Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
7:57 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Cyclone 2 |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Dec 13, 2010 09:49] |
<<Lately, even Cyclone judges (devotees themselves!) seem to be pushing (unless it is only my perception) in aesthetic directions.>>
So, Cyclone problems are not aesthetic?
| | | (42) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Dec 13, 2010 13:17] |
Well, I daresay that a) cyclic themes *per se* are
somewhat demanding. This inadvertly leads to some
"I did it! I did it!" attitude - look at the complete
Lacny with...was it 10 promoted figures? I still was
too impressed to count. :-)
Now b) it would still be worth to research if classicist
composers have better constructive abilities than
modernist ones. I know too many brilliant modernists
here on the board to make such a racist statement,
but still - a subjective feeling "Why didn't you put
piece X to Y and deleted Z1 to Z32, loser?" occurs
FAR often when I see modern problems. (I would throw
myself a party when I'd ever manage to chop off a single
pawn on an Ahues problem. I bet I could wait until he
gets 110. :-)
c) Probably, the modern school needs only *time*. When
most things are done, the next generation, knowing how
it can be done, does it better.
d) Or maybe I get bored and onto modernism. Hey, I just
needed the boot of Wieland into my backside to do a
cyclic Barulin [the white line combination] Consider
yourself owned :-)
Hauke
| | | (43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Dec 13, 2010 18:01]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-12-13] |
@Seetharaman Kalyanasundram:
>>"So, Cyclone problems are not aesthetic?"
Obviously, this is not the case -- I should clarify my position.
I consider many Cyclone problems to be highly aesthetic.
I am no Bohemian (where economy of pieces is King).
A few pawns were saved in later versions of Lacny's first problem; but, for me, Lacny's brilliant inspiration stands above them all.
Themes are King (a saved pawn is only a pawn).
But, the next n-fold realization is not [necessarily] on par with the original inspiration.
When I speak of aesthetics, in this context, I am generally referencing excessive fairy elements.
I concede that excess is often a necessity, given the nature of these difficult themes.
I only mean to suggest that some middle-way is required, to assure that Cyclone composers do not become an audience unto themselves.
A problem without an audience is like a King without a kingdom (equivalent to a pawn).
I believe a judge must consider the full context of a chess problem -- beyond artistry (flow/geometry), they must be mindful of its affect on the intended audience (much the same way we evaluate a movie, or a novel, or a painting).
Does the presentation seem grotesque?
Is the paradox real (or is it presumed by formal letter arrangement)?
Such things can only be perceived by an audience.
| | | (44) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Dec 14, 2010 13:01]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-12-14] |
I agree Kevin that some cyclone problems do fall into the 'grotesque' category, where the emphasis is more on achieving a task than presentation.
| | | (45) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Friday, Dec 17, 2010 18:01] |
"what makes the cyclone themes so fascinating that still more composers are involved in them?
on the one hand the substance of each of them can be described using three letters only. on the other hand they belong to the most difficult composing challenges."
(CYCLONE 2, p.3)
several points were discussed in this thread recently, and somehow i felt i should add my personal statement. excuse me, if i am too boring, but some parts needed deeper explanation.
1. GOOD, BAD AND UGLY.
a) good non-cyclones and bad cyclones?
for me, a problem is good if it is interesting enough to look at again and again.
a "cyclone" problem may be of this sort, but may be opposite, as well. similarly a "non-cyclone" problem.
b) content and form.
the great russian composer, vladimir erokhin, once told: "i can sacrifice a form of the composition, if it is necessary.
but i would never sacrifice its content. never."
this opinion is very similar to my own way of thinking about chess problem, independent on if it is a "cyclone" or not.
c) ugly and airy.
the term "ugly" is often used to describe a crowded position on the chessboard.
do you know what did ludovit lacny do once, as somebody had used the term "airy position"?
even if he is a very polite gentleman, he started to laugh loudly…
2. AESTHETICS AND ACHIEVEMENTS.
i recognize two main ways of composing:
a) focusing on achievement (i.e. on the content)
if i think of a longer cycle than ever achieved, i am focused on an achievement. (of course, i would be using the promoted force only in case where i am quite sure it could not be done without. or, if using the fairy elements, then as a basic point of the mechanism, not just a "helping element".) this is what could be called a "scientific research".
b) focusing on aesthetics (i.e. accepting the limits in the form)
on contrary, composing for an important competition (let me name once again the 8. wcct), being a captain of our team, it was me who was pushing the other guys to reach constructionally perfect positions. (knowing that even a small flaw would cost us many places.) that is what i would name a "commercial success".
i, personally, like both of them if they give reasonable results.
