﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

19:48 UTC
 ISC 2020

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jan-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum General Problems for comparison

### Problems for comparison

A question for the two-move experts:

Is Thomson's problem entitled to a separate existence or simply anticipated?

T.Taverner
1st Prize Yenowine News 1888

(= 10+6 )

Mate in 2

1.Rh4 ()
1...Sc4 2.Kg4
1...c5 2.Kf2
1...d6 2.Kg3
1...dxe6 2.Ke2
1...f5 2.Qe5
1...Bb4 2.Sxb4
1...Bc3 2.Sxc3
1...Bxd2 2.Qxd2
1...S else 2.c4

P.C.Thomson
BCPS Ty. No.58 1946

(= 10+6 )

Mate in 2

1.Bg7 ()

1...Bxb4 2.Sg4
1...Bb3 2.Sf7
1...Bc2 2.Sg6
1...Sd2 2.Sd7
1...Bd1 2.Sxd1

I realise the Thomson is reminiscent of a famous problem by Norman Macleod, but I like it for its simplicity and elegance. It has less by-play but better black economy than the Taverner.

QUOTE
Is Thomson's problem entitled to a separate existence or simply anticipated?

Not anticipated.

The different kind of front piece is enough difference for me, particularly because the king is such a special piece.

I also prefer Thomson's key, which changes a mate, and that Thomson's problem has less by-play. OTOH, the white queen plays as a bishop in Thomson's problem; it would be nice to have a (yes, by-play) variation with 2.Qc4#.

In my opinion not anticipated. I agre with Thomas.

not anticipated. different mates. exist excelent article (in russian) about originality - you can find it in the book http://problem64.beda.cz/silo/tschepischnyi_kompozicija_1977_1982.djvu

In my opinion the main merit of Thomson's problem is the dual avoidance which determines the wS moves to d7,f7,g6 & g4 but not to c4 or d3. Indeed both problems can live happily side by side.

Hm, as I understand the dual avoidance term, I do not see any in Thomson's problem. No black defence has any dual avoidance motivation, it is purely enabling motivation by blocking. The moves to c4 and d3 are excluded without any contribution of Black, simply by closing too many white lines right from the beginning. Compare that e.g. to canonical
http://jurajlorinc.tripod.com/chess/spesol_1.htm#uloha3
There both knight defences to e2 seemingly enable mates on both d3 and e3, but additional motif of opening other black lines (dual avoidance motif) disable one mate each.

Not anticipated enough to disqualify it if I ever would have had
to judge it in an informal, but I would have mentioned
its predecessor in the report :-)

Hauke

Thomson is anticipated by
Rudolf Büchner, Sports and Radio, 25.11. 1933, Lob
1. Kf5!
(= 11+8 )

You have also :

W.A. Shinkman
Bahn Frei 1897

(= 10+8 )

1.Qa2!

A. Mari
La Scacchista 1920

(= 10+8 )

1.Qb1!

H. Reddmann
Die Schwalbe 1997

(= 11+11 )

1.Bg7!
with only the 4 thematic variations

So if we get it together:

Mari is anticipated by Shinkman
Reddmann and Thomson are anticipated by Büchner

Shinkman, Bahn frei, 1897
= dual after 1...Sg6

...and some more

E. Palkoska, Revue des Echecs, 1903
(= 10+8 )

1. Td1 (cook 1. Sd2, dual after 1...Sc7,Sf6 - no cook, but dual with Bf3-g4,Rd5-d1 - 1. Bf3!)

A. Ellerman, Good Companion Folder, XI/1916
(= 9+8 )

1. Tf8! (dual after 1...Sg2)

F. Metzenauer, Die Schwalbe, V/1935
(= 12+9 )

1. a7!

L. Apro, Western Morning News, 18.1. 1936
(= 11+10 )

1. a7!

and G. Mirri, idee&form, 1989 = same position like Thomson
and so on ...