﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:08 UTC
 ISC 2020
 Headlines Forum* Fellows Members DL Archive Links

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jan-2020
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum General Vector theme

### Vector theme

You surely know the Loschinski Magnet - a white piece follows a black one.
Closely. It's obvious that you can't do this even twice in a 2# without
any kind of reinterpretation (see Wielands article in "idee und form").

So, here is my suggestion for a "Vector theme":
1.X fa/b/c... 2.FA/B/C... where the figures f and F (preferrably the same
type), originally standing on o and O, go to a and A,..., where their
distance vector o-O=a-A=b-B=... stays the same.

I know at least of a moremover by Brunner (or was it Krämer/Zepler) where
a wS always moved next to a bS, but not the exact problem or source.

Do you know any existing 2# falling under this definition?

(= 5+2 )

A primitive illustration: 1.a8Q (Don't fret about Rh8 - I SAID it's a
primitive illustration ;-)

Hauke

A less primitive illustration:

György Szomjas (Schiffert)
Új Nemzedék 1928
(= 5+2 )
#2

(set 1...Rh8+ 2.Qxh8#)
1.Qh1! zugzwang

Using name "Vector" can be visually descriptive, but unfortunate. I think this term was already repeatedly used for some mechanisms of carousel change. (At least I have understood as such some comments of judges in the past.)

Carousel change: combined change and transference of three mates after three defences in a symmetrical manner in three phases, one type of Z-32-33, aAbB-bCcA-cBaC.

Vector mechanism works as follows. There are 3 black lines (vectors?) pointed at white battery line. White in tries and key interferes with one vector, Black then removes second vector and white battery mate interferes with the third vector.

Like this: http://jurajlorinc.com/chess/ps_carou.htm#uloha6

@ Juraj: "Vector" wasn't, by no means, meant as an official theme name,
just as an illustrative one.
@ Admin: I was just too lazy :-)

Here, have another example (of how NOT to do it):

(= 5+3 )

(HR, Original) 1.Rb8! Bh3/Bg4 2.Bf5/Be6
Wieland rightfully complained that it would be nicer if the bishops
could be one empty field apart in the starting position (i.e. here only
a-A=b-B but =|= o-O).

Hauke

"What's our vector, Victor?"
What is Hauke hawking?

ps: I suspect your idea is to celebrate Loshinsky's would-be 100th birthday (in 2 weeks)!?

Roger and Oveur!

No, the celebration was already done by Wieland in the article
he mentioned. I merely played around with the possibilities of the theme.
But since you mention it, is there any big problem chess journal coming
out in 2 weeks and willing/able to quickly publish my final 2# result
(modulo anticipation check) plus dedication? Quite good, my problem, BTW.

Hauke
(who has nothing to do with a hawk, especially phonetically...but with a raven)

Stop idling and improve my bishop version :P
(Although I doubt 5 variants are possible)

(= 6+6 )

Hauke

(8) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Jan 23, 2013 13:24]

Ok, this birthday package took a bit long to deliver.
Impress me by doing 4 Q variants. (I did a hand full of
matrices with 3, see next February SCHWALBE. But 4 seem
to be elusive. I post this version here since the key
sucks, but "ornamental"-wise this version is top.
In any case, my version with 3 S variants - see next
Problem Forum - looks best to me. But knights are always
best :-)

(= 8+6 )

Hauke

I still owe you a knight example, and here it comes
(also unpublishable, the cook danger virtually forces some
bad key - feel free to improve {EDIT: Don't bother, I finally
managed it myself - it did cost me a record time of 1/2 hour
to outsmart the cook Qd4. Get mate change after S~ for free.})

(= 9+8 )

Hauke (still fighting with 4 variants)

I showed 6x2 King Vectors, using only three units -- and, with 7 echoes perfectly aligned to combat Orion Correlation Theory -- but all I got was this overly symmetrical tee shirt. :(

(= 1+2 )

h#2* 6.1...
Anticirce Equipollent + AntiKings

I hope you fare better.
I've since abandoned this theme, in a desperate effort to promote more mixed allumwandlungs. :-)

Record :-)

(= 9+9 )

Immobile kings
help-not-stalemate in 1
1024 solutions

I have here some Siamese Whatever-Riders on an aleph-zero board.
Where do you want them nailed at, Bigmouth Siggi? :-P

Hauke

(And now you know why I so rarely delve into fairy.
You can't boast properly when everything is so easy :-)

So, you are like my opposite, Hauke. I am quite frequently in the fairy land as an author, but I admire anyone working in the orthodox field and showing difficult ideas there. Already for some time my two favourite genres to study are orthodox #3 and #n.

