Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Schachfiguren, Bauern -- 2022 -- 0022 (bw).jpg

< Commons:Featured picture candidates

File:Schachfiguren, Bauern -- 2022 -- 0022 (bw).jpg, featured edit

Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 25 Feb 2022 at 18:27:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

[reply]

 
Figure 1
  a b c d e f g h  
8                 8
7                 7
6                 6
5                 5
4                 4
3                 3
2                 2
1                 1
  a b c d e f g h  

Example of valid chess configuration based on that picture.

Figure 2
  a b c d e f g h  
8                 8
7                 7
6                 6
5                 5
4                 4
3                 3
2                 2
1                 1
  a b c d e f g h  

Another possibility where Black wins in a few steps (turn white).

Figure 3
  a b c d e f g h  
8                 8
7                 7
6                 6
5                 5
4                 4
3                 3
2                 2
1                 1
  a b c d e f g h  

Black wins.

Figure 4
  a b c d e f g h  
8                 8
7                 7
6                 6
5                 5
4                 4
3                 3
2                 2
1                 1
  a b c d e f g h  

Example of configuration that would logically lead to Figure 1 if both players play rationally.

  •   Info @XRay: As a chess player, I wonder if Charlesjsharp (and others) can play ♟😆 Yes, this configuration is very possible, as long as the two kings are positioned in the corners (on the chessboard, but out of the framing). Verify with chessnextmove.com (a wrong configuration would display the message "set legal position", while here the program gives "Press PLAY button"). A queen and more pieces are maybe also hidden, from this angle. Chessmate? This configuration is reachable in a few dozens of moves, only, from a standard start. So simple. I think wrong allegations should be crossed out on an educational project. Proof game. What do you think? -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try an answer with my shaky English. There are two things: the possibility of chess pieces placement and the educational value. When positioning the pieces, I ask myself (as a mathematician) how, on the one hand, the invisible squares could be occupied and, on the other hand, whether the position is possible (by which rules) by moving the pieces. It doesn't have to make sense, but it's possible. And when it comes to educational value as an argument, the question arises as to whether it doesn't actually have to mean that you can't imagine it. However, it is still possible. I can imagine a lot of educational values. In my view, the educational value argument is not conducive to photography. We should put photography in the foreground and not a possible, but not absolutely necessary use on Wikipedia. In my opinion, the educational values argument is not valid enough to be used. --XRay 💬 08:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me too, the picture is less about chess than about black & white, focus and DoF, singularity vs multiplicity. However, all sensibilities are possible, and I could understand special oppositions on the basis that, from the subjective point of view of the reviewers, the picture breaks some essential rules, if it was the case. This is not true. What is shown could be a real chess game. Unfortunately, erroneous considerations seem to be currently used by people who can't really play, or don't remember the rules (whatever they pretend). I am particularly bothered by "This does not represent any valid game position", and "for me it is important that the pieces are used correctly", below. Some readers can be deceived after such erroneous comments, because not everybody are familiar with chess. This game is complex, and the configuration shown is interesting, because Black could win, depending on where the kings are with other pieces. Nice also as part of recreational mathematics. There are a lot of similar enigmas, used as basis for scientific articles. But anyway, the purpose is different, and that's another reason to enjoy. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Basile, for your comment and for this interesting discussion (or digression ;–). I used to play chess long ago and actually wondered why that configuration should not be possible; I kept quiet because I am no expert. But it is good to learn that the configuration is indeed possible ;–). --Aristeas (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I know, that's what I meant by technically possible: one can sketch a valid sequence of moves that leads to this position, or use a retrogade analysis tool to simulate it. However, I also argued that this position is unreachable if at least one of the sides is playing rationally i.e. attempting to win in the fewer number of steps. For the sake of discussion, let's say that the queens on both sides do all the slaughtering, sparing only the surviving pawns and kings. If both sides are playing rationally, the game ends in a draw before reaching the target position, because no side will be willing to sacrifice its queen. If one side is playing rationally but the other side is playing randomly (within the realm of legal moves), then the rational side will eventually win before reaching the target position. I have a hunch that this example can be generalised i.e. that all games with at least one rational player will end before reaching this position: any ideas on how to prove (or disprove) it? :) -- Julesvernex2 (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chess games ending with a few pawns and just a rook or a bishop, are not so rare in practice, then I think rationale players could very well reach such a configuration, after the rooks (for example) disappeared. Imagine the previous pieces eaten were rooks or knights. Why these pawns have not been eaten yet, it totally depends on the previous moves, and where were the priorities, at each step, from the beginning. I'm not saying this is the most probable scenario statistically, but I totally believe it could be the ending version of honest amateurs, trying to win. Finding a realistic path (rationale on both sides) leading to these specific positions is more difficult for a human, but probably a machine would manage. And if a computer succeeds, then two normal human players could meet the same scenario, among the infinity of possibilities. In any case, it seems we agree the position of the pawns on the chessboard is valid, and that's probably the most important aspect of the discussion. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do indeed agree on that. Concerning the realistic path to get to this position, I think we also agree that it depends on the skill of the players: two monkeys playing randomly (but legally) can reach this position, whereas two hypothetical computers capable of en:Solving chess (i.e. capable of comparing the at least 10^120 possible game variations) cannot. Somewhere between these two extreme scenarios, there is a point where the skills of the players are high enough to make this position unreachable. You argue that human players are left of that point, I argue that they are right of it. I have no idea who's right, but it is a fascinating topic nonetheless :) -- 10:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure. Though young kids playing chess are not monkeys :-) And like more experienced players, they are constrained by the opponent. That's more a question of anticipation, in my view. Considering we don't know which pieces are hidden in the corners, there's no reason to conclude the players are weak. If we search step by step previous logical configurations leading to figure 4, before figure 1, little by little we approach a complex problem that gives sufficient food for thought to each player to consider the game interesting at their own level. Since each move is legal, the more we go back, the more pieces resuscitate on the chessboard, until the basic setup. There are so many potential sequences in chess, it's like winning at the lottery, in my opinion. Statistically, the sequence 1-2-3-4-5 has as much potential to occur as the random sequence 6-11-29-37-43. I mean these pawns aligned in column could be the result of luck, absolutely independent of players skill. How could we guess Black and White's individual tactics, beyond the appearance? Perhaps both sides have been dragged down by a long and difficult series of "checks", forcing each of them to sacrifice other pieces, and to spare the pawns just by necessity? There are two ways to see the situation, for me: 1) Given that 99% of the players on Earth are not professional but amateurs or beginners having fun, we can suppose they do their best to checkmate, until such a configuration occurs by accident, meaning none of them is mediocre, in the local context. And 2) Given that modern computers (and even mobile phones) are able to win against world champions nowadays, certainly a super-program (still real and created by human brains) conceived to force the opponent to move the pieces towards that specific configuration (each time they have the choice) could artificially provoke the pattern (for example by avoiding all the situations where the expected scenario would fail). Strongest, the machine entertains the human, who genuinely moves with the will to win, without realizing the targeted configuration becomes closer and closer to reality. In that case too, the human, professional master, is not a weak player, by hypothesis. In conclusion, the pattern shown on the picture seems reachable regardless of level. Not frequently, but potentially accessible for all. At least, this is my personal intuition. Anyhow, I agree with XRay these aligned pawns make particular sense in the realm of Mathematical chess problems, because this is a field where such matters are explicitly studied. That's without counting the other areas, unrelated to chess. I think strategy comes to mind when we look at this. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Actually I can play chess and was school champion - so there! I said "Problem is that the pieces wouldn't ever be like this" - I DID NOT SAY they couldn't. I know English is not your native tongue Basile , but 'couldn't' and 'wouldn't' have a different meaning. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement of the picture is a different one. It is also not intended to represent a real game. Why do you think you shouldn't use chess pieces to represent a statement? Why should a photo always represent something real? --XRay 💬 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear XRay, It is a personal opinion, as a chess player, for me it is important that the pieces are used correctly. Of course, this is not equally important for everyone, without reaching the fallacy of exaggeration of thinking that a toothbrush can be represented in a photo as a bathroom cleaning tool (for example). Certainly EV is not a requirement for FPC, but I would hope to at least have some EV and not a confusing representation. Finally, art certainly judges a subjective role and I can only say that it is my humble opinion and I do not have the truth. --Wilfredor (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. What do you think, is en:Depth of field a possible educational value? Or en:Monochrome photography? --XRay 💬 17:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed results:
Result: 25 support, 1 oppose, 0 neutral → featured. /Basile Morin (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This image will be added to the FP gallery: Objects#Toys
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Schachfiguren,_Bauern_--_2022_--_0022_(bw).jpg&oldid=645288285"