Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
7:41 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Sven-Hendrik Loßin 35 JT (Selfmate) |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (41) Posted by Frank Richter [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 10:25] |
@Steven: Please explain the different meaning of "motive" and "motif".
Regarding #2 & s#2 - here you can find an example with the same key, of course quite simple:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Heinrich_Kniest
| | | (42) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 14:57]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-02] |
@Sven,
I halfway agree with how you want to define "selfmate specificity" -- "motives in a s# that can not be shown in orthodox play (with the exception of stalemate."
Only halfway because:
1) You would need to further bolster it by adding "orthodox," (I suppose you have presumed this), and (more importantly),
2) Your stalemate exception is completely absurd (given your terminology).
If you are admitting (by your definition) that there is no way to remove this stalemate exception, I consider the debate to be settled.
Since there has yet been no theme/motif demonstrated, which can be considered fully selfmate specific (according to your definition, minus the unacceptable exception -- not even for orthodox exclusive problems), it is reasonable to presume that such examples do not exist (until somebody manages to prove otherwise).
I am glad to see that we all seem to agree on this point.
I'd be happy to entertain the possibility of some alternative terminology for the feature that you are attempting to define (e.g., "thematic move-duality" would have the benefit of needing neither stipulation exceptions, nor genre exclusions).
But, you can not call this "selfmate specific," and then offer a definition which concedes that it is not exclusive to selfmates (nor can you ignore the possibility of unorthodox aims).
Finally, please note that I am in no way conceding that your definition would even hold -- even under "orthodox" conditions, and with the absurd exception.
I reserve the right to present counter-examples.
You can be 100% certain that my definition would hold -- because it only defines the theme of interest.
I respectfully submit to you that you are struggling to define a theme, for a thematic tourney.
And, I'd like to help; but, at this point, the best I can do is to ask you to think more carefully about what you are actually trying to define (before you put a name on it, which requires exceptions, and exclusions, and lengthy consideration).
I appreciate the idea, and agree that this is an worthy theme for consideration; but, if you can not manage to concisely describe this, in elementary langue (without considerable treatment), it is best to refine (read: narrow) your scope of interest.
If your terminology is not widely (read: nearly universally) accepted (by composers, judges, editors, and tournament directors), it can only be detrimental to the good of problem chess.
And, it should go without saying that I only say this as somebody who cares about preserving (and improving upon) the integrity of problem chess.
I have complete faith that the same can be said for Steven Down (and others in this thread, who are here to help).
Please consider your terminology more carefully -- I'm sure we can find a completely amicable, and uncomplicated solution.
The lives of new problem enthusiasts would be much simpler, if we fulfill our obligation to avoid highly inelegant terminology, and cumbersome classification schemes.
And, Steven is absolutely correct -- if we don't work together to make life easier for newcomers, we surrender all hope of a future which appreciates the beautiful treasures of chess problem composition.
| | | (43) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 15:15]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [14-02-02] |
Actually I am not sure how pure "stalemate" motive can be shown in selfmates. Most such selfmates are actually pure direct stalemate problems with the added hanging black mate. The "stalemate" motive is of course sometimes used to eliminate the inherent duals if expressed as direct stalemates.
Edited later: My comment was with ref. to Arno's post no.20. He had cited that directmate to illustrate how the defence of black is directly utilised by white as defensive error. Apologies that my comment above obviously missed the point. It should indeed be possible by black to use a similar tactic in selfmate also and white might be able to exploit that as an defensive error.
| | | (44) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 17:53] |
@Kevin: It would be interesting to review which tactical measurements
by Black could be actually used for a stalemate defense.
(Here's a surely random list: flight loss, unguard, self pin,
w unpin, interference, block, w lineopening, decoy, deflect...)
Offhand, I just recall Klings (mostly of the type 1...Ba1!? 2...Pb2!?,
and White abuses them as Seeberger, since somehow it must end
in mate after all.)
That said, at the moment I don't see how unpinning White can be
a Black defense in a direct mate. (In s#, no problem.)
Hauke
| | | (45) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 18:25] |
I fully agree, Hauke -- a careful exploration of this would certainly prove very interesting.
| | | (46) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 20:06] |
I think there was an article by Hartmut Laue in the December issue of die Schwalbe. There he writes that "stalemate" is some sort of special treatment in orthodox play.
In this regard it makes sense to have this exception when it comes to selfmate specificity.
I sometimes wonder what some people think what the process of defining motives etc. is about. In my view it is descriptive and not prescriptive. The one who defines provides a service by describing what is actually there and is not the one to set norms.