Everything is so easy?
I made it appear easy.

I'm actually proud how "easy" my problem is (on the solver's eye) -- nobody should need care to read my solution (all is much easier seen).
Its simplicity is the beauty.

I challenge you to make an easier (read: more elemental) problem, expressing your vector theme.
If you can manage some secondary unifying analogy (like 7 exact chameleon echoes), so much the better.

ps: Any significant constellational interpretation (e.g., Three Kings, drawn into a VERY familiar line) would be a welcome addition, too.
Fairy chess offers us an opportunity (a stargate), to elegantly express a MUCH bigger picture.
I can certainly understand the reluctance, of some, to walk through -- but, don't try to blow it up.

The art of problem composition must seek to express a deeper meaning.
All it requires of us, is a sense of adventure.

“Art flourishes where there is a sense of adventure.”
-Alfred North Whitehead (British Mathematician and Philosopher, 1861-1947)

"Easy" was meant as a purely relative term: Any orthodox theme
probably can be easier constructed with \$FairyCondition.
(whatever it may be - it might be as "harmless" as a larger or
smaller board size: how many times I cursed about the lack of rank 9.)

It should not imply that your problem was "easy constructed"
relative to "scratch".

Hauke

In the technical sense, I experienced no struggle (whatsoever) to "construct" this idea.
But, there was definitely a creative struggle, to imagine a set of fairy elements which might unify an intended thematic expression.

You might say there was a considerable subconscious search for a highly economical constellational echo (a figurative idea, which I had been consciously struggling to make apparent, for some time), in concert with some unifying theme.
Very little of this confluent distillation is completely accidental -- even though I wasn't immediately able to fully appreciate my own result!

In orthodox composition -- which must be appreciated as a highly constrained, relatively technical environment -- the struggle is generally reversed.
But, orthodox composition once required a far more creative (less technical) process; so, fairies are actually necessary, not only to preserve this valuable aspect of construction, but also to enable continued thematic discovery -- both of which might otherwise vanish (by erosion).

It is very true what you say -- fairy elements definitely can be used to make construction easier.
Many times, I have watched a marching band of fairies stomp the field, only to perform a flute solo; and, all too often, they walk off to a drunken applause.
We really should be more reserved.
Unlike orthodox composition, where the instruments (and venue) are fixed, fairy composers should be expected to demonstrate something specific to their creatively selected set of instruments.

We might actually enjoy Aaron Copland's "Fanfare" performed on the kazoo (probably by association); but, even the causal listener should appreciate (in fact, insist!) that such a performance would fail to realize an invaluable aspect of his composition: the trumpet was specifically intended, to a triumphant effect.
At some point, excessive reliance upon fairy elements should be considered a perversion, serving only to mock the intended value.

I certainly welcome an honest critique of the fairy elements chosen -- definitely a legitimate criteria for your consideration!
But, I reject the false dismissal that all fairies are necessarily easier constructed.
That only happens to be true, in general, today, because careless fairy proponents often fail to adhere to a key admonition (unto whomsoever much choice is provided, of them shall be much selective care expected), and orthodox proponents often fail to appreciate the lost art of creative construction.

The process can be entirely different, but it deserves to be accordingly appreciated.

And another one: Parallel Bishops. This was hell to construct
(cf. Minski/Bruch in the already mentioned article i&f 117
for the rook equivalent). Merely added for completeness - let me
know if you find a less heinous setting.

Hauke

(= 11+8 )