﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

22:46 UTC
 ISC 2022
 Headlines Forum* Fellows Members DL Archive Links

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Apr-2022
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Add-a-Year 65 JT 2022 (#2)

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

Add-a-Year 65 JT 2022 (#2)

After positive reactions from around 20 solvers to Add-a-Piece competition, here is something for fun and entertainment of composers:
You can use this thread for possible questions, or write to kovacevic.marjan@gmail.com

Is it OK if the problem has two solutions (in the sense of
the ECSC twin example, of course!), i.e., a piece can
be added in two places to give a correct problem?

I think it should be listed as 2 or "N" solutions instead of twins.

Yes, Hauke, it is not forbidden, and if the contents of the twins would be somehow connected, it might turn into plus.
If another twin is obvious "cook" the author couldn't avoid, that would be a minus.
I prefer to use the term twin-solutions (in fact 2 such positions function as the real twins!).
Mentioning only "solutions" might be misleading to the solutions after the pieces were added.

Using twins is OK but I must admit that I've been confused at first. Your examples 1 & 2 are almost like a twins b) wQf2 = wRf2. So it would be very confusing if someone creates twins with a twins. Then it will be something like "twins with twins" and it would be very confusing too.

It should be noted that the example is limited to only white pieces (like on the page where you get to by clicking above the diagram).
Otherwise, the Anirudh problem is very much cooked by adding anything by Black on f3 to f6.

Siegfried, true, one has to use hyperlink above the diagram to see the exact demand. The possible cooks you mentioned were exactly the reason for the composer to specify "Add a white piece".
As for the difference between orthodox twins (1 & 2), and twin-solutions (3), I guess all should be clear when you take look at Example 3 with a) & b) twin-solutions.

Thanks, Siegfried, the example in the announcement completed.

Marjan, I had misunderstood the tourney at first and created the wrong problem.

So as an apology for missing your birthday, I want to offer it in this thread. I hope it is correct.

For Politika's best chess columnist
(= 7+4 )

Add a piece, then #1

Solution (mark this line for the try, next line for the actual solution): Try: +wRa1, then 1.0-0-0 mate. But castling is illegal (bK must have passed through e1).
Solution: +wNf1, then 1.Ng3 mate

Thanks, Siegfried!
Your dedication words might be correct now that I'm the only (and half-retired) chess journalist in Politika :).
During the last 100 years, our chess column (founded 15.02.1922) had several very important chess columnists, starting from Jakov Ovadija and Ozren Nedeljković.

Your problem illustrates a nice but not thematic try. For this QCT thematic tries should fail only because added piece produces more than one solution. Strictly thematic are the tries with 2 solutions instead of 1, but the tries with several cooks may contribute to the quality, especially if all the cooks are based on one and the same reason.

Some famous miniature two movers can be immediately converted for this TT by removing a piece:
E.B.Cook, American Chess Nuts, 1868: WKc2, WPg7; BKa1. #2. Remove WPg7 and make the stipulation "Add a white piece for a correct #2 a) & b) twin-solutions".
Similarly, John Dell, The Ladies Diary, 1830: WKf6, WPf7; BKh7. #2. Remove WPf7 and make the stipulation "Add a white pawn for a correct #2".
I suppose such "entries" would be considered as anticipated?

My personal opinion is that we could benefit from a "terminus technicus"
for problems that clearly build upon older material, but are not
strictly anticipated (random recent MPF example: Andrew Buchanan and his 42
drawing moves with the fresh idea of using "dead", based very
much on the position of T.R.Dawson). I would not term it "anticipated"
but..."inspired?" Nevermind. That's the onus of the tourney judge anyway.

Glad you put this question, Shankar!
I believe a composer should write "after XXX", and I wouldn't consider it anticipated.
I've played around with many miniatures this way, but at the end I concluded the genuine thematic problems are easier to construct when starting from empty board and thematic tries.

Solutions to the examples, some thematic tries, additional explanations, and correction of No.4:
Just to make it clear: composing tourney is for direct #2s only.

The final award:

And with corrected version of one solution:

Some interesting problems!

I like how you wrote the stipulation of the 3rd prize - if only adding peace were as easy!

Thanks, Thomas!
Another solution has been corrected, this time in an intriguing way.
Take a look how retro play has changed the solution of No.23:

The award still can be corrected? In that case, please
add a piece to my name in "Contributors" :-)

(20) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Thursday, May 26, 2022 14:08]

Easy puzzle this time, not only what piece should be added ("d"), but also on what square.
Thank you for the nice and clear contribution, it was a real pleasure to analyze all the entries!