Judge Branislav Djurasevic: “I received 41 studies for evaluation on anonymous diagrams. The overall impression is that the received entries are of high quality. Some great studies are given a chance to win their distinctions in other tourneys. The unspoken rule is that sometimes it is better not to award a good study than to give it an inadequate rank”.
FIDE World Cup 2023
In my field (philosophy of science), we evaluate scientific theories in the “context of justification”. This means that the way how the theory was found is immaterial to its scientific merits. Some great theories were invented because the authors has crazy ideas about God, harmony in the universe, the nature of man, and so on. But these crazy ways of coming into being (the so-called “context of discovery”) do not diminish their value. What matters is whether they explain phenomena, whether they predict well, that they have general scope, cohere with theories in other fields, and so on.
I think that the same reasoning can be applied to studies. We should not judge studies for how they were created, but for content and form. The problem with the first prize is not that it has been found in a two-click procedure. The problem with Gonzalez’s study, as with other database rubbish, are the same problems of many studies that were created without help of the database: sterile play, mechanical movements, excessive length, overbearing analytical sidelines, and lack of a good finish.
Database mining is a way of creating studies that is as legitimate as any other. There are just relatively few convincing products. Serhiy’s UAPA study is one of them, but it is an exception, not the rule. So I do not think we need to be afraid or to discuss harsh rules for excluding such studies. At least as long as judges are competent, they will see that a database product is most often unconvincing. When it is good, the composer has usually added some mental work (as in Serhiy’s case). Yes, in theory you could create a masterwork by clicking three buttons. But I bet that this will happen very rarely—rare enough that we need not worry.
Jan, take a look below. Other two prized tablebase findings have come to our attention. I hope you’re right when you say that this can happen very rarely … but seems to me it’s happening quite too often!
Another example of a Gonzalez study
https://endgame-studies.jimdofree.com/2023/09/13/it-really-is-that-simple-ii/
And why not this?
Source: https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=2Q5/3p1K2/3p4/8/8/p3k3/3p4/8_w_-_-_0_1
(from the function Longest win KQ vs KPPPP – DTZ 72)
Gonzalez study: 2° prize on https://art.eg.org.ua/2021/11/16/zakharov-2021/
I guess that this is the source :
Maybe Mr. Gonzalez is an alien who can only communicate with clicks.
When I first saw this study, I wondered how it was composed and was very impressed. Such a beautiful manoeuvre had to be composed with great skill and foresight!
It inspired me to find something similar, but I failed.
I’m really sad to discover the truth!
Even Serhiy liked and praised it as “the best study of the tournament” … I would like to know if his opinion has changed now.
But anyway, I can say that without tablebases we would not know this amazing find. The only wrong thing is the author’s name put on it. Gonzalez was only the first who thinked about mining in the tablebases and making this seem a composed work. And this could be a merit, depending on thoughts … but anyone could have done the same.
By now this controversial discussion should have reached Mr. Gonzalez, but he remains silent…
Let me be the devil’s advocate! 😀
1) It seems to me that Gonzalez published only his best findings sometimes even adding some extra pawns to make the play dual-free. That involves some bit of a composing and requires more than two clicks and certainly hours and hours of work. So far the new “two-click studies” by others are nowhere near the quality of his studies.
2) He was not the first to use this method of composing and not even the second one.
I could be the first who based a study in 2006 on a “longest win” position (6-man).
http://ruszchessstudies.blogspot.com/search/label/Repeated%20manoeuvres
This was done before the syzgy website even existed, and was done with the help of the good old Nalimov TBs.
You can also take a look at this study by Kiryakov (2020):
Of course I have nothing wrong with Gonzalez or other composers that use this way of creating studies. I wrote before that’s somewhat a merit having found such interesting mechanisms for studies lover’s sake. But in my personal view, it’s painful to discover that such astounding studies could be composed with 2 clicks or a little more effort. Every composer, I suppose, at least once has clicked and clicked randomly on a position and then gained a study. Call it luck, or stubborness, but there was some kind of work.
In this case there was not, or just a little technical work to avoid duals in a mainline that is already done and does not even require to find an initial position, since it’s given. Gonzalez is the most quoted because he won the Fide World Cup and this raised interest on his studies, bringing some people to “discover” how they were created. But surely others use the same method, and I am referring to them also. Nothing personal.
