Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
17:07 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Hybrids (Study = Helpmate, Directmate = Selfmate, etc.) |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 | | (21) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 10:54]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-04-29] |
This one shows a great sense of humor we'd like to see more often.
However, I get to another question by this. What if there would be no bPf5? Would 1.g4 Kh5+ be legal? At the time black plays h5 isn't covered by Pg4 but when it is white to move it is. What's the rule on this? If I remember correctly, the FIDE rules say one may not set his own king into check. But what if the king isn't in check as long as it is his move and is when the opponent has the move? Since the king can not be captured and the move is fully legal to the rules it still looks illegal but is it?
One may not
* move into a check
* leave his king in check
But may one move in a manner that he's in check only when his right to move has expired?
I remember a similar problem when the play was still possible with only one set of pieces, e.g. in a position where black could capture and check and at the same time white could exchange a pawn on the eighth rank into the captured piece and check at the same time.
PS: I found a similar idea to yours, with en passant again, on Juraj Lörinc's website. I hope he doesn't mind if I reproduce it here.
http://members.tripod.com/~JurajLorinc/chess/madrep.htm#uloha5
 (= 6+6 )
Jan H. Verduin
7564 feenschach 130/1998
Madrasi
a) h#3
b) h=3
You can see the solution at the website mentioned above. Else you may solve it. ;)
(MV may add it into Mat Plus Review if he chooses to print this discussion, I hope)
| | | (22) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 16:34] |
In the joint problem with Peter, I understand the subtlety that you evocate, when the King cannot be captured as far as its move is not completed, due to the ep Madrasi paralysis being still "active". I must recognize that I did not think about that point. But I can imagine that Peter did! I'd not be surprised that he builds a new problem, based on this strange and ephemeral situation :-).
I did not know the nice problem of Jan H. Verduin, where a similar final position is also reached in both phases.
The origin of the joint problem with Peter is an heavy h=11 mixing this strange stalemate position (without the mate) and an excelsior + 2 BB promotions to self-block... :-(
Looking at it, Peter had the idea to mix the mate and stalemate in twins. As usual in our collaboration, Peter is the creator and engineer! I try to understand what's happening there, and eventually to find an amusing point that will allay the pain of solvers.
| | | (23) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 17:00] |
 (= 4+7 )
Helpmate in 1; 2 solutions (SH, Original)
Madrasi
1.e6! c3#
1.e5!! c3# [we'll concentrate on this one, the other is for constructional reasons only]
That'd be what I'm talking about. As long as white has the move, black is checkmated (the Pe5 is paralyzed at e6 by Pd5 and therefore can't move since it actually can't attack the king). However, with black to move, the right to take en passant is gone and he actually could take e5xd4, paralyzing c3. However, since the FIDE rules clearly say, a king can't be captured and sicne white has not made an illegal move since he wasn't in check himself as long as he had the move, black is checkmated. So the game ends immediately after checkmate when white still has the move. Even if it wouldn't be a king on d4, the game should end. There is no paragraph about a position that is checkmate where the checkmated player could end the checkmate with his next move.
What do you think?
| | | (24) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 18:38] |
This reasoning is obviously flawed. bPe5 is only temporarily paralyzed, and it will regain full power on its next move. Even if 1.e7-e5 is not check, white's next move must save the king anyway, and 1...c3 is illegal, because 2.exd4 is possible.
It's pretty much the same as mating with an illegal move under orthodox rules. It's always a matter of which side captures the king first.
| | | (25) Posted by Uri Avner [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 18:55]; edited by Uri Avner [07-04-29] |
By any move other than a King move (or ep capture), White would expose himself to an attack from Pe5. Therefore 1...c3 is illegal. This is my opinion.
| | | (26) Posted by Guy Sobrecases [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 19:06] |
Siegfried
That's a nice example. Is the second solution valid, due to ep/Madrasi?
One can compare it with this modest exercise, where a fairy condition also creates such situation.
After 1.Ra2?, the WK is not checked due to anticircé, but the mating move Rh8 is not legal, creating a self-check.
on your example, one can also consider that after 1.e5?, the WK is not checked due to Madrasi, but the mating move c3 is not legal, creating a self-check.
 (= 5+5 )
h‡1 (5+5)
Anticircé
1.Ra2? Rh8??
1.Rb1? Rh8+, but 2.Rh1!
1.Rx~??
1.f1=~?
1.f1=S! Rh8‡
| | | (27) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Sunday, Apr 29, 2007 19:07]; edited by Kostas Prentos [07-04-29] |
Either a king move or 1...dxe6 e.p., a rare case of non-mutual paralysis in madrasi, with normal pieces. With fairy pieces, it's possible to have this effect (e.g. with grasshoppers)
| | | (28) Posted by Geoff Foster [Friday, May 4, 2007 02:12]; edited by Geoff Foster [07-05-04] |
How about the following?
Original
 (= 2+2 )
(a) H#2
(b) H=2
(a) 1.Sc3+ Kc2 2.Sa2 Sb3
(b) 1.Sb4 Kd2 2.Sc2 Kxc2
Original
 (= 2+2 )
(a) H#2
(b) H=2
(a) 1.Sc3 Kb3 2.Sb1 Sc2
(b) 1.Kb1 Sxa2 2.Ka1 Sc3
If you like these I'll search for some more (and better) ones, or I can tell you how to do it yourself!
| | | (29) Posted by [Sunday, May 6, 2007 19:11] |
Michael McDowell notes that this form of problem was common in the 19th century,
and this prompts me to add that Charles Gilberg created a number of these.
They can be found in his collection 'Crumbs from the Chess-Board', in
the section on 'Fantasies and Four-Fold Mates'.
On top of the 'direct mate & selfmate', Gilberg added not only a duplex
(and so created a four-fold problem: 'Either party to play and mate,
or force selfmate, in N moves'), but also a symbolic or letter problem.
In one case he doubled also these: there is one pair of two four-fold
problems, one with the letters "18" and the other with "75". (And yes,
he repeated that also for 1876).
Here's his tribute to "LOYD":
 (= 11+9 )
Either party to play and mate, or force selfmate in two moves
I can't say if this type of composing exercise is more impressive
than difficult -- perhaps someone else can comment on that.
| | | (30) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 10:23]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-06-12] |
I composed something (most probably anticipated) funny about it.
 (= 5+6 )
SH, Original
a) White retracts a move and mates in one
b) White retracts a move and selfmates in one
PS: @Hauke (below) - You're right about this, I corrected it!
| | | (31) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 10:37] |
The stipulation is a bit ambiguously formulated, since
you could think it's the same move to retract for both
parts. Better a)-1,#1 b)-1,s#1.
Hauke
P.S. Kh2 Qf6 Ph3 Pg4/Kh5 Be4 Ne2 Ph4 or the like
should work too.
| | | (32) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jun 12, 2007 10:43]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-06-12] |
The bishop won't work since f3 must be occupied (you don't want a dual). If we use a black queen we get
 (= 4+4 )
How about this?
Oh, and I forgot to mention the other joke (and it's a big one)! Of course it is:
a) White retracts a move and mates in one
b) White retracts a move and selfmates in one
c) After the retraction of the white move in b - helpmate in one (white moves, black checkmates) but not with the solution of b
d) After the white move of c - mate in one (white moves again)
And it goes on endlessly!
e) In the position after d - White retracts a move and mates in one
f) In the position after d - White retracts a move and selfmates in one
g) After the retraction of the white move in f - helpmate in one (white moves, black checkmates) but not with the solution of f
h) After the white move of g - mate in one (white moves again)
ad infinitum
| | | (33) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Jun 13, 2007 10:22] |
QUOTE
How about this?
Yup, about one minute before I posted I still remembered that f3
must be blocked, but when I'm on a material killing spree... :-)
Hauke
| | | (34) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Tuesday, Jun 26, 2007 16:28] |
It came to me as a big surprise today to receive Problemaz. Abdelaziz Onkoud kindly sent it although my originals were published on the Problemaz website already (at least I found one of the both).
Well, let me show something I found there.
 (= 2+3 )
Karol Mlynka
Problemaz 1, April 2007, p.29, original 82
h#2
a) Anticirce
b) Anti-Andernach
c) Haan
d) Transmuting kings + Anticirce
| | | (35) Posted by Jan Hein Verduin [Thursday, Feb 28, 2008 20:11] |
Matti Myllyniemi
1st pr. O. Kaila JT
1967
 (= 8+10 )
a) #2
b) h#2
c) s#2
d) h=2
J.H. Verduin
(v) Probleemblad 1999
 (= 2+5 )
f3=joker
a) ser-h#8
b) ser-h=8
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net Forum General Hybrids (Study = Helpmate, Directmate = Selfmate, etc.) |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
