I'm convinced
After a few #2 compositions, I stumbled upon this beauty. I certainly can appreciate the highly sophisticated position. It is an extreme zugzwang position, where all 28 moves by black are forbidden due to the ensuing mate. I enjoyed the process of working out everything into detail very much. But at the same time it convinced me of the fact that this kind of narratives will not help me in a real game.
 |
| White to move. Mate in 2 |
6r1/5Q2/1n1p2pB/4k2b/3b3r/8/1NBRp2N/1K2R3 w - - 0 1
And so I must go back to the drawing board. Compositions are not the answer to the problem I formulated implicitly in the previous post: how to focus on interconnections between themes and logical narratives.
It might be just a matter of discipline. Bring the amount of repetitions down and focus even more on the narrative. Don't use repetition as an escape from deeper thinking. I will have a closer look at that.
This is a good illustration of what I dislike about composed problems, It also illustrates why I think composed problems (at least of this type) can be detrimental to OTB play.
ReplyDeleteWhy/how did the game get to this point?
The material situation is ridiculous: White is ahead a Queen and Knight to 3 pawns. The general strategy when drastically ahead in material is to exchange pieces, heading toward and endgame where the relative ratio of material favors the player with the extra material. Can anyone imagine being behind so much material (with no compensation, like a mating threat) continuing to play on in the forlorn “hope” that White will somehow screw up and allow a draw? If so, why such a “pessimistic” viewpoint? Black could go all the way and believe that (somehow) he is going to win. Perhaps he is “channeling” his inner Efim Bogoljubow: “When I am White, I win because I am White. When I am Black, I win because I am Bogoljubow."
The relative king safety (the positions of the two kings) is ridiculous. In playing for the draw, would any rational Black player opt for moving his king to “safety” in the middle of the board? Oh, I forgot: Black is a player with unlimited optimism – he’s playing for a draw or maybe a win! It kinda reminds me of the skit Monty Python and the Holy Grail—Black Knight:
Link: https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=Monty+Pythnon+Black+Knight&mid=CA108D654693A7BE5769CA108D654693A7BE5769&FORM=VIRE
Numerous studies have documented the effect of introducing (essentially) random positions as controls in psychological studies of the differences between masters and amateurs, with pieces NOT placed through good play but by the imagination of (usually) unskilled psychologists. The primary effect is that it renders masters almost (but not quite) as unskillful as much lower rated amateurs. The much-vaunted intuitive skills (based on pattern recognition) of the masters are effectively eliminated. It seems “obvious” (or maybe not) that positions that appear random (even though actually created by the greatest imaginations) would also NOT provide fertile material for learning to “SEE” typical patterns that will actually occur during real games, thereby increasing skill.
Lastly, in a blatant appeal to authority, here’s mister Lasker’s viewpoint in Lasker’s Manual of Chess, Third Book – The Combination:
On Made-Up Combinations and on Combinations Arising in the Course of a hard-fought Game
To construct positions according to the motifs discussed above and thus to invent combinations is as easy as telling a fairy tale. The reader may do so for practice, but is earnestly advised to do only a little of it. . . .
Not to completely, therefore, must the adept of Chess give himself over to the charms of constructed combinations. Rather should he strive to trace and to master the combination in over-the-board play.
So you didn't see the stunning beauty? That's a pity.
ReplyDeleteI'm easy to convince, but not just because somebody else says so. I must at least seen it for myself to some degree. A bit like the unbelieving Thomas, who was easy to convince too. Compositions might be a good way to acquire tactical skills in a fast way. But only the right compositions can do that. Since we have no practical way to select the right ones, the idea can be safely abandoned. It didn't took much time or energy to find out myself.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.”
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the creative effort and hard work that went into figuring out all of those complex interactions, resulting in a “solution” that must be found within the strict constraint of two moves. My subjective view is that complexity is not synonymous with beauty.
Regarding beauty in chess, there is no doubt that I have been afflicted (infected?) with too much of mister Lasker’s aesthetic philosophy.
“Simplicity is the key to beauty.
Clarity is the key to perfection.” — David Nevue
Perhaps a minority opinion.
Not sure I have the energy to solve these. Is the path to solve these: determine the defense function of each black piece and determine if they are overworked as well as determine squares the white pieces cover and look for overlaps as that gives clues as to white moves . Then look at LOAs ?
ReplyDeleteThe best way to use these puzzles, when you are not doing them just for fun, is to solve them with Stockfish, and then describe the logic into every detail. Like now, such compositions are like bank pressing with a weight that is too heavy to lift even once. You train your muscles, but in a silly, not effective way.
DeleteBlack is in zugzwang. You must find the only quiet move that doesn't change the position. After any of the 28 possible answers of black, he will be mated in one.
After that, I recommend to have a good look at each of those 28 moves, since there are interesting patterns to be gained from them.
But what I really recommend, is to not use compositions for tactical training. It are freak positions, and before you know it you lost a lot of time and energy with nothing to show for it.