tagging questions

[texian]

after a couple of persistent and ill informed tagging questions by me (43061 and 45518 tag), drahacikfm agreed that creating this thread might be helpful and problably eliminate the clutter from a bunch of my newbie tagging questions .. so, here goes

btw, for IE7 users, the easiest way to follow hyperlinks is by right-clicking the link and selecting Open in a New Tab .. other browsers (IE7 is not recommended, it is just what i've got) probably have similar features

[texian]

24379

i tagged this one Decoy and Overloading .. i don't have much confidence in those tags now .. further, i don't get this problem at all .. so, a move by move commentary in English would be most appreciated .. i ran and re-ran the problem in Fritz and still never really "saw" it .. the solution is correct .. i understand Fritz's numbers, i just don't recognize what i should be looking for in solving a problem like this one

 here's my thinking:

1... Nh3  {this is what i called a decoy because QxN just looks so tempting}

i am "visually" clueless why the queen doesn't just take it,  although Fritz marks Nh3 as a very strong move .. Fritz rated the Nh3 move as -5.97 and the next best 1... Rxf1 at -0.69

2. Rd2 {makes sense to me only because Qxh3 is marked down by Fritz}

this counter-attack on the black rook leaves Rf1 hanging which represents, to me, the indicator of overloading .. i see now from the "unofficial" tag descriptions i'm using that this is probably not overloading

OVERLOADING:  Whenever a piece is performing two or more roles, usually defensive, but those pieces are attacked (or can be attacked).  Obviously when the first capture happens the subsequent recapture will hang the other piece.  I would imagine it is difficult, if not impossible, to really make a distinction between an overload and a double attack since the only real way to exploit an overload is with a double attack. [dlester]

OVERLOADING:  when one piece is protecting two different pieces (or squares).  You take one of the pieces and when the overloaded piece captures, the other piece it was protecting is no longer protected. Overloading is almost always a subset of Removing Defender.  I don't think I've ever seen an Overloading problem that was not also Removing Defender. [drahacikfm]

2... Rxf1+ * {the only move in the sequence that makes sense to me  }

OK, i'm obviously confused .. any thoughts, Mr. D?

[drahacikfm]

Ok, here's my take on this problem:

After 1...Nh3, the first question to ask is what if he takes it?  2.Qxh3.  Then we take his rook on f2 with our queen.  Why can we do that?  Can't he just take our queen with his Rf1?  No, because that rook is pinned.  So PIN is one tag for the problem. (Yes, I know that he didn't play 2.Qxh3, so why are we using PIN?  Because you can also tag for variations that were not played).

Ok, if he plays 2.Qxh3 and we play 2...Qxf2, what if he takes our hanging rook on d1 with 3.Rxd1?  Then we FORK with 3...Qxf3+ getting our rook back, and remaining a rook ahead.  So FORK can also be a tag.  And I guess your original tag of DECOY applies to the move 2.Qxh3, although I would probably just label that as SACRIFICE or DISTRACTION (the queen is distracted from protecting the Rf2).

Ok, next question to ask after 1....Nh3, is what if he just takes our hanging rook on d1, 2.Rxd1?  Didn't we just lose a rook?  No, because we have 2...Nxf2+ FORK getting two rooks for our SACRIFICED rook.  So the tags FORK and SACRIFICE again.

I don't particularly see why 2.Rd2 is the best defense, but after that we take the free rook on f1.  I don't think any labels apply to the moves 2.Rd2 and 2...Rxf1+.

I don't see any overloading here.  Which White piece is protecting two other attacked pieces?

