|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 |
| (21) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Wednesday, Apr 20, 2016 10:29]; edited by Viktoras Paliulionis [16-04-20] |
What is the true definition of the Feather mechanism? I saw the definition in the Encyclopedia of Chess Problems but some known examples do not meet this definition.
|
|
| (22) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Apr 20, 2016 13:59] |
The essence of "Feather mechanism" is a MOTIVATED capture. The essence of "Turton" is to SUPPORT some other piece.
The themes are getting deprived of their chess-meaning and perceived just as visual patterns without understanding the purpose of a play.
|
|
| (23) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Wednesday, Apr 20, 2016 16:35]; edited by Viktoras Paliulionis [16-04-20] |
As I understand, you say that there is no Feather mechanism in the 1st Pr. (helpmate)?
|
|
| (24) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Wednesday, Apr 20, 2016 19:20] |
Yes, there is no motivation for a capture in B1 so there's no contradictious complexity of Feather mechanism.
3rd commendation mentions "Turton", and even "Turton bicolore" which looks as an absurd concept.
|
|
| (25) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Apr 20, 2016 21:21]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [16-04-20] |
Nikola is right. The problem shows a nice cyclic Zylahi, and the black queen captures result in opening of white lines. But the essense of Feather mechanism is to unguard a square for the black king which was potentially guarded by the captured white piece. This feature is lacking in the 1st.Prize problem.
The black queen moves are actually hideaways. Remove the black queen, and the problem is a sound h#2.5 !!
|
|
| (26) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Apr 21, 2016 07:11] |
While it seems perfectly clear that the 1st prize-winner does not justify the claim of Feather mechanism (at least, according to the definition given in the Encyclopedia of Chess Problems - thanks for intriguing me enough to make me check), I find the comment about Turton rather confusing. The essence of a Turton clearance is... the clearance (the line opening). As such, it can be mono or bicolor without being absurd. Personally, I am fine with the critically moving piece either supporting, or not supporting the other piece, especially in a helpmate. In any case, the supportive role of the thematic piece is secondary. I would not hesitate to call the (part of the) content of the 3rd commendation bicolor Turton, and this does not look like an absurd concept, as long as it serves a strategic purpose.
|
|
| (27) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Apr 21, 2016 13:58] |
Well Kostas, a line-clearance may be pure or may have an additional purpose. A critical piece might vacate the line to make way for the other piece but then the latter wouldn't be supported. The need for such support motivates the critical play along the same line. That additional purpose makes the 2-moves "simple Turton".
Therefore, 3-moves Turton-DOUBLING should retain the "supporting function" if you wish to retain the name "Turton". The "doubling" suggests the line-supporting purpose, since a single piece on the line would be too weak.
"Doubling" the pieces on the same line might have some other, non-supporting purpose, but why would that be called "Turton"?
The basic "Turton" is not about a critical play to achieve the "doubling" but about retaining the already existing doubling.
Does the following shows "Turton bicolore"?
White Be7 Rd6 Pa5 Kb3 Bg2 Qh2
Black Kc5 Ph4 Bg3
Stipulation #2
1.Bb7! ~,Bxd6 2.Rd5#,Qe5#
|
|
| (28) Posted by Valery Gurov [Thursday, Apr 21, 2016 15:01] |
1 prize adds nothing to such fine problem at all (http://www.yacpdb.org/#45686). It is necessary to know classics :-)
|
|
| (29) Posted by Frank Richter [Thursday, Apr 21, 2016 16:14] |
Very good point, Nikola, to look WHY a move is made and not only, THAT it is made.
|
|
| (30) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Thursday, Apr 21, 2016 16:49] |
F. Abdurahmanović calls such black clearance "Loyd’s clearance of line" (see lecture "Basic Relations Between Pieces" http://www.selivanov.ru/download/Tournament/2011/Belgrade_2011.pdf )
|
|
| (31) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Apr 22, 2016 04:16] |
Thank you, Viktoras. Loyd clearance is the correct term (not Turton, even though they are similar). My apologies, Nikola. Taking into consideration the distinction between the two themes, the term bicolor Turton is not right, but if you replace it with bicolor Loyd, it all fits well. I have always been using the two themes as interchangeable, but there is a distinct difference between them, that is the support or lack of support provided by the thematic piece. Thank you Nikola for pointing that out.
|
|
| (32) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Apr 22, 2016 04:54] |
Kostas, I really don't see what you should apologize for. The terms are confusingly used even by the greatest experts. Forum is the place for discussing about which features could be more or less relevant for a certain term.
"Bristol clearance" is often used not only for a "pure Bristol", especially in helpmates. In the lecture mentioned by Viktoras, 1st example actually shows "Turton clearance", 4...Bh2 - 6...Qg3#. That's at least how I see it. But the more experienced problemists could perhaps tell why such "Turton clearance" is rarely mentioned in helpmates, despite the not so rare occurance. Perhaps "Bristol" just "sounds better" :-)
|
|
| (33) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Apr 22, 2016 10:04] |
What about 5th example?
|
|
| (34) Posted by Neal Turner [Friday, Apr 22, 2016 10:42] |
The helpmaters are fond of appropiating theme names from direct play.
There's usually a superficial resemblance, but often the underlying logic and paradox is lost in a helpmate setting.
The Bristol of course - and the Umnov theme is another one that that comes to mind.
|
|
| (35) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Apr 22, 2016 12:59] |
In 5th example, 1.Be6 has the effect of Anti Loyd-clearance but of course, it's not motivated to obstruct wB's play c4-g8.
A genuine direct-problem-motivation is often lost in a helpplay. The question is whether the effect retains enough of the relevant essence which might justify the name.
The mandatory switchback 4.Bb3 very convincingly highlights that 1.Be6 had an "Anti Loyd-clearance effect".
|
|
| (36) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Thursday, Apr 28, 2016 22:11] |
twomovers section http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/Baku-Chess-Olympic-ty-2016-2-Award.pdf
|
|
| (37) Posted by Rauf Aliovsadzade [Friday, Apr 29, 2016 02:38] |
Compare the 1st Prize with this:
http://www.yacpdb.org/#383078
|
|
| (38) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Apr 29, 2016 15:15] |
hm.... http://www.yacpdb.org/#383078 is is almost the same --- and by same composer!
|
|
| (39) Posted by Andrey Selivanov [Monday, May 2, 2016 15:18] |
moremovers: http://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/Baku-Chess-Olympic-ty-2016-N.pdf
|
|
| (40) Posted by Rauf Aliovsadzade [Wednesday, May 4, 2016 18:30] |
Also,the 1st prize winner has promoted force-Bishop on g6!
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions FIDE Olympic Tournament in Composing 2016 |
ISC 2024
