Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
2:48 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Twomovers All for one, one for all! |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (21) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Sep 18, 2007 12:02] |
Some themes are "naturally" better shown with mutiple solutions
exemples : Change of play, or change of mate : if you cannot find a good refutation it may be better to show it in multiples. At least it avoids the criticism of "artificial tries".
Sometimes the authors added heavy material to add a poor refutation. That may be a pity.
| | | (22) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Tuesday, Sep 18, 2007 15:26]; edited by Zalmen Kornin [07-09-18] |
A distracted reader of this forum can be soon arrive to the conclusion that a #2 SHALL be shown with 2 or more solutions, otherwise the author is surelly a dino... Well, I concede that there're instances when this can be valid (mainly when You wish that the solver dont' miss some subtle differencing - even by laziness of searching a try or a set-play). There're also a risk that in the 'great world' (of the healthy chess playing folks that will appreciate to solve some *puzzle* while they wait for the next round in an weekend open) the proposed master piece will be considered a shaky affair...) Another point is that in many instances a good try refutation can play an important rôle in the core of a problem - Imagine to hear Beethoven's Eroica without the 'Marcia Funebre'
Not to be completelly off the topic here - I'm still comparing the musketeer Athos (number 1) with the existing examples, and finding it a very important composition
PS - EDIT - Just a little example - in the following #2 - the two candidate moves 1.Bc7 or 1.Bb6 could be two solutions, as a change (and moreover Pseudo-LeGrand) is seen after thematical 1... exd4 - the providential Rook from 'a4' (the 'heavy added material' !?) provides a nice try refutation and an added mate during the real play
Z. Kornin
"Tidskrift för Schack" 1998
First HM
 (= 9+11 )
#2 v
EDIT ps2 - of course i had a more economical rendering (in this instance earlier) - it was sent to N. Stolev in Macedonia for some contest, but never had news about
Z. Kornin (around 1998)
Original (?!)
 (= 9+8 )
#2 v
Not good that the wQ is under-employed, but try refutation has it's own charm...
| | | (23) Posted by Frank Richter [Thursday, Sep 20, 2007 09:13] |
Concerning the album question I scrolled yesterday through some older albums and found in every section problems with very different ratings (f.i. 1995/97 E240: 4 + 2.5 + 1). So looking at Milan's problems it is possible that we will see one or two of them in the annex with 7 or 7.5 points. Such things happen ...
Concerning the multi-solution problems I have the following opinion:
Many years ago a chess problem was really a puzzle for solving. In this case it was necessary to have tries with good refutations and a well-hidden solution (only one to enjoy the solvers). Today the modern twomover (most of them) is built not for solving, but for showing a multi-phase play. Here the "puzzle aspect" has lost its importance completely. Far from it, it is possible that a solver after finding the solution stops the review and fails to recognize the whole content.
This can be avoided using a multi-solution stipulation.
So I think, it is not fair to say that one solution is a "cook" (this remains me another very unlucky point of view in the selfmate genre ...). Of course I also prefer the classic form, but I suggest to tolerate the "multi-solution" position too.
| | | (24) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Sep 22, 2007 11:16] |
Paz, I think you meant flight taking key (not flight giving). Of course that flight giving key is preferable. However I cannot accept flight taking key. I think it does have to do something with my chess problem teachers while I was learning chess problems. My late father was strictly against flight taking key. Also, Milan is one of my teachers and as you already saw he does have the same opinion. I know that Marjan does not like flight taking key neither. Somehow it looks to me like cheating. It’s like someone does not obey some basic rules and looks for some shortcuts to achieve some ideas.
Also, I do not like multiple solutions in twomover. I do like more to see tries plus solution. I may accept multiple solutions if there was no other way to show something and problem is showing some theme for the first time. But if there is an easy way to convert additional solutions to tries that’s the way to go.
| | | (25) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Sep 23, 2007 09:09]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-09-23] |
Miodrag,
I think that everybody, almost, will agree with that a flight taking key is a defect.
However what is surprising, a bit, is the wording you use "...I cannot accept...". This seems to me too much.
Almost all problems have defects. Generally, defects are appreciated in balance with the whole.
example :
Marcin Banaszek, Bogusz Piliczewski
Bournemouth 1989, 2nd Prize
 (= 10+6 )
2#
1…K×h5 2.Qf3‡
1.B×f6? Re5! ; 1.Bf4? Re4! ; 1.Bé3? Be4! ; 1.Bd2? Be5!