3. EXAMPLES OF (WHAT I CONSIDER) TOP COMPOSITION.
finally, i would like to comment on two excellent problems (btw, all the authors are grandmasters):
a) #3 by a. kuzovkov, 1st place 8. wcct c 1.3.2007 (2321 in "cyclone 2", p.165).
the rice cycle in an unbelievable presentation: the theme required quiet W2 move that pins a black unit moving in the B1 move. i know quite well the constructional difficulties, as we were trying a lot in this section. at one moment i had an idea of the rice cycle, but soon i refused it as non-realizable. kuzovkov did it with 16+8 units. the position is at the border of "possible-impossible". very complicated motivation, even if quite symmetrical. the judging countries understood the difficulty and the achievement: the problem received the 2nd highest score of all problems of all sections in the competition.
b) fairy #4 by j.-m. loustau and r. aschwanden, 3rd prize idee & form 2004-2005 (2461 in "cyclone 2", p.196).
repeating my comment: "in my humble opinion, this may be the best fairy problem ever composed. beside the complete 3x3 lacny cycle, there are cycles of W2-W3 moves, and in the try even of W4 moves. the phases are completely different and the intersecting defences pretty unifying. black refutes the try by making f5 a flight. however, white gives this flight in a key!…"
would you mind 16+29 units? then better try it in a miniature setting.
at the very end a comment on my term "cyclone-hater".
it is as with the aliens: i did not meet such creature so far. but they still might be existent…
| | | (46) Posted by Joost de Heer [Friday, Dec 17, 2010 19:21]; edited by Joost de Heer [10-12-19] |
2423 Q: Who was the inventor of the help-directmate?
As far as I know F.H. von Meyenfeldt. He called it 'blundermate'.
| | | (47) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Saturday, Dec 18, 2010 11:55] |
@ joost:
i see the post office is pretty fast within the e.u.!
2423 Q: Who was the inventor of the help-directmate?
of course i am very much interested in details of your answer.
could you publish the definition here?
where was the idea of mr. von meijenfeldt published? if probleemblad, would you, please, quote the issue. was there any example?
| | | (48) Posted by Joost de Heer [Saturday, Dec 18, 2010 15:20] |
I don't have the exact definition, but according to his In memoriam (Probleemblad 4-2002) Von Meyenfeldt introduced this theme in Probleemblad 1967-3, as 'beperkt helpmat' (limited helpmate). The term 'blundermat' (blundermate) was introduced later for problems in which there was only one introducing black helpmove.
| | | (49) Posted by Joost de Heer [Sunday, Dec 19, 2010 11:26] |
This is probably the first help-directmate
F.H. von Meyenfeldt
Probleemblad 1967
 (= 5+2 )
hd#2
1. Bh3 & 1. Rh1 B~ 2. Bg7#
| | | (50) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 15:27] |
thanks, joost. maybe i will write a short article about it for "pat a mat" one day...
does anybody know an earlier example of help-directmate?
| | | (51) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Dec 21, 2010 16:45] |
@Peter,
I wonder how you would judge Forsberg's famous h#2, against the problem you consider to be the "best fairy problem ever composed."
In my view: there may never be another Forsberg, but almost certainly, far better realizations of this fairy problem will be plentiful.
But, specifically, how do you compare their technical difficulties, and how do you compare their artistic value (for human audiences)?
| | | (52) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Dec 25, 2010 01:25]; edited by Kevin Begley [10-12-25] |
Even if we accept chess composition as a competitive sport, it seems premature to declare any problem "best fairy."
The genre is so new, and so vast, that even establishing the most basic rules remains a significant work in progress.
A stable aesthetic foundation is still years away (if not decades).
Does anybody care to remember what helpmate was declared "best," back in 1900?
As I see it, both of today's predominate fairy schools treat aesthetics as a perfunctory affair:
1) The Pseudo-Bohemian School:
The most important aspect of the work depends upon producing ideal thematic analogies, from the least number of on-board units.
Whereas the Bohemian School had a very high regard for aesthetics (especially economy!), Pseudo-Bohemians worship only a nominal economy (which may be manufactured, along with artificial depth, by employing any number of fairy elements).
2) The Formal (and Cycloformal) Thematic School:
The most important aspect centers around pioneering sound realizations of increasingly challenging solution forms.
Adherents are proud to laugh at the misinformed when attention is called to the grotesque aspects upon which their realizations commonly depend.
Both of the schools above primarily evaluate works based upon the perceived technical challenge of their realization.
For pseudo-Bohemians, difficulty is generally proportional to the number of thematic analogies, and their depth (number of moves).
