Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
20:06 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 | | (61) Posted by Marcos Roland [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 18:41] |
@ Valery Gurov
Which Krizhanivsky's problem do you refer to? This one?
The Problemist 2014
4th prize
 (= 6+11 )
h#2.5
b) Kc4 to d5
c) Kc4 to a3
a) 1...Bd6 2.Sxf6 Ba3 3.Sd5 Sd6#
b) 1...Sd6 2.Rxc7 Sxb7 3.Rc4 Rd6#
c) 1...Rd6 2.Bxf7 Rxd4 3.Ba2 Bd6#
| | | (62) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 19:10] |
https://www.yacpdb.org/download/WCCI2016-18/E/E236-Kryzhanivskyi,%20Vasyl.pdf
Problem №3
| | | (63) Posted by Marcos Roland [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 20:06] |
Thank you, Kenan!
| | | (64) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 20:44] |
Please, Marcos!
| | | (65) Posted by Marcos Roland [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 22:54] |
@ Valery Gurov, Kenan Velikhanov, I am definitely astonished. When I called a certain problem "masterpiece", I had no idea of possible anticipations. I supposed that the judges had looked carefully at this. Last years, I have been composing much more long helpmates, not two or threemovers anymore.
Semenenko's problem is just an improvement, a better version of Krizhanivsky's 2017 problem. The real substantial improvement was finishing the homogenization of the third Black's move, in the solution in which the BK captures the WR. Semenenko managed to make the third Black's move be also a blocking one, like the other two solutions, bravo. But is this enough for a problem entering into the FIDE Album?
The replacement of the WP by a WN, as well as the alleged absence of WPs in the Semenenko's setting is not a sign of "grandmaster's level", for God's sake! It's pure cosmetics, considering that Krizhanivsky's setting featured 17 unities (6+11), while Semenenko's one has 19 unities (4+15).
| | | (66) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 23:04] |
Marcos, your mentioned helpmate moremover of A. Semenenko won in the thematic tournament "Four pieces - four corners" (SuperProblem TT-220, 2019). Tournament judge Aleksey Oganesyan wrote:
"The author came up very witty complication of the theme: every thematic piece after moving to corner… executes once more move! This nuance is always paradoxical itself but here it is quadruple in addition!"
Such task is really difficult to realize, and so far no composer has managed to do it better.
| | | (67) Posted by Marcos Roland [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 23:18] |
Thank you, Viktoras! Well, it may be a very hard task, but my point is: Semenenko's work doesn't impress me artistically, far from that. I think the fact that a theme is hard to accomplish is not enough for a problem entering the FIDE Album. Maybe this requirement is not an inspiring one for really good problems.
Anyway, I am surprised. I really didn't know the thematic mrequirement was precisely this, and, frankly speaking, I am astonished noone came with a better work. Did you, Torsten Linz, etc. participate in this tournament? You are a great specialist, I definitely love your problems!
| | | (68) Posted by Marcos Roland [Wednesday, Sep 7, 2022 23:23] |
Just adding: the thematic requirement was just "four pieces, four corners", right? The additional condition "each piece leaves the corner immediately after moving to it, without capturing", was Semenenko's clever and hard contribution. O.K., but my point is: if the thematic requirement had included Semenenko's addition, the picture would be different. More composers would fulfill the task, I am sure.
| | | (69) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Thursday, Sep 8, 2022 02:37] |
I had composed one problem for TT-220, but I found a predecessor to it, so I didn't submit it.
I think, everyone can try to create a better problem by Semenenko's idea without announcing a theme tournament. Undoubtedly, such a problem would rank high in any competition.
| | | (70) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 8, 2022 04:30] |
I have composed something, but I cannot show here yet. I've sent it to The Problemist, probably it will be published in the November issue.
| | | (71) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Thursday, Sep 8, 2022 13:40] |
It will be interesting to see it, Marcos.
By the way, by FA rules, a score of 2 means "Good: could be in the Album (I am not in favour, but will accept the opposite opinion)".
| | | (72) Posted by Viktor Syzonenko [Friday, Sep 9, 2022 17:20] |
8th WCCI 2019-2021
Аксиома:
Результат оценивания - принадлежит судье.
Не композиции, не автору.
