|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 |
| (21) Posted by Olaf Jenkner [Wednesday, Jan 29, 2014 21:54] |
Perfect selfmate specificity (:-)
By the way: I started solving some month's ago and so I struggled a long time to find the solution. It's a nice problem for newcomers.
|
|
| (22) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 13:14] |
Re: 'selfmate-specificity'
So in direct mates both sides are seeking (with very rare exceptions) to strengthen their own position and/or weaken the opponent's position.
In selfmates we can do that, but we also have the added idea of weakening one's own position and/or strengthening the opponent's position.
Nothing to argue about there, but there does seem to be some difference of opinion about whether this is meaningful or not.
The question comes down to: Is the possibility of doubling the potential attacking/defensive motifs available to the composer significant?
I think this is what they call a 'no-brainer' as the answer is apparent even to somebody with no brain like myself!
|
|
| (23) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 21:23]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-01-30] |
Chess game and chess composition are the antipodes in the chess universe, governed by the same laws of the pieces' mobility. Those who are fascinated by the chess game, should play and analize chess games. They certainly may like or dislike some chess compositions but the attempt to impose the values of a chess game as the values of the chess composition, is a violent act.
Selfmate has a clearly defined goal, without any need to know the goal of the orthodox chess game. For what absurd reason a chess player must understand a selfmate as "inversed", "suicidal" or "losing play". The mated side DOES NOT lose, it WINS. Both sides try to STRENGHTEN their own position and to WEAKEN the opponent's. Comparing the "selfmate strenghtening/weakening" with the respective concepts of the orthodox chess game may be interesting or not, but imposing the general orthodox reasoning in the selfmates is an incredibly narrow-minded violence.
Selfmate is a game in which the mated side wins! Orthodox game looks "inversed", "suicidal" or "losing", quite perverse in a view of a Selfmate player. Should a selfmate player/composer insist on applying his reasoning to orthodox games and problems?
If someone would learn about the legal movement of the pieces but not about the orthodox goal, he would have no "misconceptions" about the selfmate.
|
|
| (24) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 22:27] |
Dear Nikola,
The rules of the "legal movement of the pieces" evolved for ages based on getting as much fun as possible from making the opposing king the most prized game.
QUOTE
If someone would learn about the legal movement of the pieces but not about the orthodox goal...
She would miss the whole point of it. The point where it is fun.
|
|
| (25) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Jan 30, 2014 23:21] |
Dear Dmitri, do you think that fun in selfmates is not possible? With such a premiss, you would have to conclude that she, who nevertheless has fun with selfmates, is insane or queer.
I've heard chess players saying that helpmates and selfmates are perverted. Saying that proudly, they turned to the board and played blitz games for the whole evening - the games rich with helpmates and occasionally even with interesting selfmate-strategies.
|
|
| (26) Posted by Steven Dowd [Friday, Jan 31, 2014 01:31] |
What is really "perverted" in my opinion Nicola, is that they will call selfmates and helpmates odd, but then go play hours of bughouse or "suicide chess" without seeing any dichotomy in their attitudes.
Some of it is just poor attitudes. When I started playing chess, I was told to avoid even looking at any kind of chess problems as it would only ruin my playing skills. This was by the highest ranked players in the club. So I didn't even consider chess problems as worthy of my attention until 30 years later.
|
|
| (27) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Jan 31, 2014 09:14] |
"Both sides try to STRENGHTEN their own position and to WEAKEN the opponent's"
Thats not the point.
The point is, that EXACTLY the reason for a move to STRENGTH the own position turns out to be a reason for a WEAKNESS of the own position.
Of course anybody may find this interesting or not.
|
|
| (28) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Jan 31, 2014 13:37] |
To get fun from chess, it is not necessary to play orthodox game alone. Many of our club players have enjoyed the so-called "losing chess" where also the aim (paradoxically?) is to win. I know many of our indian IM level players who enjoy this variant. Raja Ravisekar one of the early IMs from India (chess coach now) likes it very much and was planning to write about ending theory of this variant untill someone pointed out that it has been done already!
|
|
| (29) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Jan 31, 2014 14:52] |
Yes Frank, that is exactly the point.
The dynamics of the strengthening and weakening effects makes a problem.
To perceive that clearly, one should forget the orthodox criteria of strength/weakness.
|
|
| (30) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Friday, Jan 31, 2014 14:54] |
Obviously i wasn't clear. I'm sorry.
This is what i meant:
Imagine a person who only plays by selfmate rules (and never by orthodox). And a person who only plays by orthodox rules (and never by selfmate, losing or any variation).
I state that their experience from the game would not be the same at all. Why so? Because the rules of movement were invented to fit the goal of mating the opponent. Therefore the experience of "orthodox" person is richer.
This is it. This is the difference. Any logical reasoning should consider this difference.
At no point i was trying to say that selfmates are not fun.
|
|
| (31) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Jan 31, 2014 16:10] |
OK Dmitri, the following sentences looked rather exclusive:
-"She would miss the WHOLE point of it. The point WHERE it IS FUN."-
You're right about the purpose of the evolution of chess rules. But the Selfmate is much older than most OTB players might think.
The potential of the Selfmate-game still should be explored (of course, not from the initial position).
Selfmate studies, without a particularly restricted number of moves, might perhaps reveal something interesting.
In principle, White needs a considerable material advantage before saying that the position is an obvious win (draw would mean that Black obviously has not enough advantage to win). Grabbing appears as the main strategy but there is always a possibility to refine the play.
Compared to orthodox endgames, the trouble is that there's no Selfmate-endings theory. For instance, which white material would secure the win against a single bP which is on a particular square. The play would search for the ways to achieve/avoid the "theoretically known" winning positions.
|
|
| (32) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 00:47]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-01] |
It matters not what your perspective of "orthodox" (nor does subjective "fun" have any relevance)...
The relevant question here is whether a problem shows a theme which is specific to a selfmate-styled stipulation.
And, we still lack anything close to a concise explanation for how some specific selfmate shows something necessarily unique.
Some earlier descriptions of this specificity (based upon moves with benefit-duality) simply did not cut the mustard (to say the least).
This spawned disagreements, and a call for greater clarity (in definition).
Thus far, the professed selfmate experts have extracted nothing uniquely specific from their presented themes.
I'm sorry to have to further frustrate people who seem to be constantly struggling to define their own terminology... but, I must point out that this latest attempt marks yet another tragic case of description impotence (a testament to the sophistication of an overly lofty endeavor, lacking any foundational stability).
Hint: If you can't describe your idea in elementary language, chances are you probably don't yet understand it (even at an elementary level).
The latest ungrounded claim (that 'selfmate-specificity' is based upon some entirely vague motivation, underlying the production of moves with this familiar benefit-duality) constitutes a very poorly disguised form of circular reasoning.
By definition, a selfmate will always contain a unique motivation for the moves contained within, because motivation is at the cornerstone of the selfmate definition (read: to compel the opponent to checkmate your own King is both the definition of selfmate, and a unique motivation for all moves therein). In other words, the latest claim could be used to argue that a "selfmate-specific theme" is defined to be any theme which contains a move which is motivated by the stipulation of selfmate (read: all themes in selfmates would effectively be 'selfmate-specific').
note: it is entirely possible that there are examples of 'selfmate specificity' -- but, if the proponents of various terminologies/ideas can not manage to ever convey a reasonable definition/description, then every question put to them will only seem an attempt to embarrass.
|
|
| (33) Posted by Frank Richter [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 10:26] |
"a selfmate will always contain a unique motivation for the moves contained within"
No.
The motivation of a move is the motivation of the move (open a line, close a line, guard a field, unguard a field, pin a piece, unpin a piece etc.). Nothing more and nothing less.
If you don't like the term "selfmate-specific" - simply use "difference to direct mate".
And ... please excuse my poor english and the inability to provide exact definitions.
|
|
| (34) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 11:11] |
I think, that Kevin meant that the play of white as a whole (ie. moves) will always have the motivation of forcing the opponent to mate. Line opening, closing, pinning/unpinning, guarding/unguarding etc. for each move are just the tactical part.
|
|
| (35) Posted by Steven Dowd [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 16:12] |
Yes, the reasoning rapidly becomes circular, and is the reason why no one can provide an exact, simple definition. The only difference in a selfmate is the motivation to force the opponent to mate one's own king. All the methods (line openings, battery formation) are used in chess in other situations.
This has always reminded me of my years in academia, where I had colleagues who perpetuated methodologies and theories with no real value, but because it fit an agenda they were pursuing.
Claiming selfmate specificity where none exists is wrong, and is a barrier to a true understanding of the modality. It is also a barrier to getting more individuals to participate in these kinds of problems (which, if you look at the history of problemdom, were once as popular as directmates), which only serves certain elitists.
|
|
| (36) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 18:41] |
I think that the definition of selfmate specificity is not hard to do if there were no language burden.
Motives in a s# that can not be shown in orthodox play (with the exception of stalemate) are selfmate specific. okay, that was easy. Lets try to Name at least some of them:
1) A White plan does not work because it strengthens the white forces.
2) Black defends by weakening the own forces by for instance closing a black line etc.
3) White can profit from opening a black line, unpinning a black piece.
A special case of this is motive-inversion where the use and the impairment are identic as can be seen in the s# by Laue/Gülke. The Encyclopedia by Velimirovic is very weak when it comes to selfmate terminology (for example the whole work by Gamnitzer is completely neglected) but motive-inversion can be found under "Hartmut-Laue-theme" so that a definition has already been given. It is always easy to claim a lack of definitions but in this case it is simply wrong.
|
|
| (37) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 19:23] |
@Steve: These are times when I read about thread separation and cyclic motives etc. in twomovers. There are a lot of twomovers where you need an instruction manual. If you are looking for elitists you should have a look there - I think that motive-inversion is not that sophisticated that it is only stuff for elitists.
|
|
| (38) Posted by Joaquim Crusats [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 20:21] |
(32) By definition, a selfmate will always contain a unique motivation for the moves contained within, because motivation is at the cornerstone of the selfmate definition (read: to compel the opponent to checkmate your own King is both the definition of selfmate, and a unique motivation for all moves therein). In other words, the latest claim could be used to argue that a "selfmate-specific theme" is defined to be any theme which contains a move which is motivated by the stipulation of selfmate (read: all themes in selfmates would effectively be 'selfmate-specific').
This paragraph suggested me the following thought (a little bit off topic, sorry): consider a diagram position which is at the same time a correct #2 and a correct s#2, in each case sharing the key move. Although the move is the same, the motivations are clearly not (linked to the genre). It’s not difficult to construct a sketch as a proof of concept. Perhaps a good problem showing this feature has already been composed? With different key moves?
|
|
| (39) Posted by Steven Dowd [Saturday, Feb 1, 2014 21:12] |
I think one problem may well be the use of "motive" as interchangeable with "motif", and although some general dictionaries do that, Velimirovic and Valtonen do not, and with good reason. It can only get confusing if you were to use them interchangeably in a chess problem context.
|
|
| (40) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 07:46]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [14-02-02] |
There are many problems composed with multi stipulations. I remember one very old problem by T.R.Dawson with stipulations #2, S#2 by either black or white. With different keys of course.
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Sven-Hendrik Loßin 35 JT (Selfmate) |
ISC 2024