For Cycloformalists, difficulty is generally proportional to both the number of cyclic phases, and of thematic defenses.
Both generally assume that "paradox" and "flow" are inherent to their form, thus they tend to focus upon technical aspects of geometry.
Originality is generally reduced to matters of mechanism (thematically, it might even be completely defined, by cookbook).
It should be noted that the former school often does evaluate the "affect" a problem has upon a human audience (solvers).
The latter school is virtually an audience unto its own -- art for the sake of art.
[A highly talented composer once told me that his (later prize winning) Cyclone problem was essentially unfit for a human solving audience.]
It is difficult to imagine how either school accounts for Forsberg's helpmate being widely considered the best problem ever composed.
So much that goes into that assessment depends upon aesthetics.
I subscribe to the school of "Splendid Insincerity." [if I may borrow from the great poet, Nabokov.]
The ideal here is an holistic expression, characterized by aesthetically pleasing (splendid) illustrations of authentic paradox (insincerity).
This school consists entirely of amateurs, and values the human experience conveyed (as perceived by non-vacuous, human audiences), above any recognition.
Success depends entirely upon the simple act of searching for new ideas (to be shared), and striving to ignore all yardsticks used to quantify art...
...lest we become numbers, ourselves.
| | | (53) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Monday, Dec 27, 2010 19:17] |
@ kevin:
sorry if i am not answering without a delay… i am quite busy with packing the copies of "cyclone 2" worldwide.
anyhow, i will try:
the cyclone area is just one of many possible areas (or "schools" if using your terms). just one of, even if, at least for me, one of the most interesting.
i like to look at (and compose) also different themes (see, e.g., the 8. wcct results).
however, i have to admit, the "cyclone" difficulty is always challenging to me. (i know some of my problems are not composed for any audience. but that does not hurt me at all.)
how would i compare the helpmate by forsberg to the fairy fourmover by aschwanden/loustau?
a difficult question, as comparing different genres (ortho helpmate and fairy moreover) is usually very artificial.
the following is just my personal opinion, could well be the "minority report". (if i may borrow the title from spielberg.)
forsberg's helpmate.
a cute miniature, interesting to attract the newcomers, probably not composed within minutes, surely no unit could be saved… but that's all.
for me, far away from being the best problem ever composed. even far from being the best orthodox helpmate. yes, the fide album level… but at the time of composing. (btw, who and where declared this composition the best ever? i have never heard of it before.)
aschwanden/loustau fourmover.
a highly complicated and paradoxical theme, yet very understandable, with all aspects of difficult construction, and (very important) shown in highly aesthetic form, nothing for beginners. (it took the two guys about a year from the idea to the first correct position… and i personally do know how fast they are in composing.) a miracle that something like that may be fixed on the 8x8 chessboard.
and whether there will be a plentiful positions with better construction? even if yes, it will not be of a great importance to me… well, anyhow: try to save a single one of its 55 units!
from this comparison it is clear that i would evaluate much higher the latter composition.
(someone likes simple positions, the other one needs complicated structures. that also makes the chess composition great, doesn't it?)
kevin, speaking of content and form, let me allow a similar question to you:
how would you compare the famous saavedra's endgame to the famous yarosh's babson task fourmover?
| | | (54) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Dec 31, 2010 12:55] |
Peter,
The Saavedra study, in its original form, is simply unsound -- the dual (4.Kb3/4.Kc3) completely spoils the intro.
In this form, I do not believe it merits any judgment.
Were this a sound study, I *might* have ranked it highly.
However, I am honestly not equipped to guage the potential value of an unsound work.
For example, if the "eight-queens" problem had only one unique solution, what could possibly compare?
Yet, who can compare Saavedra's single dual against the 91 (distinct) alternative solutions found in Max Bezzel's problem?
I really must insist that a problem be sound, first and foremost.
Unfortunately, even today, there remain many unresolved questions about what constitutes a "sound" problem.
[edit: I mean orthodox problems -- never mind disagreements about Fairy rules!]
Our codex completely fails to resolve these matters.
Aptly, this brings us to Yarosh's famous #4 [wKf8, bKd4] -- which raises several questions about soundness...
Most would agree that duals appearing in non-thematic lines are entirely forgivable.
What about the duals which occur after the thematic promotions?
And, beyond the issue of duals, there is a question as to whether any of the variations are correct.
After all, there are four threats -- 2.axb8=Q,R,B,S -- so, no promotions appear in the context of standard threat notation.
How much of this should be forgiven, and how much is only tolerated in the context of this specific achievement?
These are not easy questions to wrestle with... ultimately, I consider this problem to be "essentially correct."