[texian]

wow, excellent commentary there Drahacik .. as long as i looked at that problem (and i spent a good deal of time with it), i *never* saw that 2... Qxf2 option as a response - probably because i missed the PIN on Rf1 *and* the following FORK.. many thanks for walking me through that solution with a very well written commentary

regarding the tags, the overloaded situation i saw was white's Qh2-Rf2-Rf1 structure ..  your question "Which White piece is protecting two other attacked pieces?" helps me isolate the single overloaded piece as Rf2 .. however, as you observe, Black's attack does not use or take advantage of that overloaded condition .. therefore, the OVERLOADING tag is inappropriate

your comment, "you can also tag for variations that were not played", points out a challenging and subtle aspect of tagging, but certainly makes sense now that you point out the PIN and FORK possibilities in this problem

whether to call 1... Nh3 a DECOY or SACRIFICE is an interesting question .. my "unoffical" descriptions which i consult frequently making tagging decisions were my sole source for such calls .. i provide them here for context, not as a Biblical reference

DECOY:  Much like clearance, it is just another flavor of removing a defender to me.  Clearance, to me, means capturing the defender.  Decoy means forcing it to move.  Either way, it is removed.  [dlester] (see also Richard's comment on Attraction)

ATTRACTION: "Attraction or Decoying occurs when a player entices a piece to a square (often using a sacrifice) where it will later come under attack."
I've noticed some authors see this as a synonym for decoy, while others (you!) don't agree. [Richard]

ATTRACTION: Offering some free material to get a piece to move to a bad square where you can then attack it.  Usually attraction is getting the king to take a free piece, and then you mate it on that new square. For attraction, think of a mouse trap.  You put some nice cheese on it, the mouse goes to eat the cheese, and Wham! He is caught.  The cheese is the piece you are giving away.
 [drahacikfm]

SACRIFICE:  Although technically this is also a flavor of Removing Defender, if the removal of a defender involves giving up a piece in what would otherwise be an unfavorable exchange then I will generally include this tag. [dlester]

clearly, there are some overlapping issues in these tags .. i chose DECOY for the 1... Nh3 move since it is to Black's advantage if White responds 2. Qxh3 .. Richard's description of ATTRACTION fits too except the Q is not subsequently attacked ..  SACRIFICE is perhaps a better tag or one that should also be included .. dlester's comment on DECOY, "Decoy means forcing it to move", seems to me too restrictive as "forcing" could also be extended to include enticed

not to muddy the waters any further, but it now occurs to me that DISTRACTION, as you point out, might be the best tag to describe the 1... Nh3 move

DISTRACTION: "Distraction or deflection involves forcing the opponent to move a piece that was previously guarding important squares or pieces." Sounds a lot like removing the defender doesn't it :-) ?  I think that Distraction might be moving the defender elsewhere as opposed to just "taking the defender". But this is far from clear to me. [Richard]

correct tagging is "far from clear" indeed - well said, Richard .. regardless, tagging offers an ATTRACTION to me with the hopeful reward of a better and deeper understanding of tactical situations and therefore the game itself .. hmmm, why do i feel like a mouse sniffing the cheese?

in conclusion, the tags i've now assigned to 24379 are PIN, FORK, DISTRACTION, and SACRIFICE

thanks again, Drahacik, for taking the time to coach me through not only the tagging but the problem solution with your thoughtful and insightful comments .. i'm beginning to say that enough that i'm consisdering adding it to my signature 

[texian]

Here are some more generic tagging questions, but perhaps important ones:

• What are the purpose and benefits of correct problem tagging?
• Are tag votes For and Against compiled? reviewed?
• Are tags ever "certified" and made permanent?
• Is there any accepted "standard" for tagging or describing tactical motifs?

i'm sure there are many more .. for now, this seems like a good start

[andreacoda]

Here are some more generic tagging questions, but perhaps important ones:

• What are the purpose and benefits of correct problem tagging?
• Are tag votes For and Against compiled? reviewed?
• Are tags ever "certified" and made permanent?
• Is there any accepted "standard" for tagging or describing tactical motifs?

i'm sure there are many more .. for now, this seems like a good start

My 2 cents - for what purpose and benefits, I guess it is mainly for defining problem sets: if you have problems properly set, you can decide to train on specific motifs, like decoys or overloading (say you are particularly poor on any of those, you may want to train specifically like that).

for the standards, I think it would make sense having a sticky somewhere, with the "official descriptions", so we can all be aligned.

for the rest, don't kow how the process is implemented...

Cheers,

Andrea

[richard]

Here are some more generic tagging questions, but perhaps important ones:

• What are the purpose and benefits of correct problem tagging?
• Are tag votes For and Against compiled? reviewed?
• Are tags ever "certified" and made permanent?
• Is there any accepted "standard" for tagging or describing tactical motifs?

