MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

7:58 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Helpmates Goethart unpin - Can it be shown in helpmates?
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(21) Posted by Administrator [Tuesday, Mar 27, 2012 04:27]

 QUOTE 
Nikola: I wonder, did the theme get Goethart's name on the basis of a problem with a completely artificial and superfluous presence of a thematic pinning piece? That might help me to reconsider my beliefs.

Gerhardus H. GOETHART
3.hm Algemeen Handelsblad 1917
(= 8+10 )
#2
1.Sg5! Sc5,Sd2 2.Sde6,Sdf3#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8176
(22) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Mar 27, 2012 11:04]; edited by Nikola Predrag [12-03-27]

Thanks a lot Milan for posting this convincing presentation of the theme. Ra6/f1 will respectively become superfluous in the variations when they will participate in the thematic unpin. But the essence of the theme is convincing because their pinning function is utilized in the other variation. That makes, I believe, the Goethart unpin. A twomover wouldn't demand a function for both Rooks in all variations, but artificial function (only to satisfy a short description of a theme, without utilization) would not make a theme. The counterpoint is an essential ingredient in the recipe. 1.Sg5 Sc5,Sd2 2.Se6#!(Sf3+?),Sf3#!(Se6+?)

Weasels in a helpmate may be discussed, but the artificial weasels which do not make a theme after all, they are hardly an issue at all. That's why I gave a clumsy example in post 8, where the tries underline the utilization of a pin presented in the solution.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8178
(23) Posted by Joose Norri [Wednesday, Mar 28, 2012 14:07]

Consider the underpromotion in directmates. Strictly the prefix 'under' is unnecessary. Why should one compare one move with another which simply doesn't exist in the context? But the novice at least, who hasn't been spoiled yet, cannot help but compare it with queening, giving an added meaning to the whole thing. Well I suppose the major promotion is always a prominent try, but still the case is analogous. The 'unnecessaty' pinners transform one thing to another.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8180
(24) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Mar 29, 2012 04:52]; edited by Nikola Predrag [12-03-29]

I'm not sure what you mean. Transformation of a pin into something else would make a content. Transformation of a pin into nothing at all, that could also make a content. Transformation of nothing into nothing, well, that might be fantastic but it must be presented very convincingly. The line interference in the Grimshaw must be utilized somehow during the play, otherwise there's no line interference and no Grimshaw. Without any effect on the play, a virtual pin is not The Pin, it is actually a potential pin.

There's no real pin in Uddgrens problem but there are other transformations - white battery into a masked battery combined with a critical move followed by the line interference at b3.

Warning! The rest is for readers tough, able to lough at the following increasing lunacy.

There's only one real pin in each phase of Korponai's problem utilized by the real unpin in W1. A potential second respective pin is never transformed into the real pin in the same phase. The reciprocal transformation of two potential pins on the diagram, into one real pin in each respective phase is pretty convincing. It is a transformation of two 'nothings' into two real pins, each in one phase.

Following this logic, Harry Fougiaxis presented two initial potential pins of Sf6/Se3, bRf7/bBb3 are potential unpins (by transforming the initial potential pins into the potential halfpins), Sd7/Sc4 transform(utilize) these potential unpins(halfpins) into real unpins and into the potential selfpins of Rf7/Bb3. Final Sdf4/Sdc3 transform the initially potential pins (Se3/Sf6) into real pins but do NOT transform the potential-halfpins-transformed-into-potential-selfpins-of-Rf7/Bb3 into real Selfpins. Such lunatic's reasoning helped me to recognize the full range of reciprocal change of the potential/utilized pinning elements.

Both initial potential pins are utilized in both phases. So here, the inevitable weasel-effect is probably at the mimimum for the Goethart unpin in helpmates. (This festival of un-half-self-anticipatory-plain-potential-utilized-pins is so specific that the 'purists' simply must notice that 2.Sd7/1...Rf7 do potentially unpin Bb7 but 1...Rb3/2.Sc4 do not:))

It seems that the Goethart unpins are something like this: in the same variation/phase, a virtual pin and virtual unpin of one piece do not become real(utilized) because a line of the real influence of that piece becomes closed.
Hm, I'll try to see tomorow what I actually wrote in this post.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8184
(25) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Mar 29, 2012 14:31]; edited by Uri Avner [12-03-29]

@ Joose & Nikola

Right, there are concepts referring to virtual entities that are essential for us, humans, to feed our curiosity and expand our imagination.
Such is the Goethart theme where the main idea is to trade a pin for interference (or anything else, but not with orthodox chess) and that’s what enables the unpinning.
In a Gamage the unpinning is direct which frees the pinning piece for the final blow, but in a Goethart it is indirect, so the pinning piece remains unavoidably idle.
Idle indeed, but not in a destructive way since it is still needed for its virtual function.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8185
(26) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Mar 29, 2012 17:14]

Everyone may come up with virtual ideas. But a chess problem is a transition from a virtual to a real state. I wonder how much the terms of Quantum Theory may really help, but a virtual state of probabilities/potentialities collapses into a state of real solution. Some potentialities become real and some vanish. The crucial question about the vanished virtual possibilities is 'did they ever took a place in final reality of the solution or at least in some paralel reality of other phases'.