1.Bç1! [2.Rh4‡]
1…Re5, Re4, Be4, Be5 2.S×f6‡, Qf5‡, Se3‡, Qd1‡
I like this problem very much (2 Novotny Dawson with 4 self-blocks of the white Bishop, with long range withdrawal key)
To my taste, the mate set on the flight, has no special value.
Even, I think the authors would add a fifth (non-thematic) self-block, which forbids this mate :
 (= 9+8 )
which adds 1.B×h6? R×g7!
| | | (26) Posted by Paz Einat [Sunday, Sep 23, 2007 23:47]; edited by Paz Einat [07-09-23] |
Yes, indeed flight taking.
My meaning was that we can be aware of the roots behind our dislike of "bad" keys or multiple solutions. Part of this probably stems from the history of Chess Problems which were more of a puzzle in its origin. Another part is the root of many composers as chess player. And indeed, our teachers have to do with this as well. I can continue here into the field of aesthetics in philosophy, as the subject certainly is within its scope, but I better skip this...
My view is similar to that of Jacque, the content should be carefully considered and we should not dismiss certain problems due to such shortcomings. Once we are aware of the roots of our preferences we can suppress them to some extent (if warranted) in light of specific achievements.
| | | (27) Posted by Yochanan Afek [Monday, Sep 24, 2007 03:22] |
Paz, Apropos flight taking: I take a flight on Wednesday with the hope to meet you all next Tuesday.
| | | (28) Posted by Paz Einat [Wednesday, Sep 26, 2007 00:14] |
Yochanan, this flight taking move is absolutly acceptable by me. I'll be glad to see you.
| | | (29) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Sep 26, 2007 20:07] |
It's too expensive for me, sadly, but maybe I can come to Antwerpen (Anvers, Antwerp) in October. I surely will come to the Schwalbe meeting in Forchheim in October.
Now on-topic again please! :-)
I agree that multiple solution may be acceptable sometimes (in tasks only?) but generally should not be. It's more often than not like falling back into the pre-nineteenth century era.
| | | (30) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, Sep 27, 2007 11:06] |
I once sent off a h# without twin or multiple solutions.
All solvers protested that the h# editor accepted it at all.
Expletive deleted if I knew the moral ;-)
HAuke
| | | (31) Posted by David Knezevic [Thursday, Sep 27, 2007 16:56] |
I got the information by Udo Degener which explains the elimination of my prevously selected entry. Here is the anticipation:
Horacio L. Musante
Tijdschrift van den K.N.S.B. VII-VIII/1952
 (= 11+14 )
#2*
*1... Sf4,gf3,Sd6,Sf6; 1.Qxf5
The positions are identical except for the guard of the squares left to the BK. Now I wonder how come this problem wasn't selected for FIDE Album; Horacio Musante probably submitted it since there are several works of his in it (and I am sure that he wouldn't miss to submit this one!). Perhaps it was too early for such kind of problem in 1950's since it didn't get any reward, but in 1960's when the Album was printed the value of it must have been recognized.
As far as I am concerned, my position came too late, but I didn't have any chance since Musante composed his problem about the time when I was born. Well, this is not the first and probably not the last time I repeated the older problem but I am not too disappointed. I adore this kind of twomovers and I'll keep on searching within that field regardless the danger of anticipations. That's the only way to find something that the old masters have missed.
| | | (32) Posted by Branislav Djurašević [Thursday, Oct 4, 2007 00:13]; edited by Branislav Djurašević [07-10-05] |
After reading this story by Milan I can say only one thing, let us officially support (at the following PCCC Meeting in Greece as high priority) the forming of new, or supporting existing chess problem databases with financial support by all members (federations or individuals) , through sponsorships, donations, subscriptions, voluntary inputs etc., so that such cases of anticipation will never happen again. We deserve this comprehensive database now (preferably through our organization) and also this is our debt to all previous generations. Chess players possess it for a long time – so chess as game is growing up so rapidly. Let’s do the similar!
P.S.