The same happened with "strategic play" in this forum: Generations of selfmate composers have used this term in a specific way. Of course you can define this in another way as they have used it but then you live in another reality compared to most of the profilic selfmate composers.
| | | (47) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 20:15] |
By the way: I have found a selfmate with introductory play which for this feature alone I would have included in my tourney. It is the S2464 in the September issue of the problemist. Unfortunately it is not in the PDB yet. A brilliant work however.
| | | (48) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Feb 2, 2014 22:28] |
Terminological committee of WFCC (already in the PCCC times) has done some work on the classification of motifs. I do not have the material, just its member has once published an article on content and form of motifs in Pat a Mat. Here is its translation to English: http://jurajlorinc.com/chess/pammotif.htm
| | | (49) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Feb 3, 2014 21:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-03] |
DELETED
| | | (50) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Feb 4, 2014 16:40]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-04] |
I presume that my last post was censored for profanity.
please accept my apologies for not realizing that "BS" was too strong a term, for this site.
This was my first ever warning that this site maintains a G-Rating, and now that I understand why this level of discourse is necessary, it will not happen again.
I'm told that a gang of contrarians had pounced upon my adult language, and in so doing, they managed to deny an honest opportunity for open dialog in this forum.
Many good points were lost in their wake; but, no matter repeating them -- Sven's definition was already proved dubious, and there is no value pushing him to acknowledge argumentative blunders.
In fact, "selfmate specificity" was never an enduring term -- and, the focus here only suggests a false sense of importance.
This is not the first time that the thematic instruction provided by a composing tourney constitutes a complete farce (such is the nature of popularity contests).
We have seen this familiar pattern, repeated many times: defective definition, faulty classification, personal insults, and protracted denial...
Such habitual behavior is motivated not by academic logic, but by a ritualistic desire to make territorial markings.
The sign here always reads: newcomers are unwelcome (in this territory ruled by fear).
This forum has hosted numerous examples of this identical failure (more than anyone should care to recount): Selfmate specificity, problem strategy, fairy condition, stipulation, parry-series, etc etc etc.
I trust that these elementary flaws were largely the result of both language barriers, and historically low standards.
In fact, my censored post encouraged forgiveness for all such transgressions!
Denial (and censorship) will not keep these defective definitions alive -- this only creates a stench, which drives more people away from problem chess.
What do you expect to happen?
People in this community have no perception of leverage -- they helplessly watch the future of a beloved artform fade away, into smog.
If none are left to stand for a better future, who will care to remember the problemists?
Will they even recount the fall?
| | | (51) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Tuesday, Feb 4, 2014 20:50] |
Yawn!
| | | (52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Feb 4, 2014 22:34]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-04] |
Sven,
Your problem tourney is deliberately defined by a corrupting (and territorial) term ("selfmate specificity"), which excludes fair participation, and discourages newcomers from becoming involved in problem chess.
That is why, immediately following your announcement here, multiple members of the Mat Plus community tried to help you recognize the need to alter your definition.
And, all you can say is "yawn" -- seriously?
Hey, it's your birthday party contest -- if you don't want it make it an honest competition, that's your call.
Just know this: there was never a conspiracy to personally attack you -- everybody involved in this thread would prefer to see that your JT is a success.
I understand that you may feel pressure from the publishers -- maybe you are convinced that the opportunity to correct this mistake has already expired.
It might seem easier to let go this mouse-slip -- after all, the definition would soon run its course (and dissolve into certain obscurity).
Perhaps, as you grow older, you will come to understand two things:
1) It is never too late to do the right thing, and
2) Integrity never fails -- the opportunity for a more successful tournament remains your choice, here and now.
That is the important lesson that everybody here has offered you (including friends of unimpeachable character).
You can dismiss them all, entirely, with a parting and disrespectful yawn, but this only leaves your credibility (and your definitions) more vulnerable.
"One man with courage is a majority." --Thomas Jefferson
| | | (53) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Tuesday, Feb 4, 2014 23:26] |
My 35JT is not about selfmate specificity. If it were I could live with the fact that you have your own idea what that means.
And yes: taking lessons in sophistic dialectic makes me tired.
| | | (54) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Feb 4, 2014 23:48]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-04] |
Your faulty definition was, indeed, a direct result of the extraordinarily imprecise theme given in your 35JT.
