Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

15:49 UTC
ISC 2022



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Take&Make helpmate
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
(1) Posted by Alex Levit [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 00:37]

Take&Make helpmate

(= 8+6 )
h#2 2 solutions Take&Make (С+)

1.Qxe3-g4 hg4-c8S 2.Kxg3-g4 Sxa7-e3#
1.Qxe7-h4 gh4-h8B 2.Kxh3-h4 Bxg7-e7#
Phenix, Zilahi

(Read Only)pid=8364
(2) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 07:26]

Nice problem. I think you can spare a piece, e.g.: wBe7->d8, bQc5->d2, -bBb1
(Read Only)pid=8367
(3) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 08:48]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-04-28]

Excellent problem! Dmitri's suggestion might save a piece, but the effect of the new white piece mating from the same square would be lost. (in the second solution)
(Read Only)pid=8368
(4) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 09:31]

Thank you, Seetharaman, my mistake. Still it seems it can do with a pawn instead of bishop:

(= 8+6 )

What am i missing this time?
(Read Only)pid=8369
(5) Posted by Alex Levit [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 10:37]; edited by Alex Levit [12-04-28]

Thanks Dmitri! I think this version is better. There is a little disharmony between solutions:
in first B1 is check but in second it isn't. But I think It's not big deal.
For full harmony one can try replace white knight with rook with promotion on c8.
But rook produce too many cooks.

P.S. I have one technical question. Can composition publishing in internet take part in competition?
In draughts composition the answer is usually no.
(Read Only)pid=8370
(6) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 13:04]; edited by Dmitri Turevski [12-04-28]

I think you can have these dual avoidances if the mating switchback is orthodox, not T&M:

(= 7+4 )

h#2 Take&Make (7+4) C+

1.Rxh6-f4 (Rf4??) exf4-f8=B (exf4-f8=Q?) 2.Kxf3-f4 Bh6#
1.Bxe8-e4 (Be4??) fxe4-a8=R (fxe4-a8=Q?) 2.Kxe3-e4 Re8#

(edit: typo, h1->h4)
(Read Only)pid=8371
(7) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 17:33]

Indeed, Alex, the position published at the general access website to wide and unknown public is considered already published. It cannot take part in other competition as an original. The details can be found in the Codex, I think.
(Read Only)pid=8372
(8) Posted by Dan Meinking [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 20:08]

@Alex (and Dmitri): Congrats on a lovely problem! The latest version is very nicely done.

Juraj is right: this cannot be published elsewhere as "original". But... several originals have appeared on MatPlus Forums. On PDB, search on S='MatPlus.Net Forum'. Perhaps this could be added to PDB as a joint effort?

The good news is: by "publishing" your problem here, several hundred composers get to see your nice idea instantly. I hope to see more here!
(Read Only)pid=8378
(9) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 22:08]

This last version of Dmitri is very good, especially because of dual avoidance effects. Having a normal mating move makes the problem very light. Congrats on an excellent reconstruction ! Congrats Alex for such a idea. Nice to see another talented chess composer joining from the Draughts field!
(Read Only)pid=8381
(10) Posted by Alex Levit [Saturday, Apr 28, 2012 23:00]

@Dmitri Very good and light setting! I think this vershion is letztform and should have two authors.
@Dan Publishing in Internet is a normal way for me.
Almost all my draughts problem were published in draughts forums.
@All Thanks for comments!
(Read Only)pid=8382
(11) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 29, 2012 05:52]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-04-29]

isn't it possible like that ?

(= 7+3 )
h2# Take & Make (7+3) C+

1.R×h6(Rf4) e×f4(Bf8) 2.K×f3(Kf4) Bh6‡
1.B×e8(Be4) f×e4(Ra8) 2.K×e3(Ke4) Re8‡

I agree that the tries 1.Rf4? & 1.Be4? are very nice.

There is a kind of Grimshaw cook tries :

1.Be4? Rc2+ 2.Kf1 R×e4(Rb1)‡???
1.Be4? R×e4(Rc2)+ 2.Kf1 R3c1)‡???

It seems to work also like that :

(= 7+3 )
h2# Take & Make (7+3) C+

1.R×g6(Re4) d×e4(Be8)+ 2.K×e3(Ke4) Bg6‡
1.B×d8(Bd4) e×d4(Rh8) 2.K×d3(Kd4) Rd8‡

This, despite the slight asymmetry of a check to the black King in one variation only (that might be seen also as a nice thing), seems to me slightly better because of an interesting cook try :
1.Re4 d×e4(Qe8)+ 2.Kc1 and no mate !
(Read Only)pid=8383
(12) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Apr 29, 2012 07:02]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-04-29]

@juraj & @Dan

About publications matters :

I don't fully agree that a publication on a forum forbids the problem to participate elsewhere, I understand it as follow :

The codex stipulates that such a diagram is considered as published about ANTICIPATIONS matters and this is very understandable.
Now, on the other hand, many reasons should authorize the author(s) to send it AS ORIGINAL in any tournament that seems convenient.