My idea is, if it is possible, that such database should be organized by the PCCC organization itself (because of the acute problem of anticipation, FIDE Albums points, collections, etc.) and not only that it will be a matter of personal will or commercial reasons by anybody whoever that is: Christian, Milan, Udo, etc. One of financial source could be the fee by every problemists whose problem comes into the FIDE Album, like in chess, where players pay for international title, or something similar (only if my assumption is right that all problemists want their problems to be published in such database(possibly/obligatory opened in Internet)).
| | | (33) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 00:37] |
in pastime october 3, pb6, there was the following nice diagram :
Francisco Salazar, Probleemblad 1976
 (= 8+6 )
2#
1.Rb4? [2.Qf6‡]
1…Q×e4 2.Sg2‡
1…B×e4 2.Sd3‡
mais 1…Bd4!
1.Rb7! [2.Rf7‡]
1…Q×e4 2.Q×h6‡
1…B×e4 2.Qc1‡
1…Qh5,Qh4 2.Sg2‡
1…Bb3 2.Sd3‡
it is another good example of the point of multiple solutions : here the refutation of the try is very poor.
A better rendering would be :
 (= 8+5 )
2# 2 solutions
1.Rb4! [2.Qf6‡]
1…Q×e4 2.Sg2‡
1…B×e4 2.Sd3‡
1…Qh5,Qh4 2.Sg2‡
1.Rb7! [2.Rf7‡]
1…Q×e4 2.Q×h6‡
1…B×e4 2.Qc1‡
1…Qh5,Qh4 2.Sg2‡
1…Bb3 2.Sd3‡
don't you agree ?
| | | (34) Posted by Administrator [Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 01:54] |
QUOTE
Jacques: don't you agree ?
This is a good question for a pilot version of poll application. Note that this is not a cross-browser version and can run only on browsers which allow AJAX (i.e. IE5 and later, Mozilla/5 based browsers like Firefox, probably Safari... feedback by members who use other browsers is welcome).
| | | (35) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 03:32]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-10-07] |
????
could you translate please Milan ?
In any case, what I mean is that I hope opinions, arguments, not a poll.
I don't care polls, for that, sorry.
If you want, I can write for matplus a small article to demonstrate the points I can see in favor of multiple solutions.
| | | (36) Posted by Vladimir Tyapkin [Sunday, Oct 7, 2007 05:58]; edited by Vladimir Tyapkin [07-10-07] |
Jacques, I'd like to hear your and other people arguments on this subject. I am serious. Please, open a new topic and start a discussion. If it proves to be interesting, Milan will include it in Best Bytes.
The purpose of this poll is two-folded. One, is for people like myself, who have an opinion on the subject but too lazy to lay down arguments. Another, to get an overall picture of the whole MatPlus community.
| | | (37) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Oct 8, 2007 10:50] |
As it always goes with polls, multiple choice doesn't allow
fuzzy logic :-) (I voted for "Otherwise Impossible", but that should
be read to encompass "otherwise impossible in a decent artistic form".)
P.S. Jacques' example is not *that* convincing to me, I've seen far
worse tries than Rb4 and parades than Bb4.)
Hauke
| | | (38) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Oct 8, 2007 15:44] |
I agree with you Hauke,
there are many examples even more evident, I chose this one, by the way, because it was on pastime.
| | | (39) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Oct 8, 2007 18:39] |
QUOTE
Question:
What do you think about whether and/or when multiple solutions in orthodox direct-mate problems are accetable?
None of the possibilities fits what I'd like to say: When it has artistical value.
Let me show an example (from Martin Hoffmann's "Variationen"). When I reduced it to two solutions MH rejected it as improvement.
 (= 9+4 )
Martin Hoffmann, "Variationen über zwei dreizügige Mattführungen mit dem Turm" (booklet), 2nd edition 2001
Mate in 3
3 solutions
| | | (40) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 9, 2007 08:19]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-10-09] |
another example of flight taking key :
Camil Seneca
France - Espagne
1936 12th place
 (= 5+2 )
2#
1…Kb1 2.Bd3‡
1.Rb8! [2.h8=Q‡]
1…B×h7 2.Bd3‡
1…Bb7 2.Bg2‡
{1.Rc8? blocus
1…Bc6 2.Bg2‡
1…B×h1/Bf3 2.Rc1‡
1…Bb1 2.h8=Q‡
1…B×h7/Bg6/Bf5 2.Bd3‡
mais 1…Bc2!}
to my taste : a wonderful problem
Barthelemy theme, big star of the Bishop, long range withdrawal defenses. All that in miniature form, something unique!
| |
Read more... | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum Twomovers All for one, one for all! |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
