Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
12:54 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Dombrovskis paradox |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 | | (41) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Oct 8, 2010 21:13] |
@Marjan
I have become a fan of your problems,and now your writing style. That was a nice explanation of the story of AD58 and its thematic content. Actually in post 21, the shutoff of black lines was mentioned. Having read that, I still assumed that the anticipatory shut off was the means to show the main paradox. It does appear that AD might have thought as your describe. Thanks.
| | | (42) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Saturday, Oct 9, 2010 00:53]; edited by Marjan Kovačević [10-10-09] |
Jacques and Jean-Marc,
My two consecutive mistakes in commenting point 9), (as summarized by Jacques in his post 35), turned discussion in the unintended direction.
While writing the Post 36, I completely forgot that point 9) and the F-R theme concerns the tries mentioned by Jean-Marc (1.Re3+? 1.Be3?) that didn’t belong to the author’s solution. So, my comment was wrongly directed to the author’s tries (1.Bc1? 1.Sg3?). Otherwise, I would put point 9) together 1), 4), 6) and 7), in the group of comments that “describe only some elements and features of the whole combination that I see as the main theme”.
My next mistake was not to explain my first mistake. Instead, I added new arguments against point 9), the arguments that may have turned this into an endless off-topic debate. Sorry again Jean-Marc! However, this unintended discussion about the F-R theme brought a subtle point of our mutual agreement: you used the term “F-R paradox” instead of “F-R theme”, and this is exactly what I would use for the AD58 case.
The other parts of your comment make the discussion that I hoped for: what is logical, what paradoxical, what attracts us more... I would very much like to turn to these questions later.
For now, let me just clear again my intentions. My personal experience while “composing” AD58 illustrates (I hope) how the same combination could be achieved from very different starting points. I don’t know how AD came to his position, while I only wanted to present the double anticipatory interference in a clear and attractive way, without the Dombrovskis pattern on my mind.
The question I asked in the Post 20, was also aimed to open my favorite topic: different ways to perceive chess composition. I perceive some themes as more “substantial”, while others appear to me as the “forms” of the content. Perhaps each theme presents a form of the content, but some thematic forms are really too “dry”, with no charm, surprise, or difficulty in achieving them.
This is, for instance, how Hannelius, or “pseudo Le Grand” forms appear to me when compared with the Dombrovskis form. From my point of view, the Hannelius pattern is only a way to make refutations thematic and organized. Pseudo Le Grand: small links to make the threats and mates of two phases thematic and organized. If we would play a poker game with themes in problem chess, a pair of self-blocks would possibly beat the Hannelius + pseudo Le Grand together.
In the Logical school, similar differences could be felt. There are some perfectly organized long moremovers that I find dry and boring. The charm usually comes from the other details, not from the themes themselves.
In the same way, even the paradoxical forms, as the Dombrovskis ones, do not guarantee the perception of a paradox. If the paradox is guaranteed, where is the surprise?
| | | (43) Posted by Kevin Begley [Saturday, Oct 9, 2010 11:43] |
@Marjan,
I'd like to second something already said: I'm a long time fan of your problems, and fast becoming a fan of your story telling!
Fascinating discussion from others, too... and plenty of rich analysis!
| | | (44) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Oct 10, 2010 04:23] |
Well Marjan,
Thank you for these beautiful answers.
Mainly I'd like to underline this :
"...The shocking discoveries were... 3) My perception of this (and not only this) #2 radically changed."
not often one is aware of the discoveries he does ! And not often he accepts to radically change his vues !
Your posts are so rich, I don't know what to begin with... I think I'll react later.
In the meanwhile, one more detail about the key of the AD58 :
It gives two flights, but not only, it prepares also the mates on these flights!
In the diagram, if you imagine the bK to go to d2 or e2, there is no prepared mate on it (as shown by the tries 1.Re3+? 1.Be3?).
This is a upper quality of flight giving key !
| | | (45) Posted by Jean-Marc Loustau [Tuesday, Oct 12, 2010 16:54] |
Marjan, I think you should be thanked, not only for your clever and interesting answers (with which I agree for the most part), but also to have asked this riddle: "what is the hidden theme?"
This has brought me a lot: of course I already knew AD58, but probably I did not study it enough because I had not discovered before the other 2 paradoxical themes (or paradoxes) that today I feel to be quite important (Franco-Russian and still unnamed paradox, see above 9) and 7) = 12)) and a few other interesting features (correction by the knight, etc.).
I think the outcome of this exercise may interest all the problemists and would deserve a short synthesis in MPR (“the review of a classic”) because we get a new or unusual lighting of one of the most famous chess problems!
Moreover, I think it might be instructive, at times, to repeat this kind of exercises ("What is the hidden theme") with other famous “classics”... Of course if there is a hidden theme to find, what could be not so “unusual”! The results could very well exceed expectations!
| | | (46) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Thursday, Oct 14, 2010 12:08]; edited by Marjan Kovačević [10-10-14] |
It's a great joy to see more of us found this subject interesting. Thank you!
After the Crete Congress I intend to go back to this question, and to open a couple of new ones.
| | | (47) Posted by Peter Gvozdjak [Thursday, Oct 14, 2010 15:54] |
nice to hear such talks about the composition!
what about to organize a workshop on this topic in marianka next year?
who is going to be a chairman there?
MK, JML, JR or somebody else?
| | | (48) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Nov 12, 2010 14:31]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [10-11-14] |
There are still some interesting points about the AD58 that may be underlined.
Marjan and Geoff shew that the closing of the black lines by the key are pre-interferences, and not interferences. This is a very important "detail".
I would say not specially for itself, but more in relationship with the closing of the white lines by the key that are interferences, and not pre-interferences !
How does it work ?
The key has 4 effects that are balanced this with that : the negative effects of the key (closing of two w-lines) are compensated by the positive effects {closing of b-lines) one by one.
But...
The negative effects are evident - direct closing of w-lines
The positive effects are hidden - pre-interferences.
You can see what you pay immediatly, and the benefit is understood only later!
The same feature is well shown here :
Marjan Kovacevic
Problem Forum 2008
1st Prize
 (= 12+11 )
2#
1…Qb3 2.Se6‡
1.Sa5? [2.Se6‡]
1…Qb3 2.Re3‡
1…Sf4 2.Qe3‡
but 1…B×f5!
1.Se3? [2.Se6‡]
1…Qb3 2.Re6‡
1…B×f5 2.S×f5‡
but 1…Sf4!
1.Sd2! [2.Se6‡]
1…Qb3 2.Re4‡
1…B×f5 2.Sf3‡
1…Sf4 2.e3‡
1…Qc4 2.Q×c4‡
The closing of c1-e3 is compensated by the pre-closing of c2-h2 !
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
MatPlus.Net Forum General Dombrovskis paradox |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