This point has already been discussed in this forum.

A clarifying of this in the codex would be welcome.
(Read Only)pid=8384
(13) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 02:00]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-04-30]


>"I don't fully agree that a publication on a forum forbids the problem to participate elsewhere..."

Agreed -- the author has the choice to send a problem elsewhere, or to publish in this forum (even though Mat Plus has the right to republish any content appearing in this forum -- including such a problem).

Obviously, not every scheme/attempt shown in this forum is intended for publication; but, some problems are intended as original publications in this forum.

How to recognize the difference?
Personally, I consider a problem published in this forum if the author places their name above the diagram, and declares the problem as such.
For example: "Kim Poser, (Original for) Mat Plus Forum, 2012".

I also agree that a clarification of this issue would be welcome in the codex.
But, (not to redirect this thread) there is much missing from the codex -- it is written for people who presume to know the definition of its terms, though seldom will they agree on even the fundamental terms!

To actually seek a codex clarification is often an invitation to battle.
Chess enthusiasts are notorious for fighting for every square -- even after their opening is proven completely dubious; set aside the myths/studies about chess teaching logical reasoning -- chess is all combat!

The codex suggestion box is overloaded, and every letter encouraging progress is returned with the same stamp: vetoed by political stalemate (so as not to offend those who can not be implicated in the contretemps).
Blame society, ignore all responsibilities of membership, and remember to medicate. :)
(Read Only)pid=8385
(14) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 07:37]

When in doubt, go to the source. The CODEX can be found via the WFCC site:

Click on Handbook of Chess Composition, then on CODEX. Under Chapter V - Publication, then Article 20 - Definition of Publication, paragraph (3) reads:

(3) A chess composition which is first published according to paragraph (2) (b) above is entitled to priority from the date of that publication and is also eligible to compete in any composing tournament within the next two years.

Here's paragraph (2):

(2) For the purposes of this Article, "communicating to the public" means enabling an unrestricted number
of people to have the opportunity of access
to a chess composition by

(a) presenting it in permanent form, or

(b) showing or using it in a lecture or solving tournament which falls within the categories listed in Annex I, or

(c) showing it in transient form through a generally accessible medium (e.g. an electronic network)

Since posting an 'original' on MatPlus Forum does not fall under the narrow provisions of paragraph (2)(b), I believe Juraj is correct. That is: the above problem is considered 'published' and therefore ineligible for competition.
(Read Only)pid=8386
(15) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 08:20]; edited by Dan Meinking [12-04-30]

PS: I hope Harry Fougiaxis or Uri Avner reads this thread and can provide a more definitive interpretation.
(Read Only)pid=8387
(16) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 10:25]


Harry is in charge now, but the wording of the codex is a question of vote by the delegates.

The wording itself as you show it is unclear : because of the word "or" you can read - as I do - that (c) is included in (b).

Now, there are also the good reasons to think like this or like that...

Let people be free to organize their tournaments as they want, and authors to submit where and when they want. As far as it does not disturb or hurt anyone.

If I want to send a diagram of mine shown here in any tournament I choose (even more than 2 years later) why should that be forbidden ???
(Read Only)pid=8388
(17) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 10:46]

@Jacques: I'm just reporting what CODEX says. Interpret it however you wish.

Again, I hope Harry or Uri will visit this thread and shed more light on the subject.
(Read Only)pid=8389
(18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 11:00]


You don't show only. You also read.

You wrote "...I believe Juraj is correct. That is: the above problem is considered 'published' and therefore ineligible for competition."

I don't read as you do : I think this problem is eligible for competition
(Read Only)pid=8391
(19) Posted by Dan Meinking [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 11:25]

@Jacques: Yes I do read, and interpret. I, too, believe this problem should be eligible for informal competition (not formal competition, for obvious reasons). But that is not what CODEX tells me.

I agree that CODEX wording is less than ideal.
(Read Only)pid=8392
(20) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 12:08]

So... back to the (main) question :
What Alex, and Dmitri (and others) think of the above versions ?
(Read Only)pid=8393

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4

MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Take&Make helpmate