|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
| (21) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Sep 23, 2007 21:15] |
OK, so to keep the Barulin you may have this :
 (= 7+5 )
with 1.Qc8? Sg4 2.Bxg4#
|
|
| (22) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Monday, Sep 24, 2007 01:51] |
Being mostly busy with studies and over the board chess pastime is really an enjoyable way to keep in touch daily with the problem world. Some of those twomovers are really great.Mostly I am busy with it at the end of the day (02.00-03.00)so it happens that I sometimes write the key wrongly (especially when 2 pieces can come to the same square) or even worse: fall asleep!. But who cares? it's just fun and I hope Milan will never get tired of it. Would it be an idea to add from time to time selfmates and helpmates in 2 moves?
|
|
| (23) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Sep 24, 2007 02:05] |
It'd be too much for me then. Maybe once per week 3 or 6 s# or h# is ok but not more.
|
|
| (24) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Sep 24, 2007 11:49] |
Since Nxg3 is a check, you probably still need a bit of
fine-tuning, Jacques :-) But it's indeed a worthy and
natural addition.
Hauke
|
|
| (25) Posted by David Knezevic [Monday, Sep 24, 2007 13:53] |
I think that when something is perfect it should be left that way!
The position by Leites is perfect: two pairs of thematic variations (Novotny + rear guard removal) with two changed mates and changed theme is more than enough for a Meredith, while the only technical piece, BSf1, can check with spontaneous additional change, adding just enough salt for a tasteful soup. Too much spice can only spoil the stew.
|
|
| (26) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Sep 24, 2007 17:54]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-09-24] |
Well, Milan,
If look carefully, I don't add anything, no spice, no salt.
All is here already. The only point in the Leites is that after 1.Qc8 Rg7 you have a dual mate 2.Sg5 or 2.Sxg7.
All I 'add' is that now, there no more dual, and at very low cost.
The building is all the same natural and open.
I am quite proud of this version
(You can notice also that, in pastime, a good solver failed and gave 1.Qc8 for key. That means, that though the refutation is a check, it can as well be forgotten!)
|
|
| (27) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Oct 5, 2007 11:55] |
The wrong solution in today's Test of the Day (Oct 5th, Test #146, problem 5) has been corrected.
For those who already passed the test (Miodrag, Georgy, Frank, Branislav)
here is another test question:
Can you guess where the mysterious key "Be5d6" came from? :)
Hint: compare with problem 6
|
|
| (28) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Oct 5, 2007 12:39] |
It is the twin.
|
|
| (29) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Friday, Nov 9, 2007 07:16] |
Today I though that I solved poorly with 800+ seconds... However then I saw Jacque's time 19,000+ seconds and I thought 800+ is not so bad :)!
Milan is there some bug in software or Jacque somehow kept session open for several hours?
|
|
| (30) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Nov 9, 2007 08:10]; edited by Frank Richter [07-11-09] |
Another mysterious number is the "Total time" in the "Overall table". It is not really important, but the given data cannot be correct.
By the way, yesterday I found No. 3 not really practical because of the duals in the solution (I didn't found ...).
P.S.: My last try in pastime solving today was really too optimistic.
|
|
| (31) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Nov 9, 2007 09:21]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-11-09] |
QUOTE
Another mysterious number is the "Total time" in the "Overall table". It is not really important, but the given data cannot be correct.
It's a known bug. The hours, minutes, seconds are correct, but the days are not shown. So please add 24x hours (where x can be any number). :-)
|
|
| (32) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Nov 9, 2007 11:36] |
QUOTE
The hours, minutes, seconds are correct, but the days are not shown. So please add 24x hours (where x can be any number
Forget it! The 24-hour truncation bug is fixed now (at last!).
|
|
| (33) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Nov 9, 2007 11:46] |
QUOTE
However then I saw Jacque's time 19,000+ seconds...
This must be some error, but I cannot imagine the reason. Jacques, do you have any idea? Something similar also happened to/with Jacques in August (test #87, >21000 seconds).
|
|
| (34) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 9, 2007 12:47] |
I think that all is ok, though I did not check the detail of the seconds.
The point is as follow : I am used to solve when I am very very tired.
In August I felt asleep in front of my computer, and yesterday I simply went to bed forgetting that it was during a solving time !
|
|
| (35) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Jan 6, 2008 19:50] |
Ok, my performance is very bad today (i.e., pastime of 12/31/2007). However, I'm awake for 21 hours now as an excuse for no.4 - however, I may have made the other mistakes anyway.
On 12/27 my Qd3 was no typo, I really thought it to be the solution (overlooking that Pg5 can be taken). Something like this often happens and my performance is very low in the last time. Maybe I should train more...
|
|
| (36) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Jan 31, 2008 22:02]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [08-01-31] |
I'm retiring from pastime. It's a very good thing, but I'm just a too lazy person. :-)
When I feel like solving, I'll do the diagrams that come up at the pastime entrance screen. Or I'll start solving in a monthly magazine.
MiVel, many thanks for the beautiful tests!
|
|
| (37) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Apr 28, 2008 13:49] |
On pastime 346 (April, 22nd) M. Radomirovic reached 117% (7 from 6)!!
How can this happen? I'd like to get such percentage too ...
|
|
| (38) Posted by Administrator [Monday, Apr 28, 2008 16:21] |
QUOTE
How can this happen? I'd like to get such percentage too ...
Instead of answer:
QUOTE
Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology:
"There's always one more bug ..."
|
|
No more posts |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net  Forum Feedback by Members pastime |
ISC 2024