Given your weariness in definition, I'm sure the audience will pardon your misunderstanding of sophistry.
| | | (55) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 11:24] |
<mode=Lesley Gore>
Kevin, it's HIS party and he defines if he wants to,
defines if he wants to, defines if he wants to,
you would define too if it'll happen to you ;-)
Hauke
| | | (56) Posted by Frank Richter [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 13:43] |
A='Begley' and G='s#'
-> No problems have been found.
| | | (57) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 15:35] |
The reason given by Hauke is better.
| | | (58) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 16:48]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-05] |
@Hauke,
LOL -- that tune was in the back of my mind, but I could never get away with singing it (like you just did).
Crackpots would have demanded the end of all open discussion, on Mat Plus.
@Frank,
Why is it that you only ever want to promote the censorship of others?
You must feel awfully vulnerable.
No, I don't compose orthodox-selfmates (in fact, I compose very few orthodox problems, and fewer unorthodox selfmates).
In part because I don't prefer to associate with crackpots... you know, people who degrade the structural integrity of the form, in the interest of procuring cheap awards and titles -- especially when this is done in a fever of gang fashioned favoritism, and corruption.
An easy title is not worth the drama -- especially when the product tends toward mediocrity.
Also, most journals/tourneys (which can not even define "fairy condition") wrongly classify the genre, such that it includes reflexmates (which are not a comparable form, as they are not orthodox chess).
Beyond that, there is the extreme relaxation of criteria (e.g., concerning key-moves, compared to directmates).
Finally, even if I allowed myself to contribute to a genre built upon dishonest definitions, and deliberately unclear thematic content -- it happens to very rarely satisfy my interest (read: "Yawn").
I made it ABUNDANTLY clear that I have no specific interest in this genre/stipulation, from the very first line of my very first comment in this thread: "Forgive me for interjecting my inexpert opinion, but I do not believe that selfmate expertise is required to spot the underlying weak premise (which plagues this debate)."
So, take your personal attack elsewhere, Frank -- before the Mat Plus admins realize what really merits censorship!
Newsflash: a composition in this genre is not necessary, to express a valid opinion.
You do not need a specific interest to understand the failure of a specific definition (that should tell you something about the degree to which this definition failed).
Don't bother trying to measure others against the crooked yardstick of a petty selfmate empire -- especially when it was your corrupt posse which drove us all away.
My involvement in this conversation is limited only to Sven's improper definition.
If you have a legitimate disagreement, why haven't you added this theme to PDB?
Note:
a='Loßin' and firstname='Sven-Hendrik' and keyword='selfmate-specific' => 'SELFMATE-SPECIFIC' is not recognised as a proper thematic definition.
Thanks to numerous contributors in this thread, it has now been clearly established that Sven's definition was improper -- a universal recognition of this point need not take place on my timeline.
Therefore, I have nothing further to contribute.
If you have nothing to directly contribute to this debate, I strongly suggest that you refrain from any misguided attempt to frame this as a personal matter.
| | | (59) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 18:45] |
A='Richter' and G='straw man argument'
-> Several problems have been found.
| | | (60) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 18:59]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-05] |
@Steven,
I had already admitted that my comment was "not entirely true," in my original post; and, in fact, I deleted that comment (entirely) from my post, before I ever saw your reply.
But, I'm afraid much worse can be said for Frank's query!
I made it abundantly clear that I am not a selfmate expert (see the first sentence of my first post, in this thread).
I followed the Dimult Road, into this debate.
It would seem ironic that an individual who has called for my censorship, would turn and launch such a faulty assault upon my person, in this thread.
But, the truth is, this is an entirely consistent disgrace -- this is a routine form of bullying, to silence individuals (in what is supposed to be an open forum).
I will not yield to cowardly acts.
...no matter how much I am encouraged to abandon this toxic environment (this Mordor!), I have taken a position which need never fear its toothless predators.
This was never a personal matter -- and, I have gone beyond reasonable measure, to avoid this (you know this).
I was even censored for extending an olive branch, here!
I give you the light of Eärendil...
The extent of my involvement, in this thread, is confined to the question of an improper definition.
If Frank can contribute nothing to this quest, he should refrain from invoking my name.
PERIOD.
I am satisfied that we have now clearly established "selfmate specificity" was a faulty definition; and, I look forward to escaping from this petty thread, entirely.
I have no interest in coaxing people out of a hostile denial (I am content to allow this to occur on its own timeline).
I self-censored my own comment, which was made on a purely retaliatory level.
Frank would be wise to follow suit (and lower his ax) because, his commentary was intended only to instigate a personal confrontation.
And, if the Mat Plus censors had any credibility, they would affirm this position.
When all fellowship is lost, Truth is still worth fighting for, Mister Frodo.
On this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Or, there'll be no Shire.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Sven-Hendrik Loßin 35 JT (Selfmate) |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