Hi Texian,

I see a few benefits of correct tagging. Firstly it helps the user clarify their understanding of the problem and what makes it tick.  Tagging also allows you to share that knowledge with others, but also allows those with premium features to use custom sets that includes problems with a particular tag (or user defined set of tags).

Tag votes are automatically collated so that problems only have tags where more users voted for the tag than against it. Essentially all "for votes" = +1 and all 'against votes' = -1...at the moment all users are treated equal (although there are some future plans to weight 'reliable taggers' more strongly) and an aggregate score of +1 or greater is required for a problem 'to have' a tag.  So if you vote on a particularly problem for say "Pin" and someone else votes against pin these votes will cancel out and no pin tag will exist for this problem yet, if a third person comes along and also votes for Pin then that will lead to a +1 for Pin which will lead to the problem being given the "Pin" tag (unless someone else comes along with an against vote).

Currently no tags are made permanent as such, but as tags gain more votes they become harder to have dislodged so I guess this is quasi-certification (via mob-rule :-) ).

There is (unfortunately!) no standard for describing tactical motifs as far as I'm aware.  The eventual tag descriptions will (once a consensus is reached) define the standard for this site, but there will still be room to argue on gray areas, so CT will essentially have to make a few "ok, others might defined X as Y , but on CT X always means Z"  decisions.

Regards,
Richard.

[texian]

Hi andrea .. i like that sticky idea for "official descriptions" .. i think i recall Richard is working on something like that .. for me, i'd like to see visuals containing board examples available, too .. since there seem to be so many subtle variables and condidtions in correct tagging, that could be a very sticky sticky to implement 

Hi Richard, that all makes better sense now .. i had begun to wonder what is the point in tagging when it seemed they could be erased so easily by a vote against .. it also points out that casting a vote for a tag you agree wtih is important for anchoring the tag against future cancellation by a vote against .. i haven't been doing that, but will join the "mob" in future sessions

yes, some taggers are certainly more reliable than others .. after the tagging lessons i've been receiving from Drahacik, i don't trust some of my eariler votes for or against

as the tagged problem set increases and some become well defined, i can see a whole game within the game possibility of tagging questions, i.e. display a well defined tagged problem without the tag and evaluate on correct tagging .. i doubt that game would catch on beyond a few mad tacticians, but Elo rankings and even tagging titles would be a nice incentive for the seriously or deleriously inclined tagger 

on the vote count, it may be interesting and perhaps useful to display the vote counts when a new tag vote is cast .. in time, it might become a way of encouraging, supporting, and re-inforcing correct tagging or even a learning tool when incorrect tags have been identified and overridden by a Grandmaster Tagger!

i've been away from chess literature so long i am somewhat surprised a "standard" for describing tactical problems has not been developed .. i suppose that reflects the complexity and limits of keywords describing a complex problem

my question regarding review of tags still lingers now that i understand your vote tabulations .. i suspect the best answer is your "via mob rule" .. when you get a "reliable tagger" feature implemented that will tend to at least assure us the mob is self-policed

also, thanks, Richard, for your oft demonstrated willingness to give us a view behind the curtain of the site design - great job!

[texian]

hey, Richard, as if you need another item on your To Do List, i was just going back to look at a problem from earlier today by looking at my Recent Problems list .. it occurred to me having tag abbreviations, even stars, as well as problem rating might be an interesting, perhaps useful, way to use that list .. pass that along to your loyal staff for consideration 

[richard]

Hi Texian,

I think the best way to provide more details is probably some kind of tooltip where you can hover over the problems in the history display to get more details on the problem, not everyone has the same screen width so I've tried to pick a table width that will work for as many users as possible, another option would be to have user control over which columns to display, but that is a longer term idea that is unlikely to see development time for a while.

