Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:12 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Correcting an endgame - two questions |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Per Olin [Thursday, May 2, 2019 10:29] | Correcting an endgame - two questions
Following the construction challenge by Bob Baker relating to 'only' moves I had a look into my own old studies. One seemed to have some of the requested features, but it was incorrect as realized by a small computer check. We can say that it is from the not so good old days, when the composer had no computer help when trying to achieve correctness; the joke back then was 'there are no correct endgame studies, only studies not yet cooked'. It has seemed to be possible to correct the old study by adding a black pawn.
Per Olin
4th Prize New Statesman 1973 (v.)
 (= 7+8 )
Draw
In the preliminary award the study got 5th Prize with white rook on e5 and without black pawn f4. A cook was found and during confirmation time the rook on e5 was moved to h5. This was accepted by the tourney organizer and in the final award the placement was 4th Prize due to removal of an incorrect study ranked higher. The drawback is that the change by moving the rook does not correct the study, there is still the cook 1.Rf5+ Ke2 2.Bh5+ etc. (this can not be corrected by having the bishop on d7). Adding a black pawn on f4 seems to save the study. Solution: 1.a8Q [1.b8Q? a1Q 2.Ra5 Qe1 3.Qe5 Bb7+] 1. - a1Q 2.Qxa6+ Qxa6 3.Bb5+ Qxb5 [3. - Kf2 4.Bxa6 c2 5.Re2+ Kf3 6.Re1] 4.Rxb5 c2 5.b8Q c1Q 6.Qxf4+ [6.Qb6? Ke2+ 7.Qg1 Qc6+] 6. - Qxf4 7.Rf5 Bd6 [7. - Qxf5 stalemate] 8.Rxf4+ Bxf4 9.e7 b2 10.e8Q b1Q 11.Qb5+ Qxb5 stalemate
Two questions:
- Is the study correct now?
- If correct, is it appropriate to announce it as 4th Prize New Statesman 1974 (v.), where 'v.' stands for version? - This seems to be the most common way to indicate a correction; sometimes is also used 'corr.' or 'c.'. One could imagine that in the case of small technical changes, as adding a pawn, nothing much changes. But in a case, where the correction is heavy, clumsy or unaesthetic, then the situation could well be different; in the corrected form the judge might not have evaluated the entry in a similar way.
| | | (2) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Thursday, May 2, 2019 21:01] |
I checked with the help of an engine, now the study seems sound.
You should write 'correction' and not 'version' above the diagram.
| | | (3) Posted by Per Olin [Friday, May 3, 2019 19:45] |
Thank you, Arpad, for checking and for straightening out my verbal confusion: a sound problem can have several versions; when an unsound problem is corrected is not a version, it is a correction.
| | | (4) Posted by Bob Baker [Sunday, May 5, 2019 03:23]; edited by Bob Baker [19-05-05] |
Per, your study indeed provides the kind of sequence requested in my challenge. All the moves are '!' moves for the first 13 plies. Some are captures, so it wouldn't qualify for the capture-free record, which stands at 16 plies (Rusz). Geir's 32-ply position remains the record holder for the challenge with captures permitted.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Correcting an endgame - two questions |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
