|
|
(1) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Oct 15, 2012 22:31] |
A nice 2# by Gustav Adolf Esketubbe (06-11-1884 , 17-01-1969) On the 7th October 2012 the solving test shew pb.3 (test #1975) the following :
Gustav Adolf EKESTUBBE
Schackvarlden 1937
(= 9+7 ) ‡2 (9+7) C+
1…Rf1 2.R×c4‡
1.S×c4! [2.Bd2‡]
1…Rg1 2.Se3‡
1…Rf1 2.Sd2‡
1…Kb1 2.Bf2‡
1…Kd1 2.Bg3‡
The geometry is very fine with
- good use of white lines h7-b1 & h5-d1 twice each
- good use of the white batteries twice each
- good flight giving key
- good light position
It seems that it might be simply improved (slightly):
Gustav Adolf EKESTUBBE
Schackvarlden 1937 (v)
(= 9+7 ) ‡2 (9+7) C+
1…Rg1 2.Qb1‡
1…Rf1 2.R×c4‡
1.S×c4! [2.Bd2‡]
1…Rg1 2.Se3‡
1…Rf1 2.Sd2‡
1…Kb1 2.Bf2‡
1…Kd1 2.Bg3‡ |
|
(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Oct 15, 2012 22:57] |
The improvement seems so surprisingly simple, I wonder if the composer could have overlooked it. Perhaps at some stage the diagram was misprinted ? But then, probably another case of chess-blindness. |
|
(3) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 16, 2012 15:40]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-10-17] |
In these times they did not have a look at such a set play. This might be the explanation. |
|
(4) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Oct 16, 2012 22:18] |
You are probably right. For changed play, mutate was the preferred form. |
|
(5) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Oct 17, 2012 14:04] |
Jacques said: "In these times they did not have a look at such a set play."
...and at the missing set mate for 1...Kd1 :P
Ah well, I'm guilty of more heinous 2# crimes...
Hauke |
|
(6) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Oct 17, 2012 23:55]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-10-18] |
A crime ?? I even would not call that a flaw. |
|
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum Twomovers A nice 2# by Gustav Adolf Esketubbe (06-11-1884 , 17-01-1969) |