|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
| (1) Posted by Marcos Roland [Friday, Jul 28, 2023 08:49] |
Bristol theme revisited
The famous Healey's problem still enchants me, and today I was paying attention to its construction. Easily I managed to get this substantially more economical version:
 (= 11+7 )
#3
|
|
| (2) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Saturday, Jul 29, 2023 23:23] |
Very good. Thanks Marcos.
|
|
| (3) Posted by Arno Tungler [Sunday, Jul 30, 2023 13:20] |
In the decades since the publication 160 years ago there have been many such revisits of that famous problem. See an even more economic version and the arguably best version that was recently corrected by Agapov.
Heinrich Friedrich Ludwig Meyer
The Adelaide Observer 1883
 (= 7+5 )
#3
1.Rg8! Zugzwang Ba4 2.Qg2 (3.Qd2#) Bc2 3.Qg7#
1...d5 2.Rc8; 1...Bd1 2.Kxd1
While it is missing the pure motive of Healey's problem it still gives a good choice in the key with tries like 1.Rg1? d5! and 1.Rg5? Ba4!
Nikolay Zhabrov
Shakhmaty v SSSR 1957
Moscow Tourney Special Prize (v 2013 by Igor Agapov)
 (= 10+5 )
#3
1.Rh1! - zz b6 2.Ra1!
1...Bd8! 2.Qa1! (1...Bc7 2.Bxc7)
with the added second move to the edge and the try 1.Ra1? (2.Rxa5+) Bd8!
|
|
| (4) Posted by Marcos Roland [Monday, Jul 31, 2023 12:05] |
Thank you, Arno. I liked both problems, specially the second. They are sophisticated improvements of an old problem. My version is rather obvious, it took me me little time to come up with it, and what I wonder is why the author preferred the heavier set.
|
|
| (5) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Monday, Jul 31, 2023 19:55] |
The problems quoted by Arno are excellent, of course, but what should we do when a pupil asks you : "What is the origin of the Bristol theme ?" Now I can answer with "F. Healey, M. Roland version" !
While we're on the subject, I'd like to share with you a concern that's been bothering me for decades. I never cease to see problemists, sometimes among the best, adopting a false approach by describing as "Bristol" problems that are not Bristol at all, in which the evacuating piece (which must no longer be used) plays a role at the end.
As if none of these prestigious problemists had read Milan Vukčević's definitive explanation dating from 1994 : "The thematic purity of purpose in a Bristol means that the only purpose of the move by the forward piece is to clear the line for the piece that follows it. The forward piece is not supposed to guard squares around the black king and its opening move is not intended to change anything else in the position but the freedom of the other Bristol piece".
|
|
| (6) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 03:29] |
Alain,
Milan Vukčević came to mind before you even went there.
But, didn't Milan pen a later article which cast some suspicions on his prior article (which you referenced)?
I seem to recall reading that he came to the conclusion, after a prolonged period insisting on purity of aim, that opportunities for great problems were being missed by those (himself included) who insisted upon purity.
Purity matters (he never recanted that, nor should he), but I do believe Milan purged any dogmatism from his prior position.
A pure motivation is not obligatory, but purity is an aspect which merits our appreciation.
The real beauty of theme is most pronounced when the clearance has no secondary motivation, but there is value to be found in this theme even when the clearance has secondary motivations.
PS: Lovely problems highlighting a lovely theme.
|
|
| (7) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 10:12] |
@Alain&Kevin,
I know that "purity" issue all too well, too. (And agree.)
May I infer that a Bristol is by definition uneconomically on material,
to be economically on aim? ;-)
Incoming rantbait :-): What about a Bristol as "Auswahlkombination"?
I.e., you have the choice to play Rh1 or Rg1, both with the idea to
use the rook elsewhere, but Rg1 is one too short in the Qg1 variant.
Thus the Bristol would be pure of aim *relatively* AND economical?!
|
|
| (8) Posted by Marcos Roland [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 15:41] |
Speaking of "purity of aim", I wonder if this was the reason for which Healey didn't put the WK on h7, like this:
 (= 12+7 )
#3
Now there's another variation and another reason for the move 1.Rh1: 1...Bd7 2.Nxd7+ (2.Qb1? Bf5+) Kxd5 3.Th5#.
Of course, we lose purity, but the same answer to 1...Bd7 and 1...Be8 is not a strong point of the original problem.
|
|
| (9) Posted by Marcos Roland [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 16:33] |
Thank you, Alain, for your kind words!
|
|
| (10) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 17:52] |
I deeply believe Healey wanted a white piece exactly on h2, to make the key looking even more unexpected.
Why he wanted wB on a1,instead of wKa1+wPh2? Maybe to turn attention of solvers to the left side??
Fashions and criteria radically change, we need a time-machine to catch the spirit of his time.
|
|
| (11) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 20:21] |
Marcos : you're welcome !
Kevin : your "before you even went there" made me laugh. If I am not wrong, you were 14 when I read "Chess by Milan". Good luck, my son !
|
|
| (12) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 20:30] |
Marjan : I'm working to create the "time-machine" since many decades, but I am afraid I'll need some more time.
|
|
| (13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 21:22] |
I am working on a time machine, so I can go back to age 13, and read "Chess by Milan."
