MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

3:06 CET
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Rating lists
01-Jul-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum X-Files: Anticipations Loewenton & Rehm vs Vukcevich
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Jul 7, 2008 02:41]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [08-07-07]

Loewenton & Rehm vs Vukcevich


Which one was first? I don't know, maybe you do.
Léon Loewenton & Hans-Peter Rehm
(= 3+3 )

feenschach (16th theme tourney) 1960
h#2 duplex

source:
4842, Feenschach 398

reprints:
6880, Feenschach 572
584 p.129, Album FIDE 1959-61
IV2 p.233, HANS+PETER+REHM=SCHACH, H.P. Rehm 1994
f p.421, Die Schwalbe 111 (juin 88)
p.257 (texte), The Problemist (nov. 93)
Milan Vukcevich
(= 3+3 )

Bucarest - Belgrade 1960, 1st place
h#2 duplex

source unknown

reprints:
31 p.35, Chess by Milan, M. Vukcevich 1981
7.4 p.105, My Chess Compositions, M. Vukcevich 2003
SP10 p.87, StrateGems 6 (avr. 99)


And how does ChessBase get to its source (that also was used in Wikipedia)?
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=954


I wanted to use this in an article for another forum but due to doubts I can't now.
 
(Read Only)pid=2436
(2) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Jul 7, 2008 09:16]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [08-07-07]

 QUOTE 
Which one was first? I don't know, maybe you do.

As Vukcevich himself writes in My Chess Compositions, all three composers reached to the same position at about the same time, without knowing each other's problem. Loewenton and Rehm submitted individually the same diagram to Feenschach 16th TT (with capital F, feenschach is after 1971), while Vukcevich was finding the very same matrix simultaneously.

 QUOTE 
And how does ChessBase get to its source (that also was used in Wikipedia)?
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=954

This is a quote only, not the source.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2437
(3) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Monday, Jul 7, 2008 12:08]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [08-07-07]

So probably always both problems and all three composers should be mentioned?

For ChessBase, I meant the source
 QUOTE 
Milan Vukcevich, CHM avec 6 pieces Bad Pyrmont, 1996

when it in reality dates from 1960.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=2438
(4) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Monday, Jul 7, 2008 12:16]; edited by Harry Fougiaxis [08-07-07]

 QUOTE 
So probably always both problems and all three composers should be mentioned?

Yes, it is so.

 QUOTE 
For ChessBase, I meant the source of the statement that it was published as Milan Vukcevich, CHM avec 6 pieces Bad Pyrmont, 1996

As I wrote, this "source" is only a reprint. The book "CHM avec 6 pieces" is only a collection of helpmates with 6 pieces (I think by G. Lestriguel), which appeared in 1996. I think that "Bad Pyrmont" is an alias, or whatever, of Lestriguel.

Check also http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=PROBID='P0569178'
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2439
(5) Posted by Anders Thulin [Monday, Jul 7, 2008 13:18]; edited by Anders Thulin [08-07-07]

>So probably always both problems and all three composers should be mentioned?

Should? What *is* the need?

If you are writing about anticipations or coincidences, there is a need.

If you just want to show a problem, why cite all: one should be enough?

If you are writing about Vukcevic, why drag Loewenton & Rehm into the matter?
(And vice versa, of course.)

If you want to show the idea, again, why cite both diagrams? Cite the one that
has the priority according to Codex -- well, the concept of priority must be there
for some reason ...

If you are writing about priority, again there may be a need to cite all.

If you decide to cite all problems, do not take any shortcuts: the
reader must be able to decide what author(s) go with what version.
I've seen some weird cites of a similar anticipation from 1929
(Stocchi and Hermanson) where it sometimes seems as if it was a co-authored
problem. In this case, don't make it seem as if Loewenton and Rehm might
have been co-authors.

Each author has an undeniable right to be recognized as sole author of his
respective work.

If there is a clearcut priority, the owner of that priority has an equally
incontestable right to be recognized as such.

But a writer has an equal right to do what is right for the text in hand. If
you were writing about Vukcevich, Lowenton & Rehm have no claim on a place in
your text.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=2440

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum X-Files: Anticipations Loewenton & Rehm vs Vukcevich