﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

18:15 UTC
 ISC 2020

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jan-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Helpmates My best problem

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

### My best problem

In the late eighties, I composed some helpmates.
This was the best. It got first prize in a thematic tournament in Brazil. I hope you enjoy it.

Marcos Roland
1st prize - UBP thematic tournament
1988

(= 5+4 )

h#2
b)a1=h8

Although solutions between twins are not connected I do like this problem. Both solutions are very nice and it's very pleasant problem for solving.

Why not connected? They seem very connected to me. A slight regret is the same B2, other than that, a nice problem.

It suggests this:

(= 5+4 )

Helpmate in 2 b) a1 = a8

QUOTE
It suggests this...

Interesting, Michael, but that's different problem from almost the same material. And totally different theme: no anticipatory slefpins at all.

There is the way to show both lines from one position:
(= 5+4 )
h#2 2111
1.Rhd3 Sf4+ 2.Ke4 f3#

However, there is a certain charm in twinning by rotation and I would not dare to claim that the 2-solution form is an improvement in this case. Besides, I would prefer the BK on a battery line.

Yes, I missed solution in a). I did not put problem on the board so originaly I thought that solution is 1.Ra2 Sb7 2.Rg4 fxg4#. Of course this is not solution because c4 is not guarded by any piece. Actually solutions are very connected and it's an excelent problem. Sorry about my mistake.

Well done,you are very quick composers. As for me, I have to come back to my memories...Replacing the white pawn by a rook, there's also this possibility:

Marcos Roland
The Problemist 1992
(= 5+3 )

h#2
2.1.1.1

QUOTE
There is a way to show both lines from one position. However, there is a certain charm in twinning by rotation and I would not dare to claim that the 2-solution form is an improvement in this case.

You're too modest. The 2-solution form is superior and shows more clearly that White should be careful in selecting his first move (Sc3+?, f3?) not to guard the square that the bK aims to. Of course, this feature also appears in the original setting, but it is packed in the first solution (neither 1.Rad4 f4+? 2.Ke5?? Sc4, nor 1.Rhd4 Sc4? 2.Ke5?? f4 works in part A), which gives a slightly unbalanced impression. In my opinion, your version has better unity.

QUOTE
Besides, I would prefer the BK on a battery line.

You have a point here indeed...

Very nice problem, Marcos! I enjoyed solving it, and both solutions are very beautiful!

Bonsoir à tous ,
Je viens de découvrir cet article suite à la réplique du 13 mai postée par Ivan Antonov et quelle coïncidence!! Il y a à peine 24 heures . J'ai envoyé le problème suivant pour publication:

A- Pour Springaren 2009

(= 6+3 )

Aidé 2 coups
2.1.1.1

1.Thé5 (Taé5?) Cf1+ 2.Rf4 Tf8‡

Comment j'ai abouti à cette position ?

J'ai bien aimé l'idée travaillée par le tandem Roumain V.Crisan & E.Huber Réference :"INTERNET COMPOSING TOURNEY "SUBOTICA 2009"
GROUP B: HELPMATE THREEMOVERS".

J'essaye encore de trouver une position correcte avec un Cavalier Blanc en e6 . Je suppose que le Tandem Roumain a essayé cette piste. Dans ma recherche , la position A est venue toute seule.

4th Com: No. 67 – Vlaicu Crisan and Eric Huber, Romania.

(= 9+5 )

Aidé 3 coups
b)Cb7->e8

a)1.Td5 Cç5 2.R×é3 Td8 3.Rd4 Ca4‡
b)1.Ff6 Cg7 2.R×g4 Fd8 3.Rg5 Cf5‡

I wonder why you write the "other" rook moves in parentheses:

QUOTE

1.Thé5 (Taé5?) Cf1+ 2.Rf4 Tf8‡

Such parenthesised moves are normally used to highlight dual avoidance, which this problem doesn't show.

BTW: http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/search.pdb?expression=PROBID%3D%27P0547990%27+OR+PROBID%3D%27P0538725%27
are very close and have one solution with dual avoidance (the rook must not unblock).

@ Thomas

I don't quite agree, Thomas.

These parenthesided moves show that there is a natural choice, and then it may be natural to quote them.

The problems you show does not seem to me to show dual avoidance. But it is one more clear predecessor.

The problem of Abdelazziz would be better, I think, with the WB on c7 and not on b8.

What is odder, although my French is spotty at best, as that this looks like it has not yet been published in Springaren yet? Or did I misread that?

I sent this problem to christer Sun. 24/05/09 00:51. I got to inform Christer about the last devellopements...

I thought I probably had misread something. Those informing the editor of latest developments always hurt, I had to do the same thing recently on a problem of mine that turned out to be anticipated. Really hard....

I feel bad for you, hopefully something good will come of it.

Hello, everybody!
Regarding to my 1988 problem, I forgot to mention that the thematic requirement in that tournament was (I hope my English could be understandable): "in a h#2, a twin is generated by a 180º rotation of the board (a1=h8)".

@Abdelaziz: If you post an unpublished problem here, it counts as a publication. So by posting it here, you invalidated it as an original for Springaren.

I don't think so Joost

Joost is very likely correct.

But, if it was first sent to the Springaren editor (as it appears), can a case be made that Springaren is the original publication?
Or is this rule here really so clear?

In all honesty, I don't understand why a composer should not be allowed to opt out of an accidental publication (especially prior to judgement -- this is clearly not the same as someone who allows a problem to be judged in several publications).

If the rule is so clear, I wonder what happens in the following scenarios:

scenario 1:
Suppose you publish a problem in Springaren, then publish an improved version here, before this version appears in Springaren.
I know that the source doesn't change in improved problems, but how should Sprinaren's judge treat the problem?
Now, suppose that another improvement is made, which is sent only to Springaren.
Should Springaren's editor refuse the problem?
If accepted, how should Sprinaren's judge treat this problem?

scenario 2:
Suppose that an editor is given an original for publication, then, upon entering the Mat Plus chatroom, discovers a conversation where the composer of this problem has shown it to some friends (prior to its publication).
The chatroom is quasi-public -- even if you are aware who is in this chatroom, several tells linger (which can be seen by anyone).
Should the editor refuse to publish on the basis of anticipation?

Wouldn't it be easier to allow composers to withdraw a problem from an accidental publication (if done prior to any judgement), and allow it to be published/judged wherever they had intended?
Otherwise, this rule is particularly cruel for new composers (I know this instance does not involve a rookie, but nevertheless, he clearly was not aware of this rule).

Furthermore, the rule is particularly unkind to anyone who accidentally uploads a problem to a problem database (which is fast becoming an exceptionally easy mistake to make, and very difficult to undo!).

Anyway, in this case, it may not be so bad...
Mat Plus does reserve the right to publish problems that are posted to this forum.
Thus, perhaps the Mat Plus helpmate editor will agree to publish this in the next issue (where it might be judged)!?

As for the problem iteslf -- if there really is no outright anticipation -- very nice!

It is not by ignorance. By broadcasting problem here, it was the only manner of reporting a matrix which I have just discovered in the columns of this Forum. It is difficult to me to reveal this problem after its publication to Springaren. It would be dishonest in my part.

When they compose a problem, they are made to go around magazines and forums to know if our idea is original. In my case, I discover records 24 hours after the dispatch of this problem.

I shall also have been able to search anticipations via WinChloe but me did not make it unfortunately. I sent all previous debate in Christer. And it is it to make the decision which will be obvious.

Abdelaziz