Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
18:04 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General When is a problem that has both fairy and retro elements... |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Tuesday, Mar 18, 2014 18:09] | When is a problem that has both fairy and retro elements...
considered a
1.fairy?
2.retro?
I know this may open a can of worms, but I'd like some guidelines if some can offer.
| | | (2) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Tuesday, Mar 18, 2014 18:23]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [14-03-18] |
Few minutes ago I published one original of this kind in KoBulChess. Here is the link:
http://kobulchess.com/en/problems/chess-originals-2014/511-alberto-armeni-adrian-storisteanu-fairy.html
You can see also: http://kobulchess.com/en/problems/chess-originals-2014/460-alberto-armeni-fairy.html
Well - I noted these problems as a Fairies because in the website is not Retro section, but probably they should be in group: Fairy Retro
| | | (3) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Tuesday, Mar 18, 2014 23:04] |
Ever since retros started having a separate section in FIDE albums, all problems with both fairy and retro content were judged in the retro section. Maybe if the retro content is too schematic and the forward play takes priority, then we may find such problems as orthodox directmates, helpmates or fairies, etc.
Most magazines with separate informal retro tourneys follow this rule of thumb: Fairy retros are judged as retros. A notable exception is the Problemist, where fairy retros (e.g., anti-circe Proca retractors) participate in the fairy section. My opinion is that the retro part takes priority, the same way a fairy stipulation (e.g., h=n) takes priority over the otherwise orthodox elements of a problem.
| | | (4) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Mar 19, 2014 20:21] |
Hm... Not sure. The Problemist, January 2014 issue has a Circe helpretractor in the Retro section. Of course there is a Proca rectractor in the Fairy section !
| | | (5) Posted by Thomas Brand [Wednesday, Mar 19, 2014 21:20] |
I agree with Kostas, and my argument is as follows:
Orthodox retros differ from all other orthodox types of problems (#2, #n, h#, s#, endgame studies) by general thinking; roughly speaking: While all the other types deal with "future play" to fulfil the stipulation (Which moves *must I play* to achieve, say, mate in three) Retros deal with "past play" (Which moves *had to be played* to reach the given position?).
If we switch to fairy chess (i.e. modifying the general rules of chess, comparable with modifying a set of axioms in mathematics) this different general thinking does not change, the essential idea ("what to play" versus "what had happened") keeps unchanged.
From this point of view a "fairy retro" with, say, Madrasi condition is much more related with any "orthodox retro" then with any "forward" Madrasi problem. By the way, this does not argue against dividing "large" (whatever this means) retro tourneys into orthodox and fairy sub-sections -- like dividing them into "proof games" and "resolution" and "defencive retractors" etc.
The division of fairy retros to the "Retros" ant the "Fairies" section in The Problemist seems not very evident and consistent for me: In Jan 2014, p.298 you read: "... Fairy Retros with simple conditions are included, and more complex Fairy conditions appear in the Fairies column." But in the March 2014 issue you find a Pacific Retractor with R#1 forward stipulation (requiring reflex condition to be respected during the complete retro play) and a #2 Alsatian Circe in the Retros section, while a Single Combat Proof Game (only 'legal' moves and positions according to the orthodox rules of chess are possible with Single Combat) appeared in the Fairies section. For me it were more coherent with the cited rule of thumb if the sections were switched?!
| | | (6) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Mar 19, 2014 21:43]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [14-03-19] |
Schwalbe also handles them as retros. Even though I still think defense retractors are an own genre. :-)
| | | (7) Posted by Joost de Heer [Thursday, Mar 20, 2014 11:57] |
QUOTE
Ever since retros started having a separate section in FIDE albums, all problems with both fairy and retro content were judged in the retro section.
Not 100% true: G50 in Fide album 1989-1991 is in the fairy section with an ep key.
| | | (8) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Mar 21, 2014 02:18] |
Problems likes G50 (and many more, I am sure) have minimal retro content, just enough to support an e.p. capture or losing the right to castle, etc. Their main interest is in the forward play. Something like this was what I had in mind when I wrote the next sentence: "Maybe if the retro content is too schematic and the forward play takes priority, then we may find such problems as orthodox directmates, helpmates or fairies, etc."
To have an idea about G50 from the 1989-1991 FIDE album, here is the diagram and the solution:
Zdravko Maslar & bernd ellinghoven
dedicated to P. Kniest
feenschach 1990 (= 4+3 )
h#4* Circe
set play: 1…Kf2+ 2.Kf5 Bf3 3.gxf3(+wBf1) Kxf3(+bPf7) 4.f6 Bh3#
1.gxf3(+wPf2)+ Kf1 2.g5 Ke1 3.g4 Bxf3(+bPf7)+ 4.Kxf3(+wBf1) Bg2#
| | | (9) Posted by Arno Tungler [Friday, Mar 21, 2014 03:06] |
Seems that consequent seriesmovers are on the edge - G28 is in the fairy section in Album 2001-2003, H1 and H2 in the Retro section 1998-2000 (there are probably more such problems in the albums). That is understandable as on the one hand "the retro content is minimal" - just one move in all the series is connected with it, on the other hand that is the most important factor for the whole manoeuver... For me it's not really important how to classify - it is a chess problem and hopefully an enjoyable!
| | | (10) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Friday, Mar 21, 2014 04:34] |
but now we're on the topic, when it comes time to potentially submit for FIDE Album, how does one know which section to submit to?
| | | (11) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Mar 21, 2014 22:43] |
Eugene, if the retro part is strong, I would follow the rule of thumb. If the forward play is strong, and the retro part just minimal, send it to the respective section. If neither part is strong enough, I would not bother to submit it, at all.
Arno, I would treat consequent problems as retros, because their main interest lies in the retro part. Of course, it is up to each composer to decide where to send their problems. I do not believe there is a rule that forbids the composers to submit such trans-gender problems in one or another sub-section.
| | | (12) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Mar 23, 2014 01:02] |
The only small point I don't agree with Kostas is about consequent problems, as far as I know, in most of them the retro play is very light.
| | | (13) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Sunday, Mar 23, 2014 05:19] |
very sound advice Kostas-thanks a bunch-I was thinking along these lines, but there is nothing like a forum to hear it from others!
| | | (14) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Mar 24, 2014 16:03]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-03-24] |
Q: Fairy, Retro, or Fairy-Retro?
A: Do not burden yourselves with understanding the fundamental elements of problem chess, young apprentices; just know where to submit your petitions (in triplicate) toward your title of "Master."
Hahaha -- this thread is glorious reading... a more masterful study I have never encountered!
Ahh, the beauty of problem chess: at last, a subject which would sit still for the denial its own self-portrait.
To any fiction writers paying attention: if our dear friends should become your characters, then by all their grace, let readers relate.
“He had an odd autobiographical habit which led him to compose in his mind from time to time a short sentence about himself containing a subject in the third person and a verb in the past tense.”
―- James Joyce, Dubliners.
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General When is a problem that has both fairy and retro elements... |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