We might say that the tries are virtual but that is a different use of the word. Let's say that the virtual content of a try becomes real when it is played on the board. If some virtual potentiality never comes into such real state, it simply never really existed.

My explanation may be a nonsense, but simplified, there is a clear difference among the problems presented in this topic - some are convincing and some are not. When I see the beautiful efforts of the authors who struggled to be convincing, I can treat the artificial easy-way only as a mockery.

Speaking of Quantum Theory, Harry's problem astonishingly richly resembles the Schroedinger's cat paradox.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8186
(27) Posted by Uri Avner [Friday, Mar 30, 2012 05:38]; edited by Uri Avner [12-03-30]

@ Nikola

Because in Paros’s as well as Haymann’s it all happens on the same pin-line, one cannot see the main idea in what you call “reality”.

You may only see it as a “virtual reality” (sorry for that) - if you could only imagine that the pieces closing the lines of the pinned pieces were “transparent”, i.e. they actually never interfered with those lines.

I hope this “thought experiment” is not too difficult to handle...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8187
(28) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Mar 30, 2012 15:19]

It's about the economy and white weasels, but that's not all. How much white pieces we shall add only for virtual reasons? A superflouos or half-superflouos piece in helpmates are much more serious than in #2. If a piece is superflouos in #2, it hardly could be acceptable in h#2. That's why I asked 'would the Goethart unpin get a status of a theme on the basis of only a 'virtual function' of the pinning piece. If there was only one pinning line and so the pinning piece superfluous in all vriations and tries? I don't believe it. Goethart had to find the functions in a real play to make a theme. How can we see this theme or a paradox without the essential counterpoint that Goethart managed to present almost a century ago. It would be a downgrade of the idea even in #2. Helpmate asks for even more. There must be a superfluous piece in a helpmate Goethart in the mate, of course. But I would accept such 'final weasel' if it participates in some moment of a real solution or at least in some try.

I will not compose an example, but try a simple thought experiment: remove wPb6,bSc1 and bQh4 from Haymanns problem and move bBf1 to e2. Now play 1.Rg1-c1 d3? 2.Rxd3(Rg~) Sb6+? 3.Rc4!, if 2...Sc3? 3.Rd5!. If there was such a try, then I would recognize 1.Rc1 d4!! etc. as an enough convincing Goethart in a helpmate, despite the 'only virtual' function shown by counterpointing 2...Sb6+/Sc3+ in the try. The additional function of 1...Rf4/d4, closing 4th rank because of Qh4 downgrades the themathic hiding of bR behind these pieces.

Does the following example show line-closing and direct/indirect-battery mate? Does the try justify the presence of wBc3?
(= 6+3 )
#2
1.Re5? Kh8 2.Rxg5# but 1...Kf8!
1.Rd4! Kh8/Kf8 2.Rd8#

Now the beauty of virtual-real transformations. Harry's problem just before the last move in one phase:
(= 8+12 )

The state of virtual/potential line-effects and the pieces participating in them: wRb3 pins and closes the line of bBa2, wRf8 pins, bSe3/bRf7, bSd7 closes the line of bRf7, wBb7&wSd5 form a direct battery. That's all in a virtual/potential state, neither alive nor dead. The reality depends on the final move. What will become definitely alive or dead?

2...Sdf4# brings the death to the f-file pin and so to wRf8 and the pinned component of bRf7; the line effect on 7th rank becomes alive and so bSd7 and the respective component of Rf7 become alive; both components of wRb3 become alive (pin and line-closing); bSe3 becomes alive as pinned; bBa2 becomes alive as the line a2-d5 is closed and the white battery becomes alive in a mate.
A try 2...Sdc3+? leaves some paradoxical death&alive dualisms un solved, if bRf7 is alive as pinned, it is dead for the 7th-rank influence as well as bSd7 but if bSd7 is alive, the pinned component bRf7 is dead as well as wRf8.
But the try fails because of different real state of wRb3 which becomes dead in the pinning aspect and of bSe3 which becomes very alive. Through the virtual transformations on the f-file, during the 2 introductory black moves, the final collapse is prepared. The initial virtual pin of bSf6 became real/alive after 1.Rf7 + 2.Sd7, so wRf8 became alive for a moment by pinning bSf6, but the virtual/potential pin of bRf7 dies in the end and so the wRf8.
The reciprocity in the other solution including the try 2...Sdf4+? changes the destiny of pieces and effects.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8189
(29) Posted by Arno Tungler [Friday, Mar 30, 2012 18:23]

