MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

11:49 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  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

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade taking a poll: in a directmate twomover....
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 00:42]

taking a poll: in a directmate twomover....


1.what types of black moves do solvers look at (are drawn to) in the set play position (i.e. diagram)?

2.of these, which types are solvers MORE drawn to? in other word, how would you weigh them?
 
(Read Only)pid=9460
(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 01:30]

The algorithm people use would adapt so quickly to circumstances, that a precise expression seems difficult.

I'm generally a very slow solver (I suffer from wrongly equating comprehension to having made every possible mistake that the position allows), but for the purpose of your poll, it's difficult to resist the temptation to answer with some silly algorithmic hierarchy.

e.g.,

1) I could already mate in 1, with 1.U-A# (directly) except enemy unit g captures U on A.
a) consider withdrawals of unit g away from A.
b) consider moves which self-pin unit g.
c) consider interference of unit g's line to A.
etc...

But, the real truth is, I don't follow this, because I tend to presume that the solution is something spectacular, and withdrawals of a unit are uninteresting.
I probably look first for a paradoxical theme -- so even in setplay, I'm probably looking for selfpins, interferences, unpins, etc.

I think I can definitely say, the last thing I look for are opportunities to mate by Pelle moves!
 
(Read Only)pid=9461
(3) Posted by Georgy Evseev [Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 09:16]; edited by Georgy Evseev [13-01-06]

Generally, the solver does not look for any set play.

In fact, I generally do two checks.

1. Are there any random non-changing black moves in abundance? (if yes, then I should look for an "independent" threat).

2. If not, then is something prepared for all or almost all black moves? (if yes, then check for typical White-to-play and so on...)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9476
(4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Jan 6, 2013 19:15]

<scratches head> Can't say in general, but I'm a pattern-solver,
and usually I see "strong" moves for Black (ripping the mate-net) fast.
I can only say that if such a move is a thematic parry, anything else
not attempting to counter it is given a Beta-cut, and there go
half of the intended v's and with it the letter-themes. :P
(Herbert Ahues said -vaguely translated- that a try that doesn't try
is no try. Truer words never have been spoken.)

&S
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9478
(5) Posted by Vlaicu Crisan [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 01:21]

@1. As [retired] solver, I was looking first for bK flights, then for flight giving moves and finally for other strong black moves (such as checks, captures and unpins).
@2. As a composer the question does indeed make sense, but not for solver.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9481
(6) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Monday, Jan 7, 2013 02:19]; edited by Ian Shanahan [13-01-07]

I'm with Michael Lipton, who once wrote: "Let the solver LOOK!". Anyway, nowadays many problem outlets signal set- and/or try-play with the appropriate symbols, so to some extent Eugene's initial question is anachronistic. Surely, if a solver finds the try- and actual play, they will then search through the set-play to discover its relationship (if any) to these other phases?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9482
(7) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Jan 10, 2013 03:28]

@Ian,

While I very much like Michael Lipton's expression ("Let the solver LOOK!"), my intended usage must certainly be contrary to Michael's intent (e.g., I imagine pleading this, after my solving time has expired). :-)

Can you please help me better understand the intended meaning of this expression?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9531
(8) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, Jan 10, 2013 05:11]

I read this in one of Michael's articles years ago. He was (rightly) berating lazy and/or ignorant solvers who failed to find a good problem's full content - set- and try-phase(s), as well as the actual play. Quite simply, his view is that any solver worth the name SHOULD ferret out such play, even if it's not immediately obvious. I agree! But this is no excuse for composers to ignore clarity.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9532

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum Promenade taking a poll: in a directmate twomover....