|(1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Jul 31, 2017 11:29]|
The fundamental mechanics of 2#
I shortly thought about doing this myself, but it would be amazing if no theoretican
has tackled it yet - and completely.
Suppose a random 2#. Why is a move not #1/how to threat #1?
1. The move is illegal.
1.1. The piece doesn't move so. Regroup it.
1.2. The piece doesn't move so. Clear line.
1.3. The piece is pinned. Unpin first.
2. The black king has a flight.
...and so on. No points if less than 100 subitems and 4 levels, I'm a German after all :-)
So, who can send me a scan of Der Anal-Retentive Problemfreund, 1901, appendix c1-c1000? :-)
|(2) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Jul 31, 2017 17:23]|
The question mixes both content and form of attacking motifs of twomover keys. In the form of defensive motifs it was discussed in article by Juraj Brabec - see http://www.jurajlorinc.com/chess/pammotif.htm
But of course, no systematic can be found in the article, it can however be extracted :)
|(3) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Jul 31, 2017 22:08]; edited by Neal Turner [17-07-31]|
I've read Mr Brabec's article more than once and I've always had a problem with it - now I think I understand what it might be.
It's with his use of the word 'form'.
First he states: "Preventing 2.e4# may take the form of a) capture of the Pe2 b)..." - where he appears to be saying that there are different ways to achieve the desired effect.
But then he goes on to conclude: "every motif has two distinct properties – form and content" but it seems from the above that the 'form' the content takes is just a description of the content - it is the content.
So I don't see what the distinction is, unless of course he's now refering to the form of the motif (whatever that means), but this would be quite confusing as earlier he's only been discussing the form of the content.
Maybe I'm just stupid.
Of course I do differentiate Form and Content, but in a different way - looking at a problem as a whole, we distinguish:
Content = strategic content - the interplay of pieces.
Form = thematic content.
So I might (and very often do!) refer to some helpmate as being "all form and no content", while somebody might describe my efforts as long on content and short on form - which is fair enough.
|(4) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Monday, Jul 31, 2017 23:47]|
This is very interesting point that article might seem so unclear to native English speaker.
I think it was quite clear in the original Slovak text (that was published in PaM - and this why I was so enthusiastic to put it in English translation to CCM) and as you can see from the webpage, Chris Feather helped us with that English translation (after all, the available orthodox motivation is the same in direct mates and helpmates, even if there is no fight of sides in helpmates).
So I was hoping that transfer of theory might work... but then it might be necessary to make a next step after all, to create something like Hauke's systemic structure of motivation with form and content making different levels of the tre branching.
|(5) Posted by Neal Turner [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2017 11:58]|
The word 'form' is quite complex - it can take multiple forms(!): noun, transitive verb, intransitive verb.
Also its meaning is flexible and can be attached to a variety of concepts.
However one would usually think of it as applying to 'the whole' - its shape, appearence, construction.
The substance (content) would be the collection of components which together 'form' the whole.
Of course it's possible to go down a level and think about the form of the individual components, but if you carry on doing this, at some stage you're going to run out of space and you've reached a level where form and content are one.
We assume that for Mr Brabec the defensive motifs are considered to be components of the problem.
So we have 'Preventing 2.e4#' as a component and the manner of executing it is its form, but this manner of execution ('capture of the Pe2') is also the content.
So the question is: Are we down at the level where form = content?
Obviously Mr Brabec thinks not, but this is what I'm struggling with.
|(6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2017 19:22]|
In German, "Form" would refer to things as
- the number of pieces, economy
- surprising key
- absence of duals
- or even that two positions with the same number of pieces looks
overloaded resp. not.
"Content" will exclusively refer to the theme.
What I asked about could be best described as "mechanics" which
can be part either of content (e.g., theme: Schiffmann. This neccesitates
a pin-line and etc., you know the definition) or part of the form
(wouldn't be a LeGrand more fun with a crosscheck?).
|(7) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Aug 4, 2017 11:30]; edited by Viktoras Paliulionis [17-08-04]|
A similar idea is used in the Helpmate Analyzer when analyzing departure/arrival effects. Only positive departure/arrival effects for helpmates are considered. I have created a list of possible motivations (goals) for an individual move and its achieving manners (tactics): http://www.komtera.lt/helpman/hmeffects.html
Sorry for my English, some motivations were difficult to formulate. This list is not complete yet, but I hope it contains all basic motivations.
|(8) Posted by Vitaly Medintsev [Friday, Aug 4, 2017 12:11]; edited by Vitaly Medintsev [17-08-04]|
it would be nice to see the link to this useful spreadsheet on http://188.8.131.52/helpman/ page
|(9) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Aug 4, 2017 16:01]; edited by Viktoras Paliulionis [17-08-04]|
The effect names in the spreadsheet and the Analyzer can differ. Not all of them consist of two parts. For example, "Self-block", "Scare vacation" have obvious motivations in helpmates and have one part only. "Intermediate move of the trip" is not very important effect and is not shown at all.
The Analyzer will be upgraded soon with an improved user interface and other features.
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum General The fundamental mechanics of 2#