Originally posted by TheMaster37Please refer to chapter 3 of the FIDE Codex for chess problems (http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/codex.htm#c3), which deals with soundness.
[b]Problems should be worded correctly.
When a composer makes a problem with a solution in X moves, then he asks for X moves, not less.
Sure, there might be a shorter solution, but that is NOT what the composer asks for. He asks for X moves, so the solution must, per definition, be X moves.
Pay careful attention to article 13:
"...a composition is unsound if it is cooked or has a short solution or no solution..."
The terms used are also clearly defined for your benefit -- see the previous articles.
Chess composition is a well established, time tested art form -- please, do your homework before you start making claims about the definition of the directmate stipulation.
I almost admire how vigorously you try defending falsehoods -- reminds me of my youth -- but if you don't realize that a short solution renders a directmate unsound, you're beyond your depth arguing this topic, especially with swissgambit.
If you are merely trolling for confrontation, I suggest you consider a topic you know more about. If nothing comes to mind, try 'religion'.
If you are actually interested in chess problems, I suggest you sharpen your listening skills (and forget about your debate skills).
Kevin Begley
U.S. Master of Chess Composition.
Originally posted by TheMaster37This has already been answerd for you.
...I'm referring to ....puzzles in wich a mate in 2 or 3 is obvious, but where the mate in 5 is very cleverly hidden. Or are you implying that such problems cannot be made, or cannot be interesting?
...
In this case "mate in 3" means "find the three moves that result in checkmate". That most people conveniently read it as "find the least amount of mov ...[text shortened]... 't matter at all. i just enjoy the argument. I don't even care if I'm right or not :p[/b]
As SwissGambit already said, the type of problem you describe would use the following stipulation:
"Mate in EXACTLY 5 moves"
But, contrary to your claim, such a problem would be unsound as "Mate in 5 moves".
Here's an example:
http://problemonline.com/
Click: "Z. Miscellaneous" (left margin)
Now, Click "Z0006-01" (top left)
Scroll dow n to the bottom of the page...
You should see a problem by Richard Becker.
The stipulation appears on the right:
a) mate in 2
b) mate in EXACTLY 3
c) mate in EXACTLY 4
Note: such problems are rare, and generally appear in fairy section (or some miscellaneous section) -- they do NOT appear with traditional directmates.
As for your comments about what "mate in 3" means, it seems clear that you are still struggling to understand what a simple directmate is.
Most people easily figure this stuff out from a little experience.
Have you been exposed at all to actual chess problems?
Kevin Begley.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSuch joke problems (rotate the board) have long existed.
The problem is a joke problem. There is no intention that it should be taken seriously. If the solution is to turn the board 180 degrees or let the player go from one side of the board to the other make it quite funny. So I settle with this. No proofs of any kind is really necessary.
There are two cases:
1) Retro-analysis proves the position cannot be legal with the given board orientation, therefore this is justification to rotate the board 180 degrees,
2) There are some jokes where "white mates in n moves, without moving a piece." In these cases, white spends his moves rotating the board, sometimes 90 degrees, sometimes 180, sometimes 270.
The "mate in 0" problem (which appears at the start of this long-winded thread) lacks any retrograde justification for board rotation.
Perhaps the composer of the "mate in 0" had seen an old problem based on this joke, completely missed the rationale to allow rotation, and then perpetrated a poor rip-0ff of the idea...
It is a difficult thing to argue that a joke problem was ever "sound," so it may be a stretch to argue that this "mate in 0" is unsound, even as a joke, because it lacks a necessary justification to allow board rotation.
Such an argument is an exercise in time wasting, however.
Suffice it to say, some composers tell jokes better than others, and some should not retell a joke they didn't fully understand...
Kevin Begley.
Originally posted by TheMaster37I'm referring to others though; puzzles in wich a mate in 2 or 3 is obvious, but where the mate in 5 is very cleverly hidden. Or are you implying that such problems cannot be made, or cannot be interesting?