I also agree with you that more info on tags/taggers would be useful.  One issue I've noticed when deciding if I should vote against a tag is that currently I have to look directly in the database to find who made the tag. I find knowing who made a tag (or more importantly their rating) is quite important in knowing if I should consider voting against a tag.  Sometimes the motif doesn't appear in the main line of the tactic but is important in making the tactic work, i.e. it was the threat of the motif rather than the playing out of the motif that makes some tactics what they are.  In these situations if you miss the underlying mechanisms then you can think a tag is incorrect when it is not, knowing when you are about to disagree with someone rated 1000 points above you is a good clue in knowing if you should be looking deeper at the problem before putting in an "against vote" :-). Of course this isn't to say that high rated users are infallible taggers, they can just as easily have their own idiosyncratic definition of a tag as the next person :-) (and I've seen a few situations where that is the case).

Regards,
Richard.

[drahacikfm]

Of course this isn't to say that high rated users are infallible taggers, they can just as easily have their own idiosyncratic definition of a tag as the next person :-) (and I've seen a few situations where that is the case).

Hey, stop picking on me!

[texian]

lordy, lordy, you mean our tagging teacher is idiosyncratic .. that's my middle name

yes, Richard, a tooltip would be nice .. seeing who has voted for or against nicer still, especially with details like rating and number tagged .. i'm quite sure the ideas are endless .. i also suspect you guys have already thought of most of them . so, thanks for putting up with a noisey idiosyncratic newbie

[texian]

45687 was tagged incorrectly SIMPLIFICATION .. i tagged it ATTRACTION .. since the response is forced to prevent mate, i'm not sure that is correct

ironically, the next problem, 34261, was also tagged SIMPLIFICATION as well as PASSED PAWN .. SIMPLIFICATION may just be correct here as the exchange is equal .. earlier to day, i had updated my "unoffical" notes on SIMPLIFICATION -- a not so simple tag

SIMPLIFICATION:  I haven't used this much, but I understand it to be a sequence of exchanges that are materially equal but result in a positionally favorable position.  The tactics engine does not really produce puzzles like this so I don't see puzzles where I find it applicable. [dlester]

SIMPLIFICATION:  From the chess.about.com site: "Simplification is the strategy of exchanging pieces of equal value."
 [newlook]


SIMPLIFICATION:  the simplification tag should not be used for exchanges that win material directly.  Almost all the problems where I assigned the simplification tag were problems where you trade off the last piece and get a winning King and Pawn endgame.  Or maybe an endgame where each side still has one piece, but you have a pawn that can't be stopped from queening. I can't really think of any other problems where the simplification tag should be used, other than going to a winning endgame with no pieces, or just one piece for each side. [drahacikfm]

SIMPLIFICATION:  usually simplification is a case where equal material is exchanged. but after equal material exchange the evaluation difference is not large enough to qualify as winning which is required by this site. so to get label as simplification the situation has to be as mentioned by drahacikfm that equal material has been exchanged but final position might prove to be winning (endgame for example). [argentum]

comments?

[drahacikfm]

45687 is definitely not attraction.  Black threatens mate, White has to give up material to stop that.  Has nothing to do with attraction.

I labeled it Exposed King (because the king is about to get mated) and Weak Back Rank because Black has two rook on White's back rank.

Yes, the next one is simplification and passed pawn, as explained in my comment on that problem.

[texian]

i didn't think 45687 was ATTRACTION and knew it wasn't SIMPLIFICATION, but couldn't see another tag that fit .. WEAK BACK RANK makes sense describing the situation ..  however, i am often confused about when to use the EXPOSED KING tag and my "unofficial" description seems almost too simple

EXPOSED KING:  I use this tag a lot.  If an attack on the king, or a threat of an attack on the king is any part of the tactical motif I throw this tag on there.  It is very generic, and since many of the puzzles do involve some kind of tactic relevant to king safety this one is almost always accurate. [dlester]

this description seems so generic the tag verges on almost meaningless, IMO .. is it? if not, can you elaborate or amplifiy what we're looking for here

i noticed your comment on 34261 just after posting this one and figured you had labeled it .. i just wanted to make sure i understood SIMPLIFICATION .. this one seems like a good example and my notes on the description all confirm it

i added my votes on all tags .. i keep forgetting to do that .. i have noticed that whenever i vote against a tag it is *always* removed from the problem .. i am assuming that means it had only one vote for it which seems surprising

thanks