|
| Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| (21) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Nov 22, 2020 22:52] |
Well, the record is 10 different mates by an unpinned R.
I just composed a problem by two unpinned pieces,
14 defenses with 6!! different mates. Took a flash
of ingenuity, and I'll send it to the SCHWALBE...wait,
better check the Albrecht first...250454. Sigh. Other
people can compose too :-)
Another rendering is 158310, also 6 variants.
|
|
| (22) Posted by James Malcom [Sunday, Nov 22, 2020 23:28] |
Oh, d'oh! I forgot that you had already given the record. But here's a diagram for all other such klutzes.
Thus, as stated, 10 is the record for the number of different mates after each Black move.
Christopher J. Morse
Financial Times 1973
#2
 (= 11+2 )
To be more explicit than Hauke, search for "80465" over on this link: http://www.schach-udo.de/albrecht/albrecht2/
|
|
| (23) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 04:15] |
So what exactly are the dimensions and constraints of the different tasks? Can we have a clear statement please as I'm getting a bit confused. Here's some starter points
- Needs to be #2?
- One can easily push the 10 to 11 at the cost of non-standard material, but I guess all our art in this domain be built with but a single set of tangrams.
- Morse’s record also has all mates distinct (which is part of a thematic task) but is there a thematic task which is just trying to maximize the number of mates, without concern of the number of defences.
- Is number of unpinned units relevant?
- Minimal black force seems attractive but surely just cherry on the cake.
Once categories are defined, then maybe can identify the current records. Can of course evolve the categories: not trying to set stuff in stone here. Creativity is always a balance between law and chaos and I just feel a bit more structure is the right delta to add now
|
|
| (24) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 10:46] |
Compose now, categorize later :-)
Starting with BP3 (for obvious reasons we don't... ;-) we have 133611 in the Albrecht (I really should ask Udo how to directly link to a specific number). I quickly did this one too, but surely it can be done better:
 (= 8+4 )
BS8 is easy: 82.657.
Your move.
|
|
| (25) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 11:18] |
Three solutions?
Ps.: I fully agree with Andrew, and at least it would be helpful, if every composer posts the intended solution to his diagram ...
|
|
| (26) Posted by Joost de Heer [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 11:36] |
QUOTE
I really should ask Udo how to directly link to a specific number
http://www.schach-udo.de/albrecht/albrecht2/?rec=133611
|
|
| (27) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 12:36] |
@Frank: That happens if one moves the Bc7 to b8 "so that it
looks better" (the details, the details) without checking anew :-)
BTW, everybody lost on time - here comes BB6 :-)
You could appeal by posting a BQ1 :-))
 (= 8+3 )
Didn't find an anticipation, but with a matrix search the
following problem by Frank, which I like very much:
http://www.schach-udo.de/albrecht/albrecht2/?rec=97163
|
|
| (28) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 14:53] |
@ James
About this file, you initiated it on the basis of pat avoidance, but you may have similar content on the basis of "added black moves" even when there is no set pat.
example :
 (= 7+6 )
2# 1.Bg4! with 23 added moves
or:
 (= 7+8 )
2# 1.Bg4! with 24 added moves and a promoted bishop
Also "added mates" in a context of a mutate may be an interesting task to check
(now, off the topic :
You write :
"...It is indeed what we live for..."
I don't really understand what you mean)
|
|
| (29) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 15:20] |
Oh Hauke, thank you very much :)
There are some similar problems with this idea, by M. Kovacevic and J.M.Rice in my opinion.
BP3 with 9 pieces:
 (= 7+2 )
#2, 1.c6!
Here the key creates an (infeasible) threat, would this be thematic too?
|
|
| (30) Posted by James Malcom [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 17:01] |
Andrew, here is the task, fully explicit.
Task: Black is in a set stalemate, in the #2 form, which White must break.
Objective: Give Black as many moves as possible, with no duals whatsoever.
Current Types
a) Just give the most moves
b) Each and every Black move allows a different mate
c) Maximize for a single piece
Here are the current records.
a) 20, as shown by Jacques and me.
b) 10, as shown by the Morse# 2.
c) B) shows 10 for a Black rook, and Frank has shown 3 for a Black pawn.
