|(1) Posted by Ricardo de Mattos Vieira [Wednesday, Sep 15, 2010 02:58]|
J&MFigueiredo Memorial Tourney
JOSÉ FIGUEIREDO & MARIO FIGUEIREDO MEMORIAL TOURNEY (2010)
To celebrate the birthdays of Brazilian composers José Figueiredo (Aug 13th, 1920 – July 11th, 1978) and Mario Figueiredo (Oct 20th, 1950 – Sept 20th, 1995), father and son, a theme-tourney is announced:
A Helpmate in 2 is required showing the following theme:
At a certain stage (not necessarily in the diagram position), side A (White or Black) is responsible for an effect that is abandoned (by side A) or destroyed (by the opponent). The same effect must be present in the mating position by means of a maneuver by side A and/or the opponent.
a) Acceptable are set-play, multi-solutions and any kind of twinning except zeroposition. No fairy pieces/conditions.
b) Anticipatory recover of the thematic effect is allowed.
Judge: Mario Parrinello
Closing date: December 31st, 2010
Please submit your entries (either by email or airmail letter) to:
Ricardo de Mattos Vieira – Av. Princesa Isabel, 273 apt. 1001 – Copacabana
22011-010 – Rio de Janeiro – RJ – Brazil
The participants will receive a copy of the final award.
(= 3+6 )
H # 2
1.e3 Sg1 2.Se4 Sgf3 #
B1/B2: unblock e4 / block e4
W1/W2: unguard of d4 / guard of d4
(= 3+7 )
H # 2
1.c5 T:c5 2.Le4 g4 #
B1 “destroys” a pin that is recovered by W1
(= 3+4 )
H # 2
1.Sf5 Ld4 2.Td5 Tf4 #
W1 opens a (virtual) black line that was closed by B1
|(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Sep 16, 2010 19:28]|
W unguards a square, later black selfblocks on that square. Is that thematic?
|(3) Posted by Ricardo de Mattos Vieira [Tuesday, Sep 21, 2010 15:31]|
Mario Parrinello, the judge of the tourney, asked me to post his answer:
"As to the question by Mr. Seetharaman Kalyan (‘W unguards a square, later black selfblocks on that square. Is that thematic?’), the answer is no. We must take into consideration the words of this interesting theme (which by the way was not choosen by me): ‘The same effect must be present in the mating position…’. This means that if White unguards a given square there must be present the SAME EFFECT in the mating position, in this particular case a guard. It’s true that if Black selfblocks the relevant square the result is the same (the bK cannot go to that square) but, following the words of the set theme, the manoeuvre is not thematic in this case.
I hope my explanations may be clear."
|(4) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Sep 23, 2010 20:58]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [10-09-23]|
Thanks. Fair enough !
Two other questions:
1. In Scheme 1, B1 destroys two effects: unblocks e4 and unguards e3. Only one of the effects is restored. Whether such partial restoration will be downgraded in comparison to full restoration problems?
2. Scheme 1 has another solution: 1.e3 Sf3 2. S ~ Sf3#. Whether in this solution the move 2...Sf3# is considered restoring the guard of d4 square?
|(5) Posted by Ricardo de Mattos Vieira [Tuesday, Sep 28, 2010 18:29]|
Considering question 2: I made a mistake in scheme 1 and I put a bP on e6, which allows the cook. The diagram in the email I sent to chess problem friends do not present this bP. Sorry.
The judge's answer is:
"as to the two questions by Mr. Seetharaman Kalyan: the scheme 1 is fully thematic. It’s absolutely right that B1 has two effects: one negative (unblocks e4) and one positive (unguards e3). The first one is what the set theme requires (…side A (White or Black) is responsible for an effect that is abandoned (by side A)…) while the second one (unguards f3) is the motivation for unblocking e4 (namely that’s why Black plays 1.e3). If Black had restored the guard on the mating square White cannot mate no longer! In conclusion, in this case we cannot say that there is a partial restoration of effectS but just fully restoration of effect.
As to the second question, the example has to be considered only a scheme of course(without the bP on e6 the cook disappears). But if this solution had existed then the restoration of the guard of the square d4 is thematic (1…Sg3 abandons the guard and 2…Sf3# do restore this effect)."
|(6) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Sep 29, 2010 16:48]|
That there was an unintended second solution is quite OK. After all it was only a scheme. I merely wanted the clarification on the effect present in the unintended second solution. Thanks for the prompt reply.
|(7) Posted by Administrator [Saturday, Oct 1, 2011 16:38]|
Ricardo de Mattos Vieira sent the document with the final award of this tourney:
Thank you Ricardo!
|(8) Posted by Ricardo de Mattos Vieira [Wednesday, Oct 5, 2011 20:23]|
Entry nr. 30 (4th Commendation) had a corrected version that was sent to the judge. It is correctly presented in the list of entries (Kg1 / kc4) but unfortunately I used the wrong diagram position in the award.
It was my fault and I apologize for this.
The right position is:
Nr. 30 - Almiro Zarur
J. & M. Figueiredo Mem. Ty.
(= 9+9 )
H # 2
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions J&MFigueiredo Memorial Tourney