Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
23:09 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General On Duals |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 13:20] | On Duals
Wieland Bruch once called me the "Master of Confusion".
This is a honor from such a dignified grandmaster. :-)
So I have to live up my reputation with the following thoughts.
1. If White has a double threat, and Black completely ignores it,
nobody calls this a dual.
2. If White has a Fleck threat (n>=3), and Black *partly* ignores it,
you may get away with it as componist, but in any case it's seen as
a flaw. Ignoring *all* of the threats -> see above.
3. If White has a single threat, and Black plays a move that doesn't
parry and instead induces a new mate, nobody calls this a dual either.
(Although I know at least one problem where the composer added
otherwise superfluous material to avoid, probably cf. Kraemer/Zepler
"Problemkunst im 20. Jahrhundert.)
4. If White has a threat, and X~ parries this but induces secondary
threats, then both the situations 1 and 3 with respect to the new
threat(s) are seen as duals for X's secondary corrections.
I see all this as somewhat illogical.
(The obvious snag is that you can't demand "Stupid black moves
may be ignored" (definitory dual avoidance :-) because if Black had
a non-stupid move he wouldn't get mated in the first time :-)
BTW, do you know a problem about "secondary stupidification"?
E.g., Black interferes with his guard line but luckily he also
interferes with a White line, avoiding a dual. (The mechanisms
of the 1st prize in the Einat/Comay 50 come to mind.)
Hauke
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General On Duals |
|
|
|
ISC 2024