But, only when viewed as "variations without threats," and ignoring all duals outside of its thematic context (promotions only).
However, for these aesthetic imperfections, I would deduct considerably.
I consider this problem to be a profound achievement -- but, no work of art.
Forsberg's h#2 is a work of art -- a nearly perfect realization of a beautifully authentic paradox (for humans to experience)!
Consider the economy of expression (e.g., moves, men, stipulation, etc), and realization (e.g., all mates are models)...
Consider the beautiful paradox -- something every human solver will instantly appreciate!
I guessed you would miss the beauty of this problem, but I never imagined you would reduce this to merely a "cute miniature."
I consider Forsberg's theme to be far more challenging than almost any cyclone theme.
In 70+ years, this problem stands alone -- it is the only matrix to ever achieve this theme, given its "orthodox-h#n" constraints.
By comparison, fairy-cyclones -- given a vacuum of self-constraint (use any fairy elements you wish) -- are trivial achievements.
I highly doubt that a single fairy-cyclone will stand alone after 70 years -- most will be dramatically improved, in less time.
In many cases, the paradox (presumed to be inherent to these formal themes) is already vacated by the fairy elements employed.
[Note: the same can be said of the pseudo-Bohemians, who obtain false depth via Koko, and false economy via Sentinells, etc.]
But then... if no human directly experiences the paradox... who would notice?
Cyclones celebrate pioneering thematic achievements (e.g., "the goal is seven"), far too much.
The beauty of a problem is inherent neither to its theme, nor to its economy...
It rests upon an holistic expression -- a shared human experience (especially when revealing an authentic paradox).
Consider Miodrag Mladenovic's Babson r#3.
This is not a work of art because of its theme -- it is so because of the constraints imposed upon its achievement.
To properly appreciate this work -- the first r#3, when 4 moves were thought necessary! -- requires a proper aesthetic perspective.
Remove these constraints -- allow any number of fairy elements -- and its beauty might be reduced to a cruel joke.
He did not promote super-pawns, did not punch holes in the board to eliminate duals, did not force the play using Maximummer, etc.
Nor does a work of art depend upon its economy.
The brilliancy of Lacny's artistic #2, for example, can not depend upon his finding the most economic realization.
True depth must be experienced by a human audience -- e.g., a (7,1)Leaper might only protract the solution (depth is artificial).
True paradox is no different -- it can not be presumed to be inherent to any solution form, independent of fairy elements employed.
It is easy to pretend that some Fairy-Cyclone must be more challenging than Forsberg's h#2.
But, just try finding another Forsberg!
| | | (55) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Friday, Dec 31, 2010 14:58] |
Kevin, the Yarosh problem demonstrates (in its threat-separation) the Fleck theme. Certainly, this famous composition has aesthetic demerits - but on no account because of this now venerable theme.
| | | (56) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jan 2, 2011 04:52] |
Ian,
You are absolutely correct.
I realized that I'd overlooked the Fleck, somewhere between my posting and the champagne.
Happy New Year.
| | | (57) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Thursday, Jan 27, 2011 13:02] |
good news for the overseas problemists:
you can now obtain the CYCLONE 2 for exactly the same costs as those from europe.
after weeks of searching i have found a way how to decrease both the shipping costs and money transfer fees radically:
1. copies to be sent overseas (as surface mail) will be posted from the czech republic (where those fees are much lower).
2. for payment the worldwide available "paypal" option is recommended (with not a single cent for the money transfer).
good buy!
http://jurajlorinc.tripod.com/chess/cyclone.htm#ordering
| | | (58) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Thursday, Mar 24, 2011 12:15] |
it is now possible to buy the "cyclone" book(s) free of any shipping costs and bank transfer fees: http://jurajlorinc.tripod.com/chess/cyclone.htm#ordering
at the european chess solving championship in lowicz, poland (april 1-3, 2011) the "cyclone 2" will be offered for 37.00 eur, while the "complete cyclones" (both volumes) for 49.00 eur only. even if not attending the venue personally, you may try to arrange a deal with some of your countrymen taking part at the ecsc: http://www.ecsc2011.eu/participants
if interested, just email me to send there enough copies: peter.gvozdjak@gmail.com
| | | (59) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Thursday, Aug 18, 2011 11:06] |
for those not attending the congress in italy and who may be interested in the "cyclones".
you can save both the high shipping costs and the bank transfer fees by arranging a deal with some of your countrymen attending the event. here is the list of participants:
http://www.wccc2011.com/participants.html
| | | (60) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 18:38] |
the "cyclone" web site has been moved to:
http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/cyclone.htm
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General Cyclone 2 |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
