|(1) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 16:37]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [08-02-13]|
Bo Lindgren, Probleemblad 1999 (#30)
(= 11+13 )
Mate in 30
Now that's what I call depth! Sadly the name of the composer gives away the solution...
1.Sc8+ 2.Sb6+ 3.c8R!! Sb1+ 4.Ka2 Qb3+ 5.Rxb3 cxb3+ 6.Kxa1 Bxb2+ 7.Kb1 c2+ 8.Sxc2 bxc2+ 9.Kxb2 c1Q+ 10.Kxc1 d2+ 11.Kc2 d1Q+ 12.Kxd1 e2+ 13.Kd2 e1Q+ 14.Kxe1 f2+ 15.Kf1! Bc4+! 16.Bxc4 Rh1+ 17.Kxf2 R1h2+ 18.Ke1 Re3+ 19.Kd1 Re1+ 20.Kxe1 Re2+ 23.Kb1 Rb2+ 24.Ka1 Rb1+ 25.Ka2 Ra1+ 26.Kb2 Rb1+ 27.Ka3 Ra1+ 28.Ba2 Rxa2+ 29.Kxa2 Ka6 30.Ra8 mate
Dual Minor: 26.Kb3
|(2) Posted by Frank Richter [Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 20:41]|
I would call this "romantic".
It takes only some seconds to solve this monster ... (with Gustav < 10 sec !!!). Not brute force, of course!
|(3) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, Feb 12, 2008 20:55]|
Hey, one has to look 26 moves ahead! That's depth!
|(4) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Feb 13, 2008 02:57]|
Due to your definition, Siegfried, a 2# cannot be deep ?!
|(5) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Wednesday, Feb 13, 2008 07:18]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [08-02-13]|
I don't know about twomovers. There can be a certain deep, I think (especially in such with choose keys).
variations x moves = field of tension
FoT is not equal to depth, though. The following position is six moves FoT. However, no depth nor difficulty here.
(= 3+1 )
Mate in 6
1.Se6 2.a4 -> 6.a8Q/R mate
I believe, a good deep moremover or study has a try and one logical solution. Also, a not-null-move win (i.e. zugzwang) greatly helps if it is short. Let's look at an example:
(= 3+3 )
Suomen Shakki 1953
Although it's only a few moves long, it's very difficult and the key is deep.
1.Kb7+!! Kh7 2.Qh2+ Kg8 3.Qa2+ Kh7 4.Qf7! Qg8! 5.Qh5 mate
Here's a deep threemover:
(= 12+7 )
Bristol Tourney 1861, 1st prize
Mate in 3
1.Rh1!! Bd7 2.Qb1 Bb5 3.Qg1 mate
Today, one can argue about the depth, but at that time, it was very deep. It's only a half of the FoT of that "sixmover" above but has lots of more depth.
Here's another one:
(= 11+9 )
Milan Radoje Vukcevich
The Problemist 1981, 1st price
Mate in 3
1.Bb6!! with three queen sacrifices on the 2nd move
While one can argue about depth here, too, it has surprise. That's what I especially like on chess problems.
|(6) Posted by Uri Avner [Wednesday, Feb 13, 2008 12:22]|
It is not my intention to fall here into the trap of trying to define "depth" in chess problems. All I wanted is to make a general remark about diagrams without solutions. I realize there are special cases where the omission of solution is needed, but generally I would expect a solution. Many of us are mainly composers or observers, not necessarily solvers.
|(7) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Wednesday, Feb 13, 2008 12:53]|
Ok, I added the solutions.
|(8) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Feb 22, 2008 15:22]; edited by Frank Richter [08-02-22]|
Just my two cents "into the depth" in helpmates:
(= 7+9 )
1. Be8!! Bh2 2. Kg6 Bg1 ... 5. Kxd4 Bh2 6. Kc4 Bg1 7. Kxb4 Bh2 8. Ka3 Bg1 9. b4 Bh2 10. b3 Bg1 11. b2 Bh2 12. b1=S! Bg1 13. Sxd2 Kxd2 14. e1=Q+ Kxd3 15. Qxf2 Kc3 16. Qa2 Bxb6 17. Ba4 (that's why!) Bc5#
Additionally two black promotions.
|(9) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Friday, Feb 22, 2008 15:35]|
While I really like the idea, what about pb6 in the mating position? (And 14...Kxd3, but that is minor nitpick.)
|(10) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Friday, Feb 22, 2008 15:46]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [08-02-23]|
I think, it's 16...Bxb6 instead Bh2.
(PS: See Frank Richter below)
PPS: Good helpmate but sadly has the mistake all helpmates of that length have: Missing co-play
|(11) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Feb 22, 2008 16:51]; edited by Frank Richter [08-02-23]|
Yes, I corrected the solution in my post.
P.S.: Don't expect too much, Siegfried ...
|(12) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Friday, Feb 22, 2008 23:51]|
Oh yes, it is now even better! Congratulations to such interesting long helpmate!
|(13) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Tuesday, Oct 7, 2008 12:19]|
In new issue of Schach, Albin Pötzsch quotes a very interesting mate in 3 that in my opinion also is quite deep.
(= 9+7 )
Hannoverscher Kurier 1934
Mate in 3
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Moremovers Bo Lindgren, Probleemblad 1999 (#30)