In conclusion, I think that such discoveries should not be published for competition tourneys. A composer who finds a remarkable mechanism or theme thanks to a sterile search on tablebases should publish them only as a curiosity, or out of competition, since the judges cannot know how the studies were composed and could high rank a mere database product, as happened recently. This would be not fair towards other composers that strive for months to find a good idea or to make a complex theme work.
Personally, I would feel uncomfortable winning a prestigious tourney with a product that does not come from my mind. Once I won a simple HM with a 6-men tablebase find, and I was not happy. I would have preferred that the study was deleted and never published. Others can think differently but seems that more than one study composer agrees with this vision.
The tablebase “printout” for Kiryakov’s study:
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/8/4k3/8/1K6/P7/N4p2/2R3r1_w_-_-_0_1
The work with databases is a race – the winner takes it all. Kiryakov found this postion first, so it belongs to him. He is right to put his name over the diagram. But he is wrong to add a black pawn in the intro. This great miniature doesn’t need a clumsy human touch.
Fuck! This is, with a pawn on a4, exactly the same tablebase position that Halski used for his first prize in CZ Šach last year. Not only this: the mechanism is already there in Kiryakov’s study (which I knew, but then forgot).
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/halskim-0401-11b5f4/
Nobody noticed. Knowing how much he values originality, I guess Martin would not have given a first prize if somebody had mentioned Kiryakov’s study. The only original element that remains is the knight jump. Which is not bad, but…
I do not find Kiryakov’s study particularly appealing, by the way. The play is mechanical. Halski’s has the nicer story: the knight comes to the rescue at a moment when Black seems to slowly overwhelm his opponent.
Clearly Petr’s study was composed first, but I guess we are facing a whole new kind of accidental recomposition. It is very likely that Halski didn’t not know the other study, but just happened to click the same links. This time he lost the race and Petr takes it all.
Petr should have taken it all, but judge Minski and his consulter Sprenger didn’t hear my arguments that it’s a serious anticipation. The latter keeps talking about Nc3 as an important idea but it’s clear that the solution is better with full-scale systhematic movement.
That’s not entirely true, as Serhiy presents it here. After Petr showed me his study, I consulted Serhiy. His answer:
“Bilek is different but Kiryakov’s systematic movement is identical. Logical Nc3 adds originality to the Halski study. Both sides play nice ideas, while Black has no real counterplay in the Kiryakov study.”
My answer to Petr:
“First of all I like your study. It’s earned in the FIDE Album. There are similar systematic rook moves in your study, but with Halski the main idea is to play the spectacular maneuver Nc3 at the right time. From the beginning I was enthusiastic about this miniature. If I downgraded it, Serhiy’s study would be the winner and this study also has a scheme by Zhukov as an inspiration. If you don’t mind, I wouldn’t change my award.”
Jan Sprenger has nothing to do with my decision.
Yes, I manipulated a little. You did right to consult the right person. My answer was honest. I admitted that Halski is original but I didn’t tell to what extent because it’s up to the judge to decide whether it’s original enough for a prize, hm, commentation or just for publication.
Putting originality of Halski and my study on the same level is your big mistake.
Read Thomas Niessen’s article how to win 3rd prize in Selivanov 55 JT, 2022 from this one 2-clicks product :
And look on the same article how to win 1st Prize in Seven Chess Notes 2021 from this 2-clicks product :
Another example just published.
https://www.problemistasajedrez.com.ar/22th-tournament-international-uapa-2023/kopylov-sec-b-1-no2-bview/
I was mining in tablebases and found this https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=7K/8/1p3N2/1P6/1P6/2p5/7k/8_w_-_-_0_1 , let alone for the duals on first moves (carefully removed) …
After 2 moves, because start position is check.. 🙂
Of course, he saw this position in his dream.
And also winning (of course, by L.M. Gonzalez) 2nd prize Moscow ty, 2022 (adding 2 moves before 2-clicks position)
Guys, this was crap all the time. The only good find is the Zakharov MT study in my view. The problem are the judges that give prizes to auch a nonsense. Educate judges, agree on some basic criteria, and the problem disappears. I guess even now none of these studies will be in the next FA.