﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

3:41 UTC
 ISC 2020

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jan-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Moremovers Bo Lindgren, Probleemblad 1999 (#30)

### Bo Lindgren, Probleemblad 1999 (#30)

(= 11+13 )

Bo Lindgren
Mate in 30

Now that's what I call depth! Sadly the name of the composer gives away the solution...

1.Sc8+ 2.Sb6+ 3.c8R!! Sb1+ 4.Ka2 Qb3+ 5.Rxb3 cxb3+ 6.Kxa1 Bxb2+ 7.Kb1 c2+ 8.Sxc2 bxc2+ 9.Kxb2 c1Q+ 10.Kxc1 d2+ 11.Kc2 d1Q+ 12.Kxd1 e2+ 13.Kd2 e1Q+ 14.Kxe1 f2+ 15.Kf1! Bc4+! 16.Bxc4 Rh1+ 17.Kxf2 R1h2+ 18.Ke1 Re3+ 19.Kd1 Re1+ 20.Kxe1 Re2+ 23.Kb1 Rb2+ 24.Ka1 Rb1+ 25.Ka2 Ra1+ 26.Kb2 Rb1+ 27.Ka3 Ra1+ 28.Ba2 Rxa2+ 29.Kxa2 Ka6 30.Ra8 mate

Dual Minor: 26.Kb3

I would call this "romantic".

It takes only some seconds to solve this monster ... (with Gustav < 10 sec !!!). Not brute force, of course!

Hey, one has to look 26 moves ahead! That's depth!

Due to your definition, Siegfried, a 2# cannot be deep ?!

I don't know about twomovers. There can be a certain deep, I think (especially in such with choose keys).

variations x moves = field of tension

FoT is not equal to depth, though. The following position is six moves FoT. However, no depth nor difficulty here.
(= 3+1 )

Mate in 6
1.Se6 2.a4 -> 6.a8Q/R mate

I believe, a good deep moremover or study has a try and one logical solution. Also, a not-null-move win (i.e. zugzwang) greatly helps if it is short. Let's look at an example:
(= 3+3 )

F. Richter
Suomen Shakki 1953
White wins
Although it's only a few moves long, it's very difficult and the key is deep.
1.Kb7+!! Kh7 2.Qh2+ Kg8 3.Qa2+ Kh7 4.Qf7! Qg8! 5.Qh5 mate

Here's a deep threemover:
(= 12+7 )

Frank Healey
Bristol Tourney 1861, 1st prize
Mate in 3
1.Rh1!! Bd7 2.Qb1 Bb5 3.Qg1 mate

Today, one can argue about the depth, but at that time, it was very deep. It's only a half of the FoT of that "sixmover" above but has lots of more depth.

Here's another one:
(= 11+9 )

The Problemist 1981, 1st price
Mate in 3
1.Bb6!! with three queen sacrifices on the 2nd move

While one can argue about depth here, too, it has surprise. That's what I especially like on chess problems.

It is not my intention to fall here into the trap of trying to define "depth" in chess problems. All I wanted is to make a general remark about diagrams without solutions. I realize there are special cases where the omission of solution is needed, but generally I would expect a solution. Many of us are mainly composers or observers, not necessarily solvers.

Just my two cents "into the depth" in helpmates:

Frank Richter
harmonie 2006
2./3. Pr.
(= 7+9 )

h#17

1. Be8!! Bh2 2. Kg6 Bg1 ... 5. Kxd4 Bh2 6. Kc4 Bg1 7. Kxb4 Bh2 8. Ka3 Bg1 9. b4 Bh2 10. b3 Bg1 11. b2 Bh2 12. b1=S! Bg1 13. Sxd2 Kxd2 14. e1=Q+ Kxd3 15. Qxf2 Kc3 16. Qa2 Bxb6 17. Ba4 (that's why!) Bc5#
(Solution corrected)

While I really like the idea, what about pb6 in the mating position? (And 14...Kxd3, but that is minor nitpick.)

I think, it's 16...Bxb6 instead Bh2.
(PS: See Frank Richter below)

PPS: Good helpmate but sadly has the mistake all helpmates of that length have: Missing co-play

Yes, I corrected the solution in my post.

P.S.: Don't expect too much, Siegfried ...

Oh yes, it is now even better! Congratulations to such interesting long helpmate!

In new issue of Schach, Albin Pötzsch quotes a very interesting mate in 3 that in my opinion also is quite deep.

(= 9+7 )

H. Berkenbusch
Hannoverscher Kurier 1934
Mate in 3