﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

16:08 UTC
 ISC 2021

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Apr-2021
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum General Threats and duals (spawnoff thread)

### Threats and duals (spawnoff thread)

Take a problem with secondary threat correction (or what
the name is, I'm not sure it is what I think it is :-)
or even better a secondary Fleck (here I know definitely :-)

1.A (2.B) c~ 2.D,E,F

Would you see a move c' that just parries D as a worse dual
than the same thing in a free primary Fleck?
My, are you illogical then :-)

1.A (2.B) c~ 2.D

Would you see a move c' that is so idiotic that it introduces
a new mate E in addition to D as a dual? A move x that doesn't
parry B and introduces a new mate F isn't seen as a dual
after all (at least nowadays). My, are you even more illogical :P))

Hauke

(2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 17, 2012 03:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-05-17]

You bring up a very interesting point.
Threat notation doesn't hold for Fleck Themed problems.
And, therefore, the definition of duals has to be altered.

So, what new notation is required, and what constitutes a dual within this new framework?

Furthermore, shouldn't the proper notation be stipulated, in the problem?

@Hauke.

On the subject of Fleck theme, is it OK (or even desirable!) in an otherwise perfectly accurate ideal/total primary or secondary Fleck example to have a single move that actualizes all the threats - i.e. 1....c 2.A,B,C,... #? I think this actually improves thematic clarity, particularly for secondary Flecks. Moreover, in offshoot themes like Combinative Separation, such a 'null move' is demanded!

@Kevin - and since there is no such thing as a pass move in chess,
does it follow that there are no such things as threats? :-)

Hauke

(Note: Today is "Fathers Day" in Germany, meaning that countless
rednecks run around bombed, blitzed, stuffed to the gills etc.
[use Garbage "The boys wanna fight" for more synonyms if needed]
I'm a teetotaler and want to point out this posting was made
with 0.00 promille - in case anyone thought otherwise :-)

@Hauke,

It really does not logically follow, from a lack of free-move, that threats are not part of problems (or the game).
Imagining the free move is only a method, which is used to determine the threat.

Naaaah, total unserious :-)
But still, threats are a fictional device to simplify our thoughts,
and as it is with devices, it just takes one inventive
trickster to make them run amuck:

H. Reddmann, Schach-Report #4480
(= 10+8 )

#2 a) Dia b) Sd4->e6

Just ponder whether Black "prefers" to be mated with his knight on d4 or e6.
Of course, it makes no difference for him - only threat and mate after correction
are swapped in a) and b), to the effect they get almost equivalent.

Hauke