[b]On the contrary, you enhance the value of such problems by exercising some composition skill and getting rid of the short solutions. Composers want the solvers to find the intent idea and appreciate its artistry, without the distraction of banal and mundane cooks. Cooks are like painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa.
You're right that is takes a ll. i just enjoy the argument. I don't even care if I'm right or not :p[/b]
They are not interesting, especially when history has shown that composers can modify those problems and eliminate the short solutions while still preserving the main idea.
1) No. I have no and never had a wife, therefore I have never beaten my wife. Therefore I can never have stopped beating my wife.
I hope you're never accused of a crime. The trial will not go well for you.
2) There is no such solution. In this case the composer asks for the impossible.
You said, "a problem to find a mate in 3 is to be answered with a mate in 3". I don't want to hear any more excuses. Get to it!
In this case "mate in 3" means "find the three moves that result in checkmate".
No, it doesn't, as I've already pointed out.
That most people conveniently read it as "find the least amount of moves reulsting in checkmate. Hint; it's 3 moves long"
Student37, you left this sentence unfinished. 5 demerits.
To answer Fabianfnas; It doesn't matter at all. i just enjoy the argument. I don't even care if I'm right or not :p
TheTroll37?
Originally posted by SwissGambitNotice that your original post has some italicized words in it...that's the argument that I was talking about. You basically ignored the part of his post that I copied into my post .
That's part of Student37's argument, not mine...you might want to respond to him instead.
Sorry if it wasn't clear.😉
Originally posted by tomtom232I actually had a response all typed out for that point, but it got lost in the editing.
Notice that your original post has some italicized words in it...that's the argument that I was talking about. You basically ignored the part of his post that I copied into my post .
Sorry if it wasn't clear.😉
Student37 said that some composers can't count, which is why the term 'cook' exists.
That is not the typical reason for cooks. Usually, cooks occur in problems that aren't computer-testable [or problems made before computers were available], because a composer has overlooked some alternate line of play that is as good or better than their intended solution.
@SwissGambit; at least I can put up a (flawed) argument without resorting to insults or petty name-calling 😉
I hope for you that no student ever has to listen to your condescending (spelling?) way of argumenting.
As for Kevin Begley; I was unaware this forum is for chess-pro's only.
The moment I replied to this thread, I gave MY opinion. My opninion might be flawed, but that gives others no right to act as acted here. You might think I'm trolling, but in that case you are flaming.
Instead of a simply redirection to the definition of "Mate in X" and teaching me several things on the background of the chessproblems you chose to mock me and make some wild accusations about my argumentation skills. Had this been a discussion instead of a mocking, then I would have made more of an effort. Sadly, the two of you (referring to Kevin Begley U.S. Master of Chess Composition and SwissGambit) made this something in wich I feel insulted.
Had you responded to my post in a normal fashion, displaying a willingness to teach instead of a willingness to mock, this argument would long have ended.
As for my experience with chess-problems; My problems with the definition do not imply that I am uncapable of using the definition to solve chessproblems. Your logic is flawed when you imply that I am. I have solved numerous problems (mostly easier problems, I admit) and have enjoyed the excercise.
Originally posted by TheMaster37@SwissGambit; at least I can put up a (flawed) argument....
@SwissGambit; at least I can put up a (flawed) argument without resorting to insults or petty name-calling 😉
I hope for you that no student ever has to listen to your condescending (spelling?) way of argumenting.
As for Kevin Begley; I was unaware this forum is for chess-pro's only.
The moment I replied to this thread, I gave MY opinion. My op ...[text shortened]... e solved numerous problems (mostly easier problems, I admit) and have enjoyed the excercise.
That's just how you roll, isn't it?
....without resorting to insults or petty name-calling 😉
But that's what makes it fun.
I hope for you that no student ever has to listen to your condescending (spelling?) way of argumenting.
It's not the ignorance that brought that on you; it was the arrogance.
