ChessBase 17 - Mega package - Edition 2024
It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.
In the previous recomposition contest, the closest solution to the first problem was shown and a prize awarded for it. In the same article, another recomposition problem was presented for the chance to win another prize. This time around, the solution achieved was closer. Basically, the following sequence of moves (in coordinate notation) was provided along with an approximate engine evaluation for the sequence (i.e. +9.99) and readers were invited to ‘recompose’ what they thought the original starting position looked like.
1. h2e5 e3c5
2. h1g2 f5g5
3. d5d6 g5g6
4. d6d7 g6g8
5. f6f7 g8f8
6. d7d8 f8d8
7. c6d8 e2c4
8. g2c6 b5a5
9. d2d3 c4f7
10. d8f7 a5b6
The main difference this time around was that I actually had the original position to compare against, which was a study-like construct composed by Chesthetica; so determining the closest or most accurate submission was easier. Chesthetica has been composing study-like constructs (using the DSNS approach) for a while now. Without further ado, here is the original position and the closest submission I received.
The original position |
The closest recomposition by László Antal |
The winning solution differs from the original in only five ways; namely, the missing white pawn on a5, the additional white knight on c5, the slightly shifted white king on c2, the additional black queen on e5 and the additional black pawn on h5. The engine evaluation for the proposed solution’s winning line (which has the same key move) is around +10.37, which is not too far off from the original’s +9.99. Regardless, the real test of success here is how similar the starting position is to the original one and five differences were the least from all the submissions I received. In the case of a tie, I would probably have looked at the differences in winning moves from the starting position, in addition to the difference in stable engine evaluations of the two positions.
[Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2016.04.29"] [Round "?"] [White "Chesthetica"] [Black "Reconstruction problem"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/8/2N2PP1/Pk1P1r2/8/4b3/1K1Pb1nB/7B w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "20"] [EventDate "2015.??.??"] 1. Be5 Bc5 2. Bxg2 Rg5 3. d6 Rxg6 4. d7 Rg8 5. f7 Rf8 6. d8=Q Rxd8 7. Nxd8 Bc4 8. Bc6+ Kxa5 9. d3 Bxf7 10. Nxf7 Kb6 1-0 [Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "2016.04.29"] [Round "?"] [White "Antal, László"] [Black "Reconstruction problem"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/8/2N2PP1/1kNPqr1p/8/4b3/2KPb1nB/7B w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "20"] [EventDate "2015.??.??"] 1. Bxe5 Bxc5 2. Bxg2 Rg5 3. d6 Rxg6 4. d7 Rg8 5. f7 Rf8 6. d8=Q Rxd8 7. Nxd8 Bc4 8. Bc6+ Ka5 9. d3 Bxf7 10. Nxf7 Kb6 1-0
Recompositions, I would imagine, would be challenging to program a computer to solve because they would likely require traditional brute-force AI techniques in combination with computational creativity techniques. I suspect a computer being able to most-accurately solve such a problem (in the shortest time) would be a viable test of the quality of its solving algorithm. The YouTube version of the original composition is available here:
Note that Chesthetica’s choice of moves in the animated video are based on a shorter evaluation time of the position using a different engine so that is why they are not the same as what you see above. However, what matters more in a study-like construct is the correctness of the key or first move. So, congratulations to our winner! Enjoy your prize. If anyone would like to know more about recompositions or have any other questions, do send me an e-mail.
László Antal wins this copy of Fritz 13, signed by Garry Kasparov
2/24/2016 – Azlan Iqbal: Recomposition contest result
Over Christmas we showed you an interesting problem: say you have found some moves somewhere, in coordinate notation without piece names – is it possible to reconstruct the original supposedly meaningful position to which they apply? The author, who has a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, tried to do it, but with modest success. A reader presented a more plausible solution and won a valuable prize
5/31/2015 – Celebrating 300 machine generated problems
As we reported before, Chesthetica, a program by Azlan Iqbal, is autonomously generating mate in three problems by the hundreds, and the author is posting his selections in a very pleasing format on YouTube. The technology behind the program’s creativity is a new AI approach and Dr. Iqbal is looking for a substantial research grant for applications in other fields.
2/6/2015 – Computer generated chess problems for everyone
Now they are composing problems that fulfil basic aesthetic criteria! Chesthetica, a program written by Azlan Iqbal, is churning out mate in three constructs by the hundreds, and the author is posting them in a very pleasing format on Youtube. How long will Chesthetica theoretically be able to generate new three-movers? Quite possibly for tens of thousands of years.
11/7/2014 – A machine that composes chess problems
Chess problems are an art – positions and solutions, pleasing to the mind and satisfying high aesthetic standards. Only humans can compose real chess problems; computers will never understand true beauty. Really? Dr Azlan Iqbal, an expert on automatic aesthetic evaluation, imbued his software with enough creativity to generate problems indefinitely. The results are quite startling.
7/26/2014 – Best ‘Chess Constructs’ by ChessBase readers
Chess constructs are basically an intermediate form of composition or chess problem, lying somewhere between brilliancies from chess history – and artistic chess problems, between real game sequences and traditional award-winning compositions. A month ago Dr Azlan Iqbal explained the concept asked our readers to submit compositions of their own. Here are the winners.
6/29/2014 – Azlan Iqbal: Introducing ‘Chess Constructs’
People love brilliancies from chess history – and artistic chess problems. But there is a big gap between the two. Positions from games demonstrate the natural beauty of actual play, while chess problems are highly technical, with little practical relevance. The author of this interesting article suggest an intermediate form, one you can try your hand at – and win a prize in the process.
9/2/2009 – Can computers be made to appreciate beauty?
Or at least to identify and retrieve positions that human beings consider beautiful? While computers may be able to play at top GM level, they are not able to tell a beautiful combination from a bland one. This has left a research gap which Dr Mohammed Azlan Mohamed Iqbal, working at Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Malaysia, has tried to close. Here's his delightfully interesting PhD thesis.
12/15/2012 – A computer program to identify beauty in problems and studies
Computers today can play chess at the grandmaster level, but cannot tell a beautiful combination from a bland one. In this research, which has been on-going for seven years, the authors of this remarkable article show that a computer can indeed be programmed to recognize and evaluate beauty or aesthetics, at least in three-move mate problems and more recently endgame studies. Fascinating.
2/2/2014 – A new, challenging chess variant
Ever since desktop computers can play at its highest levels and beat practically all humans, the interest of the Artificial Intelligence community in this game has been sagging. That concerns Dr Azlan Iqbal, a senior lecturer with a PhD in AI, who has created a variant of the game that is designed to rekindle the interest of computer scientists – and be enjoyable to humans as well: Switch-Side Chain-Chess.