Website founded by Milan Velimirović in 2006
23:12 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net Forum General which is more egregious(offensive, artistically troubling)? |
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | (1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Wednesday, Mar 7, 2012 23:53] | which is more egregious(offensive, artistically troubling)? 1.a #2 try that captures a black officer(not a pawn) or
2.a #2 try that takes a king flight square?
just thought I'd put it out there. I'm looking at a wonderful #2 problem which includes a thematic try which captures a black bishop. | | (2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Mar 8, 2012 06:05]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-03-08] | For whatever it's worth, here's my opinion:
If the flight square is unprovided, I definitely consider this more leading (for the solver).
I think you want the version which leads the solver to purest possible understanding of WHY your idea is the solution.
If the solver is reduced to simply working out a method to accommodate for the unprovided flight, they might miss entirely the thematic point which you labored to illustrate.
On the other hand, if this were an endgame study, your question (specifically considering the implications of a captured officer) becomes more difficult to weigh (the answer might even prove entirely too much of a strain). | | (3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Mar 8, 2012 19:07] | Looking at it from solver's view, taking a flight as a try will be OK. The solver will be looking at ways to provide for the flight, and removing the flight on the first move will be a prominent try he wont miss. | | (4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Mar 9, 2012 11:02] | ACK. I'd never try a try capturing an officer.
(Of course, you could send the problem to me first, "impossible"
isn't in my dictionary :-)
Hauke | | (5) Posted by Michael McDowell [Sunday, Mar 11, 2012 21:16] | Going off at a slight tangent, how about this for a key? Anderson considered the problem worthy of a place in his 1924 collection "Adventures of my Chessmen". Pf7 is only there to force a pin-model.
G.F.Anderson
Western Morning News 1923
(= 7+10 )
Mate in 3
1.Qxa6 (>2.Sd3)
1...Bxb4 2.Qg6
1...b5 2.Bd3
1...Qxc1 2.Rxc1+ | | (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Mar 11, 2012 22:04] | umm, diagram error? | | (7) Posted by Michael McDowell [Sunday, Mar 11, 2012 22:51] | The diagram is correct. | | (8) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Mar 12, 2012 03:37] | ok, my bad... this seems a very tough key to find (it did not help that I completely misread the problem).
I gave up, and asked the computer.
A solver could protest that much of the difficulty here is based upon the key being aesthetically "bad."
But, in all honesty, I doubt this aesthetic offense is the primary cause of its difficulty.
Is this such a bad thing?
The role of Ba6 may be questioned, but I'm not entirely offended by the need for a cookstopper.
On the other hand, being lead to a solution (especially by unprovided flight, or unprovided check) does, generally, cause offense. | | (9) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Mar 13, 2012 19:22]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-03-13] | I wish to know the readers' views on the related topic. How acceptable is the capture of black pieces in helpmates? See for the example the award in the 'Diagrammes'.
http://sachmatija.puslapiai.lt/?q=node/601
The first prize winner contains two captures each(by white) in each of the solutions. It is a fine problem and probably deserved the top prize.
But what about the second prize? The problem is a H#2.5 (wrongly printed as H#3) and the first white move of the solution captures a black knight on a5 (a Cook-stopper, as the solution will work even without the capture).
Your views will help me decide about a helpmate we are attempting for the WCCT where we had to use a black knight on the first rank (being unable to use a pawn !). Removing this defect will add 7 units to the problem. | | (10) Posted by Administrator [Wednesday, Mar 14, 2012 05:41] | I try to stay out of the discussions here, just want to be an neutral observer, but the question "why it had to be a bishop-capture key?" really bothers me for last three days. It can be easily avoided, for instance:
(= 7+10 ) 1.Sxb4!
(alternatively the WS can stand on a2 or d5)
Is there anything that I didn't notice in the original position (except that there the WQ is not en prise) which would justify such a rude key?? | | (11) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Mar 18, 2012 07:11] | Any answers to my question ? :) | | (12) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Mar 18, 2012 22:02] | It is not easy to answer your question in general. If you can avoid captures, do it. Capturing a piece that moved during the solution (active sacrifice) is better than capturing a piece on it's initial (diagram) square. For instance, active sacrifice in 'Maslar' theme is a part of more complex strategy, there are beautiful problems showing it.
'Passive sacrifices' of Se6/Sg5 in the 1st Prize that you mentioned, are not nice but the active selfpins of those Knights in the alternate phases justify this, at least partially through the reciprocity. Mate by a capture exd5# is also ugly, especially because bBd5 prevents any mate by wRe8. This seemingly could not be avoided in 2-solution form. Moving bBd5 to b7 and bPb2 to d5 gives one solution and removing this Pd5 in a twin, gives the other. I have to rationalize my personal impression of brutality to accept the authors choice of 2-solution form. But I would judge it as equal to the mentioned twin-form.
The 2nd Prize in the same award shows a capture of bSa5 which guards the final square for the wK. This diminishes the beauty of the critical move of wR. Actually, Sa5 is necessary only in twin b), so we may conditionally consider 1... Rxa5 as a move on an empty square. But such rationalization would force me to consider a diagram without bSa5 with a twin b)wKa5<->bPg4,+bSa5. I don't think that such construction is worth publishing, certainly not a Prize. The author should have tried at least something like:
White Bc7 Ka6 Bc6 Rg5 Pa4 Pb4 Pg3; Black Rc8 Pa7 Be7 Qf7 Pe6 Rf6 Sg6 Pc4 Kd4 Bg4 Ph3;b)wKa6->g3;h#2,5
But the very scheme is not Prize-winning. Moving the most thematic piece to the other side of the board in a twin, severely disturbes the unity of the thematic mechanism. It is more like two problems showing the same idea with othogonal/diagonal change of elements.
A rough example: White Bh8 Rd7 Pe2 Pf2 Kc1 Bh1;Black Pc7 Se7 Bh7 Pc6 Pe6 Pc5 Kc4 Pf4 Pa2;h#2,5
That's from me, if it could help. Others may have different approach. | | (13) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Mar 18, 2012 23:44]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-03-18] | Thanks Nikola for your valued opinion.
Our helpmate specialist Mr.S.K.Balasubramanian did not also like the capture. So we will be using the heavier version :( | | No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General which is more egregious(offensive, artistically troubling)? |
|
|
|