﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:18 UTC

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Oct-2019
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum General Tempo proof games

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

Tempo proof games

(= 16+16 )
PG 1.5

1.e3 Sc6 2.e4

Is the above proof game cooked by 1.e4 Sc6, even though the wrong side is to play at the end?

In the absence of a convention reg. which side is to move, it is cooked I believe.

1.e4 Sc6 isn't equal to PG 1.5.

I would take PG 1.5 to mean that the sequence must end on White's second move.

Aaaand you have the FIDE on your side (morally at least),
cf. the 3 fold repetition rule.

Hauke

It is not cooked!

(= 15+15 )

Tibor Orbán
Die Schwalbe 1976, Commendation
PG 4.0

This is also not cooked by there being proofgames in 3.0, however it would be if SPG instead of PG was wanted.

[EDIT: Corrected source, thanks to Per Olin!]

Make a diagram after 1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 and add the stipulation PG 2.0 - the unique solution is 1.e4 d5 2.e5 e6 because the diagram alone does not alow 3.exd6 ep.. According to the Codex, this diagram + stipulation defines the position - White is on the move and ep. capture is not legal.

The classical Orban has an additional special feature, as pointed out by me in RetroCorner some years ago. It solves also in 4.5 moves: 1.e2-e3 e7-e6 2.Lf1-b5 Ke8-e7 3.Lb5*d7 c7-c6 4.Ld7-e8 Ke7*e8 5.e3-e4. When testing with Popeye (version 4.55) in 4.0 moves, then are mentioned four solutions in 3.0 moves and the solution with 4.0 moves; so far everything OK. When having the test for 4.5 moves, then are mentioned four solutions in 3.5 moves and the solution in 4.5 moves, but are left out the solutions in 3.0 and 4.0 moves.

Peter Wong sent me the following comment:

The most interesting response I think was from Siegfried who made the PG vs SPG distinction, though even before it was posted I was thinking (when I saw the first few replies) whether people would have answered differently had you used "SPG1.5" instead. While the PG/SPG distinction is possible, I think in practice even the PG stipulation *implies* a shortest solution, just like any other genre. When a directmate/helpmate's intended solution is longer than necessary, an extra condition is required, eg. "Mate in 3 exactly". That's why whenever Orban's famous problem is quoted, the writer always warns the solver that the intention is not the shortest possible, ie. he's effectively saying "PG in 4 exactly". In the same way, the 1.e3 Sc6 2.e4 game to be sound needs either (1) an extra move added (e.g. 2...Se5) or (2) an extra condition of "exact number of moves", which is uneconomical.

Well, in post 7 I tried to illustrate shortly what the Codex says, at least as I read it (and Popeye surprisingly supports it).
A DIAGRAM is not a position although it tells a lot about it. A STIPULATION adds some information but it still may not be not all about some position. The CODEX additionally decides about castlings and ep. captures (perhaps there could be few more features). These 3 factors define (or at least restrict) some particular POSITION.

A stipulation in the Orban case determines that White is on the move and any PG 3.0 could be a cook but PG 3.5 is surely not a cook because the position is not the same in the end (Black is on the move). Is there a need for an extra condition (PG 4.0 exactly), that's for retro-community to decide about.
The example in post 1 is clear, Black must be on the move in the end, otherwise it's not the same position as the diagram+stipulation defines.

Referring to the Orban problem diagrammed in post 6: Ehn & Kastner in their book Alles über Schach give as source Die Schwalbe 1976, where it got a 'Lob' (= mention / commendation). Same information is also in PDB.

You are correct, my apologies! I have corrected it.

Bernd Gräfrath wrote about this question in recent Die Schwalbes. I think that his conclusion was that side to move was definitely a part of the stipulation, referring to helpmates with setplay, where the setplay isn't considered to be a cook of the helpmate either.

In the article about the classification of "PGs of the future", we wanted to add "tempo move" as a theme. But we were unable to find a precise definition for tempo move. For example, is there a tempo move in the PG whose solution is 1.e3 h6 2.Qh5 Rh7 3.Qa5 h5 ? One might say yes because of h7-h6-h5, one might say no because black has no other option than playing h7-h6-h5 to allow Qd1 to go to a5 in two (non-capturing) moves.

Henryk Grudzinski, Joost de Heer
(= 15+16 )

1. e3 h5 2. Qg4 hxg4 3. b3 Rh3 4. Ba3 Rf3 5. h4 g6 6. h5 Bg7 7. h6 Be5 8. h7 Bh2 9. h8=Q g3 10. Qb2 f6 11. Qc1 Kf7 12. Qd1 Ke6 13. Bc1

Is white's 4th move a tempo? 'Pass' would be a cook (the queen goes back to d1 via e.g. Qh8-c3-d3-e2-d1).

In the helpplay (i.e. including PGs) I understand tempo move as the move that can be substituted by "pass" (no move) without affecting the rest of the solution, that can be played exactly in a same way.

Then in PG of Nicolas, there is no tempo move - 1.e3 h6 2.Qh5 Rh7 3.Qa5 h5 - the pawn must leave h7 soon enough to allow the rest of play and still cannot arrive on h5.

In PG of Henryk and Joost also Ba3 is clearly not tempo move as it vacates bent line for queen. The alternative routes for queen mean different lines of play, so they cannot be used for tempo move proof (as I understand it).

Another scheme:
(= 1+3 )

1. Qd8 Ra1 2. Qa8 Qxa8

Is Qd8 a tempo move or not? 1. Qa1 Rxa1 2. Pass Qa8 would result in the same position.

QUOTE
In the article about the classification of "PGs of the future", we wanted to add "tempo move" as a theme. But we were unable to find a precise definition for tempo move. For example, is there a tempo move in the PG whose solution is 1.e3 h6 2.Qh5 Rh7 3.Qa5 h5 ? One might say yes because of h7-h6-h5, one might say no because black has no other option than playing h7-h6-h5 to allow Qd1 to go to a5 in two (non-capturing) moves.

I remember a proofgame (P1080653) by le Gleuher in which he tried to show 5 tempomoves by white pawns, but it was ruled that b2-b3-b4 wasn't tempo play because there was no 'pass' opportunity since the white bishop had to go through b4.

@ Juraj

Yes, the "pass" trick may help to detect a tempo move, but I'm not sure it is equivalent. Consider the PG's solution 1.h3 e6 2.h4. There is clearly a tempo move and the "pass" trick is satisfied (1.h4 e6 2.pass or 1.pass e6 2.h4). Now add a black capturing move 1.h3 e6 2.h4 Qxh4. The "pass" trick is also satisfied (1.h4 e6 2.pass Qxh4 or 1.pass e6 2.h4 Qxh4) but I'm no more sure there is a tempo move in this sequence. Indeed the "philosophy" of tempo move is that the only goal of such a move is to loose a tempo. When adding Qxh4, the goal of h2-h3-h4 is not only to loose a tempo, but to allow the capture of this unit.

Since 1.pass e6 2.h4 would enable the capture, 1.h3 is nothing else but a pure tempo move. You may say that without 1.h3 the capture would not be possible because the "pass move" is not legal. But that's exactly what a pure tempo move is. It has only one function - to satisfy the rule of alternate w/b play.