In this discussion I am fully on Nikola's side. We are so quickly ready to talk about Bristols, Umnovs, Indians, Grimshaws etc. in our helpmates, while the motive is just a simple flight-taking, selfblocking, and other unrelated function. Those moves "look like" Bristols, Umnovs, Indians, Grimshaws etc but often they are really nothing like that. You need a try, a possibility to chose between two or more moves that have the same side-effect but miss the thematic trick. So, in my humble opinion, in the above Hayman helpmate the wR is superfluos and the Goethart is only an empty effect - without a motive. And (again i.m.h.o.) nobody has shown as good as Hayman how a real "helpmate-Goethart" should look like. The beneath is (again...) probably one of the best helpmate-twomovers of the last century. I gave it without any doubt the highest scores as a solver in feenschach and am still impressed that something like that is possible. Please count how much white force without any flight-taking of the bK is standing around in the solutions!

Jean Haymann
5750 feenschach 1990
2. Preis
(= 12+7 )

(12+7) C+
h#2
b) wPc4 ->d4
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8190
(30) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Mar 31, 2012 02:41]

Yes, this is quite another thing. And yes, we rarely speak about the solving. Pursuing the themes, composers often forget the solvers' pleasure, prefering the pleasure of the judges. One can never be sure in advance what might please the solvers. It is not about hardening the solution by all means but rather about a good hiding of the logical content - the surprising combination of the tactical potentials of the pieces.

This is also an important difference between the two 'Haymanns' - in one, a solver will eventually enjoy using the right combination of these potentials, in the other he will curse the author because the inclusion of wRh3 into the combinations with all other w/b pieces is fruitless, that Rook is simply impotent. It spoils the real beauty of the problem. If someone enjoys the fruitless and pointless hard work, let him be.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8191
(31) Posted by Uri Avner [Saturday, Mar 31, 2012 05:06]

Thank you, Nikola, for allowing others to enjoy things that you don’t.
But: before you “curse” somebody you may listen carefully to what he has to say by his “foolish” work and especially composers like Paros or Haymann, who knew very well everything you are telling us here and more, including the possible mockery.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8192
(32) Posted by Dejan Glisić [Saturday, Mar 31, 2012 14:55]; edited by Dejan Glisić [12-03-31]

I am realy confused: http://www.blackfive.net/main/images/2008/02/21/confused.jpg :))
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8195
(33) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Mar 31, 2012 17:38]

Very nice ! :)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8196
(34) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Mar 31, 2012 19:28]; edited by Nikola Predrag [12-03-31]

Dear Uri and dear all,

I apologize for all parts in my posts which, for any reason, could have been considered as addressed to any person. My curiosity feeds on the logic and beauty, which are so higly distilled in chess composition. Analysis and comments of personalities were not a part of my interest and certainly not my intention.

Various approaches, preferences and criteria result with the richness of chess composition. I tend to believe that I would welcome a different approach and try myself to find the arguments for it, just as I would try to support my own approach. I surely can fail to avoid a bias in that, but I do not tend to undervalue the preferences of the others. If someone is delighted, I may not understand or share it, but that's my own problem or disability.

Most deeply I apologize for the word 'curse', I was much too careless about a potential meaning of it. In such a multicultural and multilingual forum, I should have avoid by all means such a potential invocation. My intention was a vivid description of a most harmless expression of the annoyance, used often even between the best friends.

Comparing myself with Paros and Haymann would be a great honour, if there were any grounds for it. I do admire their masterpieces and I do greatly respect them as problemists in all aspects, but that doesn't mean the acceptance of every single thing they've said and done. The 'wRh3' problem I see as a practical joke - sending me to a false errand and loughing behind the corner at my folly. Ha,ha :)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8197
(35) Posted by Uri Avner [Sunday, Apr 1, 2012 20:56]

Welcome back, Nikola
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8204
(36) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Sunday, Apr 1, 2012 23:17]

I am grateful for the warning of how aggressive and disrespectful a careless tongue might sound to the listeners. This forum is too precious and deserves a proper conversation.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8207
(37) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Monday, Apr 9, 2012 05:28]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-04-09]

Weasels hunting is not very interesting.

Perhaps an example is better than long talks. Let's have a look at the 1st h#2 shown post 7 by Michael:

Anders Uddgren
Jubilee Tanacsa Stella Polaris1966
1st Prize (= 6+9 )
h#2

I. 1.R1b6 S×g7 2.Bb3 Sc6‡
II. 1.R8b2 S×g6 2.Sb3 Sd4‡

Nikola wrote about this, in post 8 :
"... beautiful. R1b6/R8b2 look like anticipatory selfpins but actually they only alow Se6/Se5 to move without check. So, Ra6/Ba1 are highly thematic pieces even in the phase where they are superfluous in the end...."

