|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 |
| (61) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Saturday, Oct 27, 2007 19:42] |
A votre service, Milan
|
|
| (62) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 11:30] |
There is a lot to be said about pb 4 of pastime today. But I have been asked to wait about 7 days...
|
|
| (63) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 00:52]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-10-31] |
Here's another constructional defect in pastime of October, 24th, #2
 (= 7+5 )
N. I. MAKSIMOV
5.pr Hampstead and Highgate Express 1902
Mate in 2
How can you find the key without even looking at variations? It is obvious that the only reason that Pf2 exists is to not let the black king go to e3. So the key must be a move with the queen leaving d4 and preparing a cross-check after Kd4+. Thus, the queen must cover c5 and the mating move must be 2.Sb5#. The only move that does this is 1.Qc2 (it took me 100 seconds to find this, not to look at variations). So if the composer wants to show anything here:
He failed in the main variation at all for the reason explained above. Pf2 is a constructional defect that makes no thinking about variations after 1.Qc2 necessary.
He could have succeeded in the tries (PS: If there are any tries, I don't know) by making multiple solutions instead.
What do you think? :-)
|
|
| (64) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 2, 2007 12:29] |
Well Siegfried... try a proposal...
|
|
| (65) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 2, 2007 12:31] |
The pb6 of today pastime has also some comments to be done...
we'll wait 7 days so...
|
|
| (66) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 03:20]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-11-04] |
may I suggest BPe3 instead of WPf2 ?
or perharps :
Nikolai Maximov
Hamstead and Highgate Express 1902
5th Pr.
(version)
 (= 8+5 )
2#
1.Qg3! [2.Sd2‡]
1…g×f3 2.Q×f3‡
1…Rf4/Re4 2.Se1‡
1…Ke4+ 2.Sd2‡
1…Kc3+ 2.S×d4‡
1…Ke3+ 2.Sd2‡
1.Sd2? [2.Qg3‡]
1…Rf4 2.Qe3‡
1…Kc3 2.Rb3‡
but 1…Re4!
1.Sf5? [2.Qe3‡]
1…Re4 2.Qd2‡
but 1…R×b4!
1.Sd5? [2.Qe3‡, 2.Qe2‡]
mais 1…R7×d5!
with added variation and some tries. (BPg4 is optional)
I am not so sure it's better
|
|
| (67) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Sunday, Nov 4, 2007 04:30] |
It's much better in my opinion. :-)
|
|
| (68) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 5, 2007 18:19] |
I immediately had the same idea (use a knight instead
of two pawns), and since it has two tries, this somehow
obfuscates the fact that the problem with the flight
that "has to be given" stays the same. ;-)
Better, but maybe a complete new construction would
be optimal.
Hauke
|
|
| (69) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 5, 2007 23:08]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-11-06] |
another way to build :
 (= 5+5 )
with a model mate
1.Qh7! [2.Se6‡]
1…Kf8+ 2.Se6‡
1…K×d7+ 2.S×e8‡
1…Kf7+ 2.Se6‡
1…Be4 2.d×e8=Q‡
1…Rh8/Rg8/Rf8 2.Sf5‡
1…Re×b8 2.Se6‡ model
|
|
| (70) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Nov 6, 2007 17:18] |
I *knew* it was possible :-)
(Which immediately provokes the obvious question - were
our ancestors such sloppy composers when it comes to
details? Or were they just happy to show an idea,
original thenadays, that they didn't care? After all,
this set-up isn't so hard to find that you would need
a computer to check if it's correct.)
Hauke
|
|
No more posts |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net  Forum Twomovers All for one, one for all! |
ISC 2024
