MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

8:02 UTC
ISC 2020
 
  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-Apr-2020

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General experiences with Problemkiste
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Mar 8, 2011 22:46]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-03-08]

experiences with Problemkiste


If a single entity frequently anticipates your own ideas, naturally, you'd want to credit them for getting there first.
Unless better versions were consistently realized, with little effort -- in which case, the routine may become a major disturbance.

I find myself frequently encountering "lesser" anticipations, from a single journal.
It happens so frequently, in fact, that I finally decided to share a few of my experiences with others (who will probably relate).

It is not my intent, here, to throw stones at a particular problem journal.
The glass house I inhabit has more than its share of regrettable publications -- and, the future is almost certain to deliver more.
After all, what would chess problems be, if they did not provide us all with lifelong lessons in the art of patience?
On the other hand, without a few stones in the air, a fundamentally unreliable architecture (quantity > quality) is slow to improve.


Wilfred Seehofer
Problemkiste, 1999
(= 3+1 )

ser.h#21 PWC

2.Kxh3(Sg2) 4.Kxg3(g4) 5.Kxg2(Sg3) 9.Kxg4(g5) 10.Kxg3(Sg4) 14.Kxg5(g6) 20.Kxg6(g7) 21.Kh7 g8=Q#


With a little time, and without computer assistance (until completion), I found the following thematic extension:

Wilfred Seehofer
Problemkiste, 1999
(version #1, 2011)
(= 3+1 )

ser.h#31 PWC

2.Kh1 3.Kxg2(Sh1) 4.Kxf1(g2) 5.Kg1 6.Kxh1(Sg1) 8.Kg3 9.Kxg2(g3) 10.Kxg1(Sg2) 13.Rg4 14.Kxg3(g4) *

With computer assistance, I found a way to extend this further (though it is not entirely thematic):

Wilfred Seehofer
Problemkiste, 1999
(version #2, 2011)
(= 3+1 )

ser.h#36 PWC

7.Kh1 8.Kxg1(h1) 9.Kxf1(Sg1) 10.Kg2 11.Kxh1(g2) 13.Kg3 14.Kxg2(g3) 15.Kxg1(Sg2) 18.Kg4 19.Kxg3(g4) *

* arriving at move 4 in the original problem.


Here's another example, which I had overlooked, when entering the French Xmas TT:

Erich Bartel
Problemkiste, 2003
(= 1+1+2N )

h#3 1.1.1... Isardam

1.Kg8 b8=nQ+ 2.nQe5+ d8=nQ+ 3.nQh8+ Kf7#

Unaware of this problem, I used the same idea to rapidly create a completely shameless (though highly economical) fairy babson.
Suffice it to say, it was smartly left out of the award.
But, a reduction of my problem does show that Erich could have considerably improved the above problem (at the mere cost of a pawn):

Kevin Begley (after Erich Bartel)
Mat Plus Forum, 2011
(= 1+2+2N )

h#3 2.1.1... Isardam

i) 1.f1=nQ! Ke7 2.nQa1 c8=nQ+! 3.nQh8 Kf7#
ii) 1.f1=nR! nRf7 2.nRd7+ c8=nR! 3.Kh8 Kc7#
Changed promotions.
 
(Read Only)pid=6752
(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Mar 10, 2011 18:52]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [11-03-10]

Any problem with additional thematic variation or phase cannot be considered anticipated by a problem using a similar scheme but with lesser thematic variations. There are many famous precedents for this. The pioneer problem by J.E.Driver showing nine black intereferences (in a direct mate twomover) was substantially the same of a previous problem with only eight intereferences. But 9 is NINE. So it was correctly awarded a First Prize.

In my view your problem is original in view of the additional phase and should have been considered for the award (assuming of course it was better than any of the other problems in that award.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=6758
(3) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Mar 12, 2011 03:41]; edited by Kevin Begley [11-03-12]

@seetharaman: I appreciate your reply...

>"Any problem with additional thematic variation or phase cannot be considered anticipated by a problem using a similar scheme but with lesser thematic variations. There are many famous precedents for this."

Of course, this is true for orthodox problems...
In fairies, this logic may be strained -- especially if several fairy elements are employed, exactly matching the predecessor.
I don't pretend to specialize in these matters; I try to get by on the golden rule.

>"In my view your problem is original in view of the additional phase and should have been considered for the award (assuming of course it was better than any of the other problems in that award."

For starters, I have no reason to believe that my problem was not considered.
Sorry, I should have made this clear in my original post.
And, I did not submit the problem as it appears above -- I have removed some alternative promotions (it was a fairy-Babson).
To be precise, it was a highly economical fairy-Babson, but also highly cheesy (it had no real hope to appear in the award).

I immediately realized that the two-phase rendering was better, but this T.T. required something much more ambitious.
When I discovered the predecessor problem (afterward), I realized that "After Erich Bartel" was appropriate.
I don't believe it would have been necessary to note Erich's predecessor, if I had If I had kept the Babson-form.

The real point of my post was to share that this has become a familiar experience for me, with Problemkiste.
I suspect it might be a common experience, with others, too.
It is disturbing when rapidly composed ideas frequently result in the discovery of lesser (premature?) anticipations.
And, quite often, I would not even care to publish the improved version!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=6762

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General experiences with Problemkiste