WHAT INCONSISTENCY?

"Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
Larry Evans

Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov. -- SBD

Dr. Dowd knows as well as anyone else that Smyslov's fame derives
from his play, not his compositions. Evans clearly stated in his Chess
Life column of September 2007: "But few fans realize that his lifelong
passion for composing endgame studies started in 1936 when he was 15!"

SBD wrote:
On Oct 7, 1:31 am, wrote:

"Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
Larry Evans

Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov.

Chess composition is a fascinating world and those, like helpbot, who
don't partake - I figure it is just more for me. Anyone who can't
appreciate problems such as Hans Vetter's effort in a 1975 Schach
Echo:

FEN: 8/1pR5/pP6/8/PpB5/kPp5/2P5/1K6 w - - 0 1 #5 R sac, B sac,
Phoenix.

let them fester in their little world of "practical" chess. As to me,
I like all forms of chess - not just one person's stylized version.

On Oct 7, 5:10 am, SBD wrote:
On Oct 7, 2:47 am, help bot wrote:

Many problemists created positions which bear
almost no resemblance to real-world chess play,
while others proclaimed a mate-in-257-moves with
absolutely no way to back it up. (Me, I have trouble
seeing more than about a hundred-fifty moves ahead,
unless it's just Queens or Rooks on the board).

Maybe that is why you don't see any way to back it up. Sometimes
composers spend years doing the gritty analysis for such problems, and
they can "back it up."

Funny I never saw one of those kind published.

Generally, they like to show the ones which have been
"cooked", meaning that somebody demonstrated that it
was flawed in some way. Why the obsession with
"cooks" is beyond me, for much of the analysis in CL,
for instance, can easily be "cooked".


I've seen long problems often accompanied with
20-30 pages of analysis

I've seen a single paragraph of analysis which contained
many errors, so that would be quite a bit more work to plow
through. The best sort of analysis is the kind which says
that White wins by penetrating his King to square x, then
maneuvering piece y to square z, whereupon Black is
zugzwanged. (And of course, where he actually can do
all that!)


or the length of one of your favorite comic
books

X-men!? Flash?!!


or is that "graphic novel?")

I don't actually like comic books; they jump from one
"frame" to the next, creating a herky-jerky effect. Now
cartoons are a definite step up, but movies are the best.
Preferably color movies... with sound.


There are more things in chess,
helpbot, than you apparently have room for in your "philosophy."

Perhaps what we've learned here is that some problemists
have very short tempers, equally small minds, and are quick
to "defend" against criticism which is nothing more than an
expression of personal taste. For instance, the reason I
don't like ultra-complex, artificial-looking chess problems
is that solving them (if I ever could) would be of very little
value toward improving my OTB results. Compare and
contrast to solving realistic chess problems, which can be
highly instructive. In fact, the way I see it, the simpler the
position, the more instructive it is likely to be.


-- help bot

On Oct 7, 5:59 am, samsloan wrote:

What's this -- they did not give GM Benko a title
until 1995, and then misspelled his name?

"Paul Benko"??!

-- help bot

They did not mis-spell his name. His name really is Paul. It is
spelled Pal in Hungarian with a umlaut over the a as in ä.

In my quotation above, I did not include the umlaut simply
because my keyboard doesn't have 'em. In fact, the Web
site has his name as Paul Benko with an umlaut over the o.
So if the correct spelling has umlauts over both the o and
the a, they still got it wrong. (Or maybe I am too sleepy to
remember?)

Take a close look at the cover of my book.

Okay: it says: Winning with the Damiano's Attack,
and then underneath it has the moves 1. e4 e5,
2. Nf3?! f6!!, 3. Nxe5?? fxe5!!! - +


I think you must have written that before the invention
of Fritz.


Notice the two little dots
over the letter a.

O k a y. I am seeing dots... over the letter a...


That is the correct spelling of his name.

Now I am feeling sleepy, very sleepy. The dots...
over the letter a... .


-- he:lp bo:t

On Oct 7, 7:02 am, " wrote:
WHAT INCONSISTENCY?

"Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
Larry Evans

Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov. -- SBD

Dr. Dowd knows as well as anyone else that Smyslov's fame derives
from his play, not his compositions. Evans clearly stated in his Chess
Life column of September 2007: "But few fans realize that his lifelong
passion for composing endgame studies started in 1936 when he was 15!"

Is it fame that is important Larry? Or is it the chess?

To me, there is no less joy in Smyslov's treatment of the Open Ruy
than there is in his 3 bishop promotion study. Botvinnik's little book
on the endgame ("Trousers!") is what I read, not a book that discusses
his fame or whether games were thrown to him..... or FIDE nonsense....

If some of these "famous chess people" would pay more attention to
chess than their own fame, the game might provide them the same joy it
does the real fans.

On Oct 7, 7:26 am, help bot wrote:
On Oct 7, 5:10 am, SBD wrote:

Perhaps what we've learned here is that some problemists
have very short tempers, equally small minds, and are quick
to "defend" against criticism which is nothing more than an
expression of personal taste. For instance, the reason I
don't like ultra-complex, artificial-looking chess problems
is that solving them (if I ever could) would be of very little
value toward improving my OTB results. Compare and
contrast to solving realistic chess problems, which can be
highly instructive. In fact, the way I see it, the simpler the
position, the more instructive it is likely to be.




Come on bot, you can dish it out but not take it?

Seriously, what is a "realistic" chess problem? Chess is by nature
abstract, or?

You probably never saw the full analysis of such problems because hack
journalists will freely reprint chess problems and their keys, but
rarely spend any time on the analysis required, or even reference the
original source.

There are a whole group of chess problems called
"miniatures" (positions with 7 men or less) and composers still
compose interesting ones today, with whole chess magazines devoted to
this topic alone. Would those be "simple" enough for you? What is
"simple"?

Seriously, all swipes aside, a few hours with one book of chess
problem miniatures (many of which you can find for free in pdf form on
the net) might change your mind about chess composition... if not,
more for me.....

On Oct 7, 7:26 am, help bot wrote:

Generally, they like to show the ones which have been
"cooked", meaning that somebody demonstrated that it
was flawed in some way. Why the obsession with
"cooks" is beyond me, for much of the analysis in CL,
for instance, can easily be "cooked".


That is because a chess problem should be exact : there should be one
key, unless more than one is intended and the analysis should be
flawless. A mate in six should not be a mate in five or seven. Duals,
such as multiple ending mates, tend to be intolerable. And that is one
of the points of a chess problem: it isn't a vague "and wins" but a
sure win or a mate or stalemate in x moves.

The Value of Chess Problems

As I read what bot wrote, and his emphasis on "realistic" chess
problems, I realized what the issue was - or at least I think so.

Chess is a game with a certain level of abstraction. In fact, this
abstraction is often associated with the positive attribute of
"abstract thought."

Chess problems provide a higher level of abstraction than the game
itself. You can interpret that negatively or positively. But I suppose
if the idea that "learning chess teaches you certain abstractions that
will make you better at x, y, and z," then problem chess would be seen
as on an even higher level than the game.

But just as playing chess won't make you a better general, per se, I
understand the contention that chess problem solving or composing
won't make you a better player. Composing a song doesn't make you a
better musician, no matter how good the song.

But I certainly have learned the full power of some of the pieces,
like queen and bishop, by composing helpmates, something very far from
the game of chess - a form where black and white must precisely
cooperate to mate black.

Some have compared chess composition and play as similar to
choreographed martial arts on the stage or screen to the bar brawl.
Like all human comparisons, you can argue back and forth on the merits
of each.

In the end, though, it seems to me that certain players - who already
have ELO envy of seemingly everyone around them - are dismissive of
problems without ever having tried the experience, or try to see why a
series of Umnov maneuvers provide beauty and interest to a problem. I
still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively weak
players a sign of snobbery - who cares if they even played the game at
all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak player?"
Sigh.....

THE TRUTH HURTS

I still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively
weak
players a sign of snobbery -- who cares if they even played the game
at all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak
player?" Sigh..... SBD

Dr. Dowd continues his cheap shots. What shobbery? So far Evans has
devoted two columns in Chess Life this year to great problems (in May
to Pauli Perkonoja of Finland who is virtually unknown to most fans,
and in September to Smyslov who is not known as an endgame composer}
so clearly he has celebrated their achievements.

What is a weak player? A good test is someone whose tournament results
are poor. Sam Loyd, perhaps the most famous American composer ever,
quit playing after his disastrous result at Paris in 1867.

Alain C. White in SAM LOYD AND HIS CHESS PROBLEMS writes on page 47:
"What induced Loyd to enter the International Masters' Tournament at
Paris in 1867 has always been a mystery to me. Browning has a poem
about how Dante wished to excel for once as an artist and Raphael
aspired to distinction in poetry; so it may be that Loyd, who had the
very highest fame as a problemist, desired to be known rather as a
great player. Be that as it may, he entered the Congress as
representative of America against Kolisch, Winawer, Steinitz and some
ten other masters....and his final score was only 6 won, 17 lost, and
1 drawn...Certainly Loyd cared more for brilliancy far more than for
soundness, but whether his ideal is that of good chess is another
question"


SBD wrote:
The Value of Chess Problems

As I read what bot wrote, and his emphasis on "realistic" chess
problems, I realized what the issue was - or at least I think so.

Chess is a game with a certain level of abstraction. In fact, this
abstraction is often associated with the positive attribute of
"abstract thought."

Chess problems provide a higher level of abstraction than the game
itself. You can interpret that negatively or positively. But I suppose
if the idea that "learning chess teaches you certain abstractions that
will make you better at x, y, and z," then problem chess would be seen
as on an even higher level than the game.

But just as playing chess won't make you a better general, per se, I
understand the contention that chess problem solving or composing
won't make you a better player. Composing a song doesn't make you a
better musician, no matter how good the song.

But I certainly have learned the full power of some of the pieces,
like queen and bishop, by composing helpmates, something very far from
the game of chess - a form where black and white must precisely
cooperate to mate black.

Some have compared chess composition and play as similar to
choreographed martial arts on the stage or screen to the bar brawl.
Like all human comparisons, you can argue back and forth on the merits
of each.

In the end, though, it seems to me that certain players - who already
have ELO envy of seemingly everyone around them - are dismissive of
problems without ever having tried the experience, or try to see why a
series of Umnov maneuvers provide beauty and interest to a problem. I
still find Evans comment about endgame composers being relatively weak
players a sign of snobbery - who cares if they even played the game at
all? Isn't the chess what is important? And what is a "weak player?"
Sigh.....

On Oct 7, 5:06 am, SBD wrote:

"Many famous composers of pure endgame studies were weak players
working in splendid isolation who rarely competed in tournaments" --
Larry Evans

Yes, the ever-consistent Evans, who in last month's CL and R featured
such a "weak player's" compositions in his "column" - Smyslov.


Some people just aren't very bright; it looks to me
as though SBD has completely misinterpreted the
above comment by GM Evans and twisted it into
some contorted shape to fit his own insecurity as a
problem solver or composer.

Here is the obvious meaning: Many famous composers
(have they earned their fame, like GM Benko, the hard way?)
were weak players (unlike me, Larry Evans, and Pal Benko)
working in isolation (i.e. they were not exposed to the stress
of tournament play, had infinite time for only this work, etc.)
who rarely competed (unlike me, Larry Evans, and PB).

What GM Evans was trying to suggest is that weak players
should not be allowed to commingle with the elite, that they
do not deserve fame, that they are a lower class than the
greats of chess, the grandmasters. He was *not* putting
down problem composition -- far from it! You have to account
for the man's, um, arrogance, in order to /get/ the true
meaning.

So you see, there was no inconsistency in GM Evans
having written this put-down and then writing about GM
Smyslov's chess compositions -- none whatever. Stop
being so insecure about your inability to compete OTB at
chess; it's only a game.


-- help bot

On Oct 7, 7:44 am, SBD wrote:

Come on bot, you can dish it out but not take it?

If its edible, it's every man for himself. "Supersize me."


Seriously, what is a "realistic" chess problem? Chess is by nature
abstract, or?

A realistic chess problem is one where I could easily
fool you into thinking it is a position from one of my OTB
games.


You probably never saw the full analysis of such problems because hack
journalists will freely reprint chess problems and their keys, but
rarely spend any time on the analysis required, or even reference the
original source.

That is true; also there is the problem of limited
space in a publication like Chess Life, after allowing
for thirty-odd pages of pure advertising.


There are a whole group of chess problems called
"miniatures" (positions with 7 men or less) and composers still
compose interesting ones today, with whole chess magazines devoted to
this topic alone. Would those be "simple" enough for you? What is
"simple"?

Well, for me a simple position would be K & p vs. K,
where I have to figure out if it is a draw or a win. (And
no fair logging on to the endgame table base Web site.)


Seriously, all swipes aside, a few hours with one book of chess
problem miniatures (many of which you can find for free in pdf form on
the net) might change your mind about chess composition... if not,
more for me.....


In the old days, many problemists made claims that
simply didn't hold up to close scrutiny (i.e. cooks). The
same thing applies to game annotations, which I find
are so full of holes that my computer sometimes can
fall on the floor, laughing. Now they have a tool called
"Freezer" which, as I have read somewhere, can cut
the board down to size so that a chess engine can
more easily handle the necessary calculations, yet the
more complex still remain part assertion, part
speculation. I find these kinds of problems to be of
little value, except perhaps for entertainment.

In studying chess as it is really played, I have found
far too many examples of flawed analysis, flawed
evaluations and flawed thinking. So maybe this is why
I am not into the artificial-looking, ultra-complex style
of chess problems. I could easily "compose" a
multitude of chess problems by altering positions from
my own games or games that I have studied, but it
just seems a bit pointless in the sense that I have an
unfair advantage as the composer; I know what the
solver cannot know, having composed it.

My idea of a chess problem is what I have so often
found in "boring" endgame books, which snatch real
positions from real games, and show how the masters
(famous grandmasters, generally speaking) mucked up a
"simple" win or draw. The fact that such a position was
not artificially composed, but arose in actual play, seems
to somehow connect the "problem" to reality, render it
more relevant to me. Others may in fact like the crazy
artificial-looking positions, but they give me the feeling of
detachment from real chess, or OTB chess.


-- help bot