As for Kevin Begley; I was unaware this forum is for chess-pro's only.
Add another flawed argument to the heap.
The moment I replied to this thread, I gave MY opinion. My opninion might be flawed, but that gives others no right to act as acted here.
You flatly contradicted the convention used by the entire chess problem world. You didn't just offer an innocent opinion, you went out of your way to disagree with people. You spoke definitively on a subject you knew nothing about. A wiser poster would have been a bit more cautious, due to his own ignorance. You deserved everything you got in reply.
You might think I'm trolling, but in that case you are flaming.
Some people ignore trolls; I usually prefer to light 'em up.
Instead of a simply redirection to the definition of "Mate in X" and teaching me several things on the background of the chessproblems you chose to mock me and make some wild accusations about my argumentation skills.
You just admitted you don't care if you advance false arguments. If that's not a lack of arg. skills, I don't know what is.
Had this been a discussion instead of a mocking, then I would have made more of an effort.
Had you indicated a desire to learn these things, instead of a desire to stroke your own ego by acting like you already knew what you were talking about, I would have been happy to help you.
Sadly, the two of you (referring to Kevin Begley U.S. Master of Chess Composition and SwissGambit) made this something in wich I feel insulted.
Funny how you're happy to rant about laziness in language, and label a bunch of solvers who find the same cook as 'wrong', etc. etc. You can dish it out, but you can't take it.
Had you responded to my post in a normal fashion, displaying a willingness to teach instead of a willingness to mock, this argument would long have ended.
1) I'm in no hurry for arguments to end.
2) I'll display a willingness to teach if you display a willingness to learn.
As for my experience with chess-problems; My problems with the definition do not imply that I am uncapable of using the definition to solve chessproblems. Your logic is flawed when you imply that I am.
You missed my point. My point is that it is wrong to say "A Mate in 3 must be answered by a Mate in 3". By your standard, no solver would be able to solve the flawed Mate in 3 I presented, even though there is a clear solution within the alloted number of moves.
Originally posted by TheMaster37
As for Kevin Begley; I was unaware this forum is for chess-pro's only.
First, I never said this forum isn't for you. I said nothing to even suggest this. You are really fishing with this nonsense -- have you lost your composure (looking for a hug) or are you trolling for more confrontation (looking for attention)?
Second, I don't consider myself a pro -- the FIDE title of GM Composer is what I consider "a pro," and I am FAR from that title.
Instead of a simply redirection to the definition of "Mate in X" and teaching me several things on the background of the chessproblems you chose to mock me and make some wild accusations about my argumentation skills.
As for redirecting you, the first thing I did was direct you to the fide codex. I did not mock you -- I simply demonstrated that your argument was without merit.
Had this been a discussion instead of a mocking, then I would have made more of an effort. Sadly, the two of you (referring to Kevin Begley U.S. Master of Chess Composition and SwissGambit) made this something in wich I feel insulted.
I suspect what you "feel" is not "insulted," but wounded pride.
Had you responded to my post in a normal fashion, displaying a willingness to teach instead of a willingness to mock, this argument would long have ended.
I am happy to help people who are interested in learning more about chess composition, and I know the same is true of SwissGambit.
All you had to do was ask...
Whatever questions you have, ask away...
Need help constructing your first problem, fine...
Want some suggestions how you might improve it, glad to help...
Struggling to solve some problem, hey no problem...
But, if you prefer to learn via confrontation and debate, that too can be arranged.
The choice is yours...
Kevin.
Originally posted by SwissGambitI get that even though this is a 'joke' problem, it's flawed because there is required onus of proof that the board is reversed.
[b]If there are no proofs that e.p.p is possible, it is not possible.
Says who? On what authority?
But I don't understand why e.p. isn't held to the same onus of proof that it is or isn't possible in a given situation.
Just curious.
edit: the first line quoted is from fabianfas.
edit: all the bold's got mixed up.