Stay tuned for my amazing retort, Alain. :)
|
|
| (14) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Tuesday, Aug 1, 2023 23:19] |
Milan Vukcevich's comment (1994): "The details of the construction, in particular the useless Rf3 and the plug on a1, were chosen by the author to make the solvers suffer and to heighten the shock value of the solution".
|
|
| (15) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Monday, Aug 7, 2023 00:49] |
. Milan Vukcevich's definitive article on this matter is "The Beauty of Bristol" - which originally appeared (if memory serves) in his namesake's Milan Velimirovic magazine, MatPlus, around the turn of the century (somewhere MRV says (or nearly so) that his first impure Bristol appeared in 1982 ( therefore after the first apparition of 'Chess by Milan'...) Well, the examples (and texts) of the article are so striking, that one will be tempted to quote several passages... 'Bristol Revisited' Ok, when clicking on this thread I remembered this passage here: "It is not possible to guess how many completely new forms of Bristols exist in moremovers. The whole area is poorly explored jungle, full of animals of unknown size, all descendants of a simple two-move cell." It was this reading that inspired my own 'revisit' a few years ago here LINK
https://www.yacpdb.org/#404959 They are indeed (say) siamese twins, but not identical (unheard-of fact?!), linked by the checking key... While one shows a conduction that leads to a blend of clearances - fireworks!?) - (which I don't would know exactly how to translate into words at this moment - are they Bristols?! - Are they pure ?!) in the final three moves - - - the other 'twin' (variation) fires a (say) 'instant' Bristol that leads to a conduction and the physical and active sacrifice of the other Rook in the fifth move (there are, therefore, two sacs: the Bristol itself being also (so to say ) a form of sacrifice...
|
|
| (16) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Monday, Aug 7, 2023 00:53] |
To revisit THE Bristol, the venerable classic... well, very daring. But speaking FRANK-ly (pun intented) the real question to ask Mr HEALEY, the point anyway, is not on those superfluous pieces (so criticized since 1861...) BUT about the placement of yet another piece... so the first of the 'Bristolian Sketches' is this one :
(i):
 (= 12+7 )
#3
|
|
| (17) Posted by Zalmen Kornin [Monday, Aug 7, 2023 00:58] |
(i): Having the front piece of a Bristol free, and not physically hindered (like the Pd2 do to the Rd1 ), so that it doesn't move in the wrong direction, values the composition - therefore 1.Rc1-c2 in i/ is a nice attempt.
A notion that is well rooted is the optimization of effects. In a Bristol, the extension of the trajectory of the thematic pieces is a topic of interest...
(ii):
 (= 11+9 )
#3
...It's possible to put the Rook on b1 (and win, moreover, the additional effect of moving a very well placed Rook to a remote cul-de-sac ... - but then you can't have the Knight on b6, but you shall have that prosaic blocked Pawn there... (So the Rook of f3 needs to drop out and enter (Aha, @Marcos ;-)) a Bishop there...) - Now the thematic Rook is right at the vertex, at the intersection of thematic lines...
(iii):  (= 13+11 )
#3 (b) After the key of (a)
Healey meets Turton and Loyd (no time machine needed, just a transatlantic sailing clipper...)
|
|
| (18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Aug 7, 2023 18:27] |
Erich Brunner
Solving Tournament
Geneva 1926
 (= 7+9 )
3#
1.Ra2! [2.Se6+ K×d5/Kb5 3.Qh1/Qb8,Qe8‡]
1…Bc6,Bd7 2.Qb2 [3.Qb6‡] Rb5,Bb5/c3 3.Qf2/Qb4‡
Erich Brunner
Die Welt 1953
 (= 10+11 )
4#
1.Ra1! blocus
1…g6 2.Rh1 h×g3 3.Qb1 S~/Rb5 4.Qb4/Qg1‡
2…h3 3.Rb1 [4.Qf2‡] Sb4 4.Q×b4‡
1…h×g3 2.Qb1 g6 3.Ra2 S~/Rb5 4.Qb4/Qg1‡
an ealier version of this one was published in 1911 :
Erich Brunner Deutsches Wochenschach 1911
Dedicated to E. Delpy
White : Ka8 Qb2 Re1 Pa7e5h5e4a3c3g3g2
Black : Kc5 Ra5 Na6 Pc7h7c6g5a4c4f4g4
4#
1.Ra1! etc
|
|
| (19) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Monday, Aug 7, 2023 20:22] |
Zalmen: In your last version (iii) there is neither Bristol, nor Loyd's clearancе, nor Turton doubling, just tempo moves.
Loyd's clearancе is easy to get from the original version or from Marcos version, for example:
(= 11+7 )
#3 b) Ka1->h1
In b) - Loyd's clearance.
(corrected)
|
|
| (20) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Monday, Aug 7, 2023 20:28] |
You mean Ka1 in h1? Amusing !
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Bristol theme revisited |
ISC 2024
