﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

15:50 UTC
 ISC 2021

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jan-2021
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum RebNora recovered texts A "reversed" correction ?!

A "reversed" correction ?!

Evgeni
Posted: Sat Aug 06, 2005 9:30 pm Post subject: a "reversed" correction ?!

A new idea of a correction came to me and i am wondering if anything like that was done before , the idea in letter form :

type 1 :
1.X!
1...piece~ 2.piece~
1...piece! 2.piece!

type 2 :
1.X!
1...piece~ 2.piece!
1...piece! 2.piece~

example of type 2 which is harder :
(= 11+6 )
#2

1.Qa5!zz
1...B~ 2.Re6! #
1...B:c5! 2.R~ # (Re6?)

or type 1 :
(= 6+5 )

1.Ra3!
1...S~ 2.S~ # (Sg3?)
1...Sf4! 2.Sg3! #

combining both or making a reciprocal seems pretty much imposible...

misham
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:05 am Post subject: Duals?

Hi Evgeni,

I am very open for new ideas but it looks to me that all problems showing this theme would not satisfy some basic chess problem principles. It looks like theme requires dual by definition. I know that there are some other themes like this one. With an exception of the Fleck theme my opinion is that problems are incorrect if in solution there are multiple checkmates by white on the second move. Somehow it looks very rude. There are some themes requiring multiple threats in tries but if there is some paradox I can accept this. But it looks too much to me to accept dual in solution.

On the other hand there are plenty of problems that won a lot of prizes with mating permutations (ABC, BCD, etc.). In my opinion all problems of this kind are by definition incorrect and if I judged some of the tournaments problems that won prizes would be eliminated from competition because of major dual in solution. So you may find that some composers will like this pattern and try to compose problems showing this theme.

FrankRichter
Posted: Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:19 pm Post subject: Reciprocal change?

Hallo Evgeni,

it may be interesting to realize a reciprocal change in such a manner, that the "piece~" in reality can move only to exactly one field.
What are you thinking?

Evgeni
Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject:

Hello Frank

I thought about making reciprocal change but it looks nearly imposible without promoted force...I understand you were thinking about :

1...~ 2.~
1...! 2.!
-
1...~ 2.!
1...! 2.~

looks too hard in my opinion(in orthodox)

mivel
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:22 pm Post subject:

Interesting idea, I have not seen anything like this. However, worthless with dual mates! Consider the finesse in versions of your examples:

(= 8+5 )
Mate in 2
1.Rc3 (~), 1... S~ 2.Sh7# (= Sg5~!), 1... Sf5! 2.Se6# (also 1... S:g4 2.Q:g4#, 1... Kg3 2.S:e4#)

(= 11+4 )

Mate in 2
1.Sd3! (~), 1... B~ 2.Re4#, 1... B:c4! 2.Re2# (= Re~!) (1... K:c4 2.Qb4#, 1... S~ 2.Qc5#, 1... f4 2.Q:f4#)

Mates 2.Sh7 in first and 2.Re2 in second version are non-dualistic random moves, i.e. as if you pick the piece up in the air.

Evgeni
Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:47 pm Post subject:

It is funny that people do accualy care about duals even if the theme asks for it!
The mate of R~ is of course considered picking up the piece to the air so I find it unimportant if there are 1 mate or "duals" .

If the solution was written :
1.Sd3! (~), 1... pickup B! 2.Re4#, 1... B:c4! 2.pick up R!#
Would any1 notice?!

Reminds me this...

(= 2+1 )
#1

reddmann
Posted: Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:59 pm Post subject:

Evgeni wrote:
It is funny that people do accualy care about duals even if the theme asks for it!
The mate of R~ is of course considered picking up the piece to the air so I find it unimportant if there are 1 mate or "duals" .

If the solution was written :
1.Sd3! (~), 1... pickup B! 2.Re4#, 1... B:c4! 2.pick up R!#
Would any1 notice?!

Reminds me this...
(= 2+1 )
#1

Dualistic!