As given by Hauke, 8 for a Black knight has been shown-http://www.schach-udo.de/albrecht/albrecht2/?rec=82657
Peter Pieper, Kieler Schachgesellschaft - 1. TT 1970, 2. Ehr. Erwähnung
#2
 (= 8+3 )
1. Re2!
|
|
| (31) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 17:28] |
Just for the record (no pun intended (OK, so I lied, pun intended)), the Morse as well as the Pieper have an ancestor list measuring in decades - I merely posted the settings which looked best to me. (You can look up the anticipations in the Albrecht collection.)
 (= 7+11 )
A silly attempt at Q1. 2sol,2tries.
 (= 8+3 )
C. Stubbs 1903 (#76.355), my version to be conform with the theme
|
|
| (32) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 19:39] |
I did BP4+unstalemating+duel!
The task has a bit cheating (one of the mates
is already the threat - but so did Lindgren
with his BP4-Q duel) and typical task gruesomeness
(a wR does nothing than blocking a battery
mate) but still, eat my sho...
Oh, bother. The matrix is 100% anticipated:
http://www.schach-udo.de/albrecht/albrecht2/?rec=109620
No wonder I didn't find it first since that one has
no unstalemating.
Still, I challenge you to find my position.
Can't be that hard now you know the details :-)
|
|
| (33) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 20:09] |
the Morse brought to 11 with promoted bishop
 (= 14+2 )
2# 1.Kb2
|
|
| (34) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 20:15] |
Hi Jacques yes that’s exactly the diagram I alluded to this morning! Before posting it, I was looking for guidance from James as to whether non-standard force is ok in these constructions. Going to run out of line pieces very quickly if not, so I suggest that this task allows promoted force
|
|
| (35) Posted by James Malcom [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 21:10] |
Well, there always will be a distinction between with promoted force and not, after all!
And Hauke, please post your position! I can't quite crack it!
This the best I have so far. Moving wKe4->c4 doesn't help, as then there is a cook:-1. Ree7.
#2 After Johannes Albarda
 (= 12+6 )
1. Nge7
1... dxc6 2. Nxc6#
1... d6 2. Ng6#/Nd5# but dual!!!
1... d5+ 2 Nxd5+
1... dxe6 2. Nc8#
|
|
| (36) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 21:35] |
Youth of today, no patience :P
The dual isn't (c6 is unguarded). After
Ke4->c4 you just replace the Rh7 with a Q
and the Pf5 with a R. No guard of e6,
no cook. For a triple task (BP4,WS4,
stalemate release) I think a field cork
against a dual is acceptable.
|
|
| (37) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Nov 23, 2020 23:46] |
Hauke, could you give your diagram ? it is very nice and worth to see.
you place the knight on g6, I guess, like the Albarda.
The Albarda is wonderful too!
Due to the current standards it could be built a bit lighter (he paid attention to have no duals even after black moves that are not defenses, I think), but it does'nt matter so much, the author managed to solve technical problems with great skill.
|
|
| (38) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Nov 24, 2020 01:55] |
Today when the word "threat" is used, it means "If black don't play"
In these times "threat" was understood "after any black move" so they have got the habit to check every single black move, and the duals on them were a problem. Nowadays, when there is a threat first comes the question "is it a defense against the threat ?" if not, this move is not considered at all. (and this is sometimes inappropriate!)
|
|
| (39) Posted by Andrew Buchanan [Tuesday, Nov 24, 2020 02:42] |
To underscore what Jacques wrote, we are entering into the domain of Morse’s Tasks and Records. He, and his contemporaries, were interested in completely clean solutions against all Black responses. The notion of threat was very relevant at a “strategic” level but did not impact soundness. It’s not wrong for us to have looser design criteria - in fact that gives us lots of lovely fresh design space - but the criteria should be clearly specified so that solvers can position new records against the earlier work.
|
|
| (40) Posted by James Malcom [Tuesday, Nov 24, 2020 03:18] |
For the pawn and a single mate, all done easily just as well.
#2
 (= 7+6 )
1. Nd7! ... 2. Nc5#
And just to bump one up on Hauke, a better Q1.;-)
#2
 (= 5+4 )
1. Rxa2! Qxa2 2. Qxa2#
|
|
Read more... |
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 5 6
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Construct a correct #2 with the most stalemate releases |
ISC 2024