In fact, if you remove the Ra6 or the Ba1 some cooks appear.

Now, lets have a look at the version 1 (slightly lighter):

(= 6+8 )
h#2

1.Rag2 S×c7 2.Sf2 Se4‡
1.Rhc2 S×b7 2.Bf2 Sc3‡

all seems the same...

Now, add a black pawn a4 (!) : version 2 :

(= 6+9 )
h#2

what happens new ? nothing ... but now Rc1 and Bh1 are weasels !

version 3 :

(= 5+9 )
h#2

1.Rhc2 S×b7 2.Bf2 Sc3‡

version 4 :

(= 5+9 )
h#2

1.Rag2 S×c7 2.Sf2 Se4‡

To be or not to be a weasel, that is not always a question
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8243
(38) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Apr 10, 2012 05:33]

For the weasels hunting one should know what is a 'weasel' in the first place. Since I don't know a precise definition which would undoubtedly point up a weasel in each single case, I am very interested to understand a degree and significance of each particular 'weasel-ness'.

In my post No.8, I actually wished to add that - "the Uddgrens problem is convincing in the idea but that one thing was missing in the realization, for instance +bPc5" - but that would require a bit of further explanation, so I left it for some later occasion.

Now, Jacques has illustarated one possible aspect of the 'weasel-ness' which may be devastating for many nice ideas. I believe that he wished to show the danger of hunting weasels just for sport - one should first know the difference between a pest and a pet - and there is the point for a different possible aspect of the 'weasel-ness'.

So, why to add bPc5 to the Uddgrens problem? It would be a 'black weasel', doing nothing. But it would give an additional hideaway for bRb1. Without it, the only hideway is at b6 and wRh6 has only a virtual/artificial role in that phase. Additional bPc5 would have a virtual function to give a real function to wRa6 in that phase. In the other phase, bRb8 can choose the hideaways f8/g8/h8, but obviously plays to b2 to interfere with wBa1.

I'll use Jacques' versions to illustrate what is interesting in the weasels hunting. It's not about a malicious bureaucratic distortion of the author's idea. It's about a benevolent separation of the pests from the pets - seeing what spoils and what makes the genuine author's idea.(= 5+9 )
bPb3 deals with cooks instead of wK and provides a hideway b2 for bRh2

These details may look unimportant and boring, but they show a crucial difference between a 'malicious/bureaucratic' and a benevolent/admiring aspects of the weasels hunting. Adding bPa4 to Jacques' version 1 - first distorts and then spoils the idea. Adding bPb3 and movin/removing wK - recognizes the idea and improves the detail which spoils the genuine author's version.

There are various types of weasels and it may be discussed among those who find it interesting.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8246
(39) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Apr 10, 2012 07:00]

What I shew now, is that in the problem of Uddgren, the white Rook and the white Bishop are weasels - hidden weasels - but weasels.

It does not disturb me to appreciate it : it is a nice problem.

To say that a problem with a weasel is of no value seems to me exaggerated.

To say that a problem with a weasel thematic piece does not show what it shows has no sense.

Properly, it is not weasels hunting, but problems hunting.

Sometimes, the fact that a piece is a weasel may be a reason to upgrade the problem, and not to downgrade it.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8247
(40) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Tuesday, Apr 10, 2012 16:18]

..."Properly, it is not weasels hunting, but problems hunting. Sometimes, the fact that a piece is a weasel may be a reason to upgrade the problem, and not to downgrade it..."

That's exactly the point, to see the essential difference between the upgrading and the downgrading features. Blindness on that point can very nicely and very friendly equalize everything, inaugurate the mediocrity and finally surrender to the overwhelming entropy.

The difference between the 'problems hunting' and the 'problems comprehending', basically emerges from different approaches. The first approach analyzis what IS NOT PRESENT while the second one accepts and analyzes the PRESENT features. Seeing the difference might be very tricky, first we must clearly understand and define (abstractly) the author's (intented) idea and then analyze what IS PRESENT in the realization of this idea. The PRESENCE or ABSENCE of something may be the essential features of the idea. The THEMATIC ABSENCE is not the same as the NOT-THEMATIC NOT-PRESENCE.

In the Uddgrens problem, the additional hideaways (f8,g8,h8) for bRb8 give the play-governing function to wBa1 in one phase - 1.R8b2! prevents the check. Similar additional hideaways for bRb1 in the other phase are not present and the function of wRa6 is only accidental and artificial.
So, what is present in the author's version: the PRESENCE of additional hideaways for one wR and the ABSENCE of them for the other wR.

The Jacques' version 2 (post 37) shows the ABSENCE of additional hideways for bRa2 a feature which is NOