not possible to compose this problem to be correct without dummy white powns on a-file. Once again, in my opinion this problem should be selected for the FIDE ALBUM unless there is already problem showing the same theme in the similar position.
However even if this is fully original problem and even if judges made a mistake by not selecting problem in the FA it's very wrong to call judges "puppets". There are gazillion problems that did not make the FA and are excellent problems and should be there and also there are gazillion of problems that made FA but should not (of course this is my opnion). However there is nothging we can do to prevent this. As mentioned before there is no excat measurement if problem is good or not. At the end everything depends on the taste of the judges.
| | | (88) Posted by Viktor Syzonenko [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 06:37] |
Viktor Syzonenko after Kenan Velikhanov
12.IX.2022 for MatPlus
 (= 7+10 )
H#3 3.1. 7+10
1.Sb4-c6 Sg4-e3 2.Ba5-b4 Se7*c6 + 3.Kd4-c5 Ba3*b4 #
1.h2-h1=B + Se7-c6 + 2.Kd4-d5 Ba3*b4 3.Bh1-e4 Sg4-e3 #
1.e2-e1=R Ba3*b4 2.Re1-e4 Sg4-e3 3.Kd4-e5 Se7-c6 #
Black King in mirror position.
Three model mates.
V
| | | (89) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Monday, Sep 12, 2022 08:57] |
Thank you dear Viktor. Everything is fine! But it must be borne in mind that not all processing is accepted. This is only acceptable for certain circles.
| | | (90) Posted by Peter Wong [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 02:11] |
The winner of the studies section, Steffen Nielsen, is interviewed by Chess.com:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/steffen-slumstrup-nielsen-world-champion-study-composition
| | | (91) Posted by Marcos Roland [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 19:08] |
I think that everyone agrees that we have serious issues concerning the judgement of chess compositions tournaments, in general, and more serious issues yet when it comes to composition competitions organized by the WFCC, including the selecion of problems for FIDE Albums. I think that Misha Mladenovic gives a good picture of the situation when he says: "There are gazillion problems that did not make the FA and are excellent problems and should be there and also there are gazillion of problems that made FA but should not (of course this is my opnion)." However, at the same time, Misha is very pessimistic about possible improvements: "However, there is nothing we can do to prevent this. As mentioned before there is no excat measurement if problem is good or not. At the end, everything depends on the taste of the judges."
I see the point in Misha's argument, but I prefer to think that improvements can be made! I have thought about this matter the last days, and I think I'll have soon a serious proposal in order to introduce an essential change in the currente procedure for judging WFCC competitions. Sometimes an "outsider" (given that I am still kind of a newby in the composition community, in view of so many composers more experienced and gifted than me) can have a fresh, useful view about questions which are not strictly questions for the great experts. Anyway, I had my first problem selected for the FIDE Album, I was already invited to judge some helpmates tournaments (I hope I will not anymore, such a huge task!), so I think you, fellows, can trust me about the seriousness of my reflexions about the subject.
I'll do that in another thread, in a few days. But before that, I would like to point out a very positive example, in my view, about how a good judgement should be. I was delighted with this lovely miniature by Viktoras Paliulionis, which was highly ranked by the judges of the WCCI 2019-2021:
 (= 3+2 )
h#5*
Set play:
1...Ld4 2.Kc4 Lh8+ 3.Kd5 Kg7 4.f5 Td4+ 5. Ke5 Kf7#
Solution:
1.Kc2 Te8 2.Kd3 Le7 3.Ke4 Lf8+ 4.Kf5 Te5+ 5.Kf6 Lg7#
Lovely, not? And what has of so unusual in this problem being selected for the FIDE Album? The fact that the set play was so highly evaluated (I suppose) by the judges! You remember that Chris Feather, in his seminal book "Black to Play", stated that the virtual play had not a future in the helpmates genre anymore. This opinion, as some others given by the excellent Chris Feather, seems to have become kind of a dogma among most of helpmate composers. It became one of the ingredients of a fashion in the genre of helpmates, which people accept without reasoning. I think that stylish slavery ("slavery to fashion") is one of the most dangerous killers in the field of any art.
| | | (92) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 20:33] |
@Marcos(91)
OK, let me explain why I am so pessimistic about fixing this process. I'll give you an example of one of my problems and there are many problems like this one.
Twelwe years ago I sent my best #3 (personal opinion) to the Olympic Tournament. This is the threemover that I spent a lot of time composing. It shows very complex quarternary black correction play in excelent position with only 14 pieces and original scheme where bB intercepts bR three times in thematic play.
4HM OT Khanty 2010
 (= 8+6 )
#3
1.Ra5! [2.Rxa4+ Sb4 3.Rxb4#]
1...B~ 2.Qc2+ Kb4/Kxd4 3.Rxa4/Sf5# (a)
1...Bc6! 2.Sc8 ~/Rb1 3.Sb6/Be2# (ab)
(2.Qc2+? Kb4 3.Rxa4? Bxa4!)
1...Be6!! 2.Sxe8 ~/Sc5 3.Sd6/Rxc5# (abc)
(2.Qc2+? Kxd4 3.Sf5+ Bxf5!)
(2.Sc8? Bxc8!)
1...Be4!!! 2.Be6+ Bd5 3.Bxd5# (abcd)
(2.Qc2+? Bxc2!)
(2.Sc8? Bd3!)
(2.Sxe8? Bd3!)
Black errors:
(a) - opening of line a5-e5
(b) - closing of breaked line e1-e6-b6
(c) - closing of line e1-e8 and breaked line e1-e6-d6
(d) - closing of line e1-e6
On first sight this looks like very simple problem but check carefully all variations. The black errors listed below are repeating in all thematic defenses.
This problem won 4th HM but in my opinion it was a better problem than the winning one. The judge of this tournament was an excellent composer with many masterpiece threemovers. However he ranked in first place the problem that had mutiple secondary correction but commented like it's quartenary correction. This was done because of the different chess problems schools.
In Serbia I've been thought by Milan Velimirovic and Marjan Kovacevic that in order to increase the degree of black correction all defenses should repeat error from previous moves (liki in my problem) and add the new weekness to the black position. At the same time all defenses should contain the positive corrective effects to prevent previous white second moves. Everybody who worked on this theme knows how complex it is. I do believe that this is the most economical problem showing this theme and its one of the rare examples showing interferrence between black Bishop and Rook.
Not only that problem did not get the Prize but it's not selected for the FIDE ALBUM. I had in that FA two other threemovers that are much simplier than this one. One of the problems I sent just because I was aware that there are no rules what will be selected and that everything depends on the taste of judges. But it's obvious that none of the judges worked on this theme before and they did not recognize how complex is the content of this problem.
However, I do not blame anyone and I can understand why this happens. The judges have to check gazillions of problems and if they are not familiar with some theme they cannot evaluate problem very well. I know many other examples like this one (not only my problems) and that's why I think its impossible to completely fix this issue.
By the way, I am absolutely sure that there are some problemist unhappy with my awards because they think they made an extraordinary problem but in my opinion it was not enough good problem to make an award.
For example there is one author who compose twomovers where he puts some position on the board and then he writes all possible combination of checkmates and marked them with a letters. Now after some defenses there 4, 3 or some other number of checkmates. If that's the new combination then it's an excellent problem and expectation is that problem will win a Prize. I've been thought since I was a kid that there should be no duals in variation with an exception of Fleck theme. However in some other countries the problems like this one are very popular and are always given prizes.
Obviously there are differen chess problems schools and we will hardly make any changes to this.
| | | (93) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 21:04] |
I rather think that some people can agree that we have serious issues with judging. But even those people differ in understanding what the issues are, whether they can be resolved in general and specifically with current WFCC setting. So claiming anything as universal truth in this area is quite suspicious.
Then I like Misha's balanced view and explanation.
| | | (94) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Tuesday, Sep 13, 2022 23:25] |
Miodrag, your task has received the 3rd honorable mention. Indeed, then the winning task had serious flaws. A performance move with a pin of Black's only defender. I have read the judge's comments on your problem. The judge did not like the third option with a check. The idea itself did not interest him. The same thing happened to me in the 2019 World Cup. After the results, the judges and I made a joint task. I asked him about my World Cup problem. I asked him if he understood the idea in my composition? There the Anti-Brazilian Theme, or the inverse form of the Brazilian Theme, was first rallied. He replied that he did not understand it immediately))). That is, after the publication of the results. Unfortunately, there are a lot of incidents and I don’t know how to achieve an honest, fair refereeing. I have been working for many years but I can not score at least 12 points. Just don't give it a chance.
| | | (95) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 09:24] |
@Miodrag: I know your problem. It was *too* elegant :P
As the problem with the problem becomes, if it's too
elegant, the heavy theme doesn't look like an
achievement anymore. See, any Tom, Dick and Hauke
could do a quaternary, see how simple it is :-)
(By Poes law, I declare this post is heavily ironic -
not that someone might misunderstand it.)
| | | (96) Posted by Marcos Roland [Wednesday, Sep 14, 2022 21:29] |
Misha, I cannot say if your problem should be included in the FIDE Album or not. I liked it very much, and I think I can figure quite well how hugely difficult your task was. It's natural, I think, that some imperfections would arise, like some captures and the check in the variation 1...Be4. However, I think these small snags are amply compensated by the general conception and by the excellent play which follows 1...B ~, with its gorgeous pure mate: 2.Qc2+ Kxd4 3.Nf5#!
Maybe a flaw could be the apparent "dual" after 1...Be4 2.Sc8? Bd3/Tb1. Am I missing something? It seems to me that 2.Sc8? cannot be considered a valid try.
Anyway, you have a good point when it comes to the difference between composition schools, but, in the first place, these differences, in my view, are not the main cause of unfair judgements. Second, I think even the influence of these differences could perhaps be lessened if it were not for the main problem of our organization, in my opinion: the lack of a healthy debate, of constructive discussions, of good communication, particularly regarding aesthetic issues. You see, the constitution of the WFCC starts with a barrier that is as difficult to overcome as it is harmful: the language barrier. The WFCC is perhaps one of the very few world organizations which has only one official/work language. Just to give you an example of my practice, the World Customs Organization started with just French and English as work languages, and later, as far as I know, evolved to admitt also Russian and Spanish.
Please, don't laugh at me, I can perfectly figure how economically difficult would be to introduce another work language in the WFCC. I know that this situation has a very good reason to be in the place. And I think that if one single work language must be used, English is the best option. (Not beacuse of me, I would prefer French, Spanish or my native Portuguese...) However, I think we have to keep in mind all the time that an essential communication problem does exist in the WFCC, and even if we cannot fix it, perhaps we could do something in order to somehow mitigate it.
| | | (97) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 00:05] |
Marcos, I am glad that you commented my threemover. It gave me more reasons to beleive that nothing can be done to improve judging. Here are my arguments why:
1) You are stating that Rb1 is a dual? However, original position that I submitted was with +bRb1 and +bPb2 (2 pieces more). But then I discovered that I can get rid of them. Not only that 1...Rb1 is not a dual but it gives bigger role to wB that now gives additional checkmate after 2...Rb1 3.Be2# This defense Rb1 is just side subvaration but there is no a signle dual in this problem. The move 1...Rb1 is possible in the initial position too but there is a checkmate right away. So obviously that Rb1 is a weak move by black and it cannot be a daul. If this is a dual then I would say 99% of problems do contain duals. Any twomover has some side variations. Does it means they are bad? Not at all if there are no dual mates that cannot be a weakness. The definition of dual is that after defense there are two continuations/checkmates. But here it's not the case.
2) Capturing of bSe8 is of caurse unwanted but that was only way for me to make this mechanism work. And again I bet that there are many other threemovers that made the FA with a capturing of black pieces in some of variations.
3) Now about check in one of thematic variations. Of course it would be nicer that it's a quaite move like in other variations. But there are so many excellent problems with mixed variations (some quiate and some with a checks). Also in the excellent H#N moves with a set play (problem you shown few posts before) there are some checks during the solution. Of course they do not bother me at all and I also agree this is an excellent problem. But it's strange how you do not mind seeing checks in helpmate as a weaknees (at lest you did not mention it) but then at the same time it's a weakness in a threemover. It think it's just because you compose more helpmates than threemovers.
It's obviously that there will be never two problemists with a same opinion about everything. That's why I think it's hard to do anything to improve awards.
Once again I do appritiate your opinion and I am not saying you are wrong in your comments. I just say that I have a different opinion. And I bet if we ask 10 different problemists if my #3 is better with two extra pieces (+bRb1 & +bPb2) or not that opinion will be split.
| | | (98) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 00:24] |
Misha, I meant a possible "dual" (I use this for lack of a better word) to be the two possible answers to 2.Sc8 AFTER 1.Ta5 Be4 2.Sc8?. Now both 2...Tb1 and 2...Bd3 defend, not just 2...Bd3 as you said.
Now, about the check 2.Be6+, I think I didn't express myself well. It's not just the check, it's also the capture that follows: 2...Bd5 3.Bxd5#. In the variation 1.Ra5 B ~, there's the check 2.Qc2+, and I found the sequence excellent.
| | | (99) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 15:36] |
Misha, just finishing my comment, I forgot to say that you built a very elegant setting, and maybe supreme elegance is necessary to perform such a complex task with such economy. The very dynamic, "floating" bishop on d5, subtly performing all the relevant defenses and changes, is a very happy finding. Also remarkable is the dynamism of the wNa7, at the same time guarding the b5 square and ready to jumping on c8 and mating on b6. Even the bNe8, which provides a safe square for the WK, has its flavour, in spite of its capture in answer to the error "c".
Only I think that maybe it would be better your initial version, with +bRb1 and +bPb2. You are the expert, of course.
| | | (100) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 15, 2022 18:33] |
Now I would like to finish my comment on fashions in composing and judging. Unfortunately, there is much of this presently, especially in the direct twomovers and helpmates genres. I wonder if a masterpiece like this mutate #2 by Comins Mansfield would make to the FIDE Album today, such is the power of fashion in the genre:
Morning Post, 1923
 (= 5+4 )
#2
1.Qa6! waiting
Another ingredient of fashion is the assimilation of some good precepts in the art of composing as if they were absolute dogmas. For instance, generally speaking it is not advisable to have a flight taking key in a twomover. O.K., but for me this is just a precept, not an absolute truth. You can have a position where in the set play there is already a provision for the flying move, and the key give up this provisioned mate, while guarding the flying square. Isn't there some compensation here? Moreover, how about if the key doesn't carry any threath, it's a waiting move, and there are several tries in the position which carry a threat or even a check? If the reason for avoiding the flight giving key has to do with "easyness", "primitivism", "lack of subtility", etc., wouldn't threatening tries be less subtle than any waiting move? Moreover, and if there are in the position several other tries which equally take the flight, and obviously they don't work, don't this circumstance eliminate the "easyness" of the solution?
I am talking about this problem of mine, which I couldn't have published anywhere because of the "flight taking dogma". Please, in this case I am not dreaming of FIDE Album, I just still think this is a publishable problem, at least good for solving:
 (= 11+5 )
#2
Set play: 1...Ke5 2.Qg5#
Tries:
1.g5? (th. 2.Qxd4/Qe4#) Ke5!
1.Qf2? (th. 2.Qxd4#) 1...Qxc5 2.Qxd4#; but 1...Qa4!
1.Qe1? (th. Qe4#) 1...Qxc5 2.Qxe6#; but 1...Qb5!
And more: 1.Qd8+? Qd7!; 1.Qh6?/1.Qh7?/1.Qe7?/1.Qh8?/1.Qg3?/Qg5+?/Qh5+? 1...e5!
Key: 1.Qh2! waiting
1...Qxc5 2.Bxb7#; 1...Qb5(Qa4) 2.Qd6#; 1...e5 2.Qa2#; 1...Qc7 (Qd7) 2.c6#; 1...Qxb6 2.cxb6#
Needless to point out the changed mates.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions WCCI 2019-2021 - Results |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