Поэтому,
Каждый судья обязан проверить и сверить созданные им числовые идентификаторы (оценки) и подтвердить их легальность.
Все 40 судей (8 x 5) обязаны подтвердить (легализовать) результат своей работы.
Это будет акт передачи собственности от Судьи к Организатору.
Только тогда Организатор может признать соревнование завершенным.
Axiom:
The result of the assessment belongs to the judge.
Not compositions, not to the author.
Therefore,
Each judge is obliged to check and verify the numerical identifiers (estimates) created by him and confirm their legality.
All 40 judges (8 x 5) are required to confirm (legalize) the result of their work.
It will be an act of transfer of property from the Judge to the Organiser.
Only then can the Promoter recognize the competition as complete.
| | | (73) Posted by Marcos Roland [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 03:06] |
The author of last post, Viktor Semenenko, made me remember a problem authored by him, which was quoted here by Vlaicu Crisan. A fine problem, indeed:
 (= 6+10 )
h#3 3 sol.
1.b1=R! (b1=Q?) Bxd5 2.Rb5 Sxg2 3.Rc5 Rd1#
1.b1=B! (b1=Q?) Sxg2 2.Bxf5 Rd1+ 3.Ke4 Bxd5#
1.Ke3 Rd1 2.g1=S Bxd5 3.Se2 Sg2#
What I was ready to comment, before another subject was raised on this thread, was the comparison with Kenan Velikhanov's very good problem:
 (= 9+11 )
h#3 3 sol.
1.e1=R (e1=Q?) Bxf7 2.Re3 Se2 3.Ke4 Sc5#
1.g1=B+ (g1=Q+?) Sc5+ 2.Kd4 Bxf7 3.Be3 Sxe2#
1.Rh5 Sxe2 2.Rb5 Sc5+ 3.Kc4 Bxf7#
Both problems, in my view, are outstanding realization of a complete white cycle of pieces, squares and moves. If both problems were presented in the same tournament, I think everyone would agree that Syzonenko 1983 problem should stand ahead of Velikhanov 2020 one, simply because it features three underpromotions, while Kenan's work presents "just" two. And we must praise effusively Viktor for having accomplished this huge task before the computer era. However, I think we must take other things in consideration. First, the picture would substantially change IF the move 1.Rh5, in the third solution of Kenan's problem, contained a real dual avoidance. Unfortunately, it doesn't, as Torsten Linz pointed out. IF Kenan's had managed to tave a third solution with a black knight blocking on b5, with the WK on b7, without the R on h7, in this case the dual avoidance would be perfect (1.Qh5?).
Unfortunately, this is not possible in Kenan's scheme, so the third underpromotion in Viktor's problem is the decisive factor. But it must be noted that the underpromotions to R and B are stronger, because both of them contain dual avoidance, while the promotion to knight doesn't (unless you consider that 2.f1=B in the third solution is a real possibility to consider, I don't think so).
The second thing that should be considered, in my view, is that the two positions are COMPLETELY different. So, we cannot compare the efforts spent for each composer in different times, even considering the computer. I've tried to change something in Kenan's setting for hours, and I couldn't even achieve an alternative setting. I tend to believe, quite immodestly, that noone could do better than him. His scheme, with an almost mirror initial position of the Black King, is "tactically" too hard to handle with.
So, we can maybe conclude, remembering Comins Manfield, that Kenan worked magnificently, but didn't have so much good luck as Viktor. This happens, good luck exists also for composers.
| | | (74) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 11:55] |
Dear Roland, thank you for your comments. We discussed the problem of Semenenko and Krizhanevsky a little higher. As we see an absolutely identical game with the difference of a pawn against a knight. Well both of these tasks are selected for the album. My first problem (H#2) was rejected because of an earlier problem by F. Pahl. There are no twins in my problem, it has a much richer content. Therefore, I and other colleagues considered the problem original. These facts confirm that there are puppets among our colleagues. I'm sorry to have to be rude. If you paid attention to Fide's albums, then there are a lot of tasks that repeat each other. There are problems that even contradict the rules of chess composition. I repeat, I also judge tournaments, I judge according to my conscience, honestly.
