I have invented a new scientific discipline. I will call it Chess Stanalysis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I have invented a new scientific discipline. I will call it Chess Stanalysis

    It is the study of chess problems to check for cooks, but what makes it different from other cook researchers is that it incorporates the analysis of the position to the extent of determining which pieces can be on different squares and still make the study sound and doesn't change the theme of the study. It provides another parameter for judges to consider when awarding prizes in a study composition. The less number of alternate squares that any of the pieces could occupy and still make the study sound and valid, makes the greater value of the study. Of course the beauty, depth, and difficulty of the study are more important parameters but only the depth is not subjective. Thus with chess stanalysis we now have 2 subjective parameters and 2 objective parameters with which to award prizes. It is my hope that the chess study community will eventually agree on a universally accepted agreement on the weights of these 4 parameters in awarding prizes. The following example will show what I mean. The study is in the 85000 position database by Harold van der Heijden who is chief editor of the only endgame study magazine in the world and who is a FIDE judge of chess compositions and a spokesman of the endgame study subcommittee of the WFCC. In other words if your study doesn't show up in Harold's database it doesn't exist nor doesn't count. He did not delete the cooked studies so when you subtract them from the database you still have over 50000 valid studies remaining. He sells it online so if you buy it from him tell him I sent you. The study is by Domenico Ercole del Rio (c. 1718 – c. 1802) was an Italian lawyer and author. He published an 110-page chess book in 1750 which was the basis of a work by Giambattista Lolli thirteen years later. He composed many chess problems. He was one of the Modenese Masters. He was known as "the Devil who could never be beaten. The above was from Wikipedia.




    Unfortunately the position is not a real study because the pawn on f2 is not necessary for the validity of the study. Del Rio got it from a game he had seen. If he had created it as a study he would never have put the pawn on f2. It is too bad because up until 1750 it is the most fantastic example of any position in Harold's database. My chess stanalysis has concluded that the white rook can be on b2,b3. or b4. The black h pawn can be on h5,h4,h3 or h2. The black queen can be on h8 and the white queen can be on f1 or e6. I have not considered 2 or more different pieces being on different squares in this example but am confident that in this case that wouldn't matter. However chess stanalysis is ultimately an art form because to consider 2 or more pieces being on different squares would quickly reach exponential numbers which would be impossible to outline everyone. It would be interesting to see chess stanalysis on another position where changing 2 or more pieces to different squares would invalidate the study in comparison to changing only 1 piece at a time.
    Alan Tomalty
    Last edited by Alan Tomalty; Wednesday, 10th February, 2016, 02:28 PM.
Working...
X