| | | (75) Posted by Marcos Roland [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 15:23] |
Dear Kenan, I understand your frustration, and I do think the system of judgement of the WFCC could and should be improved. I wouldn't like to quote names, but I have seen already the same problemist having two almost identical problems selected for the same Album issue, it must be a record! About your problems, only I can tell you is that I became surprised some time ago when I searched and realized you don't have a master title, at least, yet! For me, you are already one of the most deep, striking, inspiring and original helpmate composers. Keep the good job, we need your ideas! One thing more, in the WCCI 2016-2018, you deserved at least to be placed one place higher in the ranking.
| | | (76) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 19:39] |
@Marcos(73)
Very good comparison of problems. And of course in my opinion Sizonenko's problem is much better. Personally I do not think that Kenan's H#3 should make an ALBUM. As you mentioned it's missing the knight promotion in the third solution. And honestly this theme cycle of 2nd and 3thd white moves in the H#3 is done many more times before in better positions and better content.
I would just add that I beleive that there is a dual avoidance in Sizonenko's problem even in the third solution.
Black can also try to block e2 by promoting to Bishop: 1.Ke3 Rd1 2.f1B? Bxc5 3.Be2 Sg2#? (Kf2!). In my opinion this is a dual avoidance because black goal is to block the e2 square. There are two ways to do this and the second one is failing because of unblocking of square f2.
At the same time as you mentioned there is no dual avoidanc in solution without promotion because bRh7 is unguarding the f7 square.
| | | (77) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 19:51] |
@Kenan(74)
It's not fair that you call the judges "puppets" just because they did not select your problem. It does not make any sense. One of my best problems ever (#3 Meredith with the quaternary black correction play) did not make to the ALBUM. However it does not mean that I should accuse judges that they did not do their job properly. Simple they do like different type of problems and that's fine. We cannot all like the same type of problems. As it's mentioned before the chess problems are like an art where there are no exact measurments if problem is good or bad.
By the way, you are putting now a preasure on all judges and you are telling them that if they do not rank your problems highly you will post article with offending wording against them. I am absolutely sure that there are composers who do not like your awards but does it means that they should now start complaining and write some posts agaist you? How you would feel if someone starts calling you a "puppet"?
| | | (78) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 20:42] |
Miodrag, firstly, I didn’t write anywhere that I was going to write an offensive article against the judges. Secondly, if I call someone a puppet, then I have iron Alibs for this. I can show you some examples. I had a dispute with Nefyodov about withdrawing my problem from the tournament from a non-complete starting position (on the topic of one hundred dollars). Not long ago, Nefyodov himself, having compiled a problem not with a set of initial positions, received a prize for this. When Nikolay Kolesenik awarded A. Semenenko's problem with the 1st prize, he was well aware of V. Krizhanevsky's problem. (H#3 - №3) Once I judged the tournament, after sending the results, I received a letter from the director that the problems of some authors were low-rated, correct your decision. Of course, I categorically refused. That's it. I will now show more examples.
| | | (79) Posted by Marcos Roland [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 20:45] |
@Misha
Maybe you're right about the third underpromotion in Syzonenko's problem. I mentioned the possibility 2.f1=B? in my comment. My doubt still is: could we consider to be a valid "try" a move which intends to block a square, while, at the same time, unblocks another square which needs to be blocked (remember, the unblocking is a departure effect)? Maybe you're right, and in this case Syzonenko's problem wins "a half point". Without dual avoidance, the promotion to a black knight it's not a choice nor paradox, it's a move like any other, roughly equivalent to 1.Rh5 in Kenan's problem.
Another point: both Kenan's and Viktor's problems are complete white cycles (first/second/third), not just 2nd and 3rd moves/squares/pieces. I don't know if this is or was so trivial.
| | | (80) Posted by Kenan Velikhanov [Saturday, Sep 10, 2022 20:55] |
Miodrag, show me not enough in this problem for which she was not chosen for AF?
1bR5/1pN4K/P3P2B/p5Nr/P2p4/3k2n1/5pq1/1b3r1n
Kenan Velikhanov (Azerbaijan)
& Vasyl Kryzhanevskyi (Ukraine)
KoBulchess (30.11.2018)
Many such masterpieces were rejected for some reason. I just want to convey to those who are taken to judge tournaments were honest and fair. Nothing personal.
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions WCCI 2019-2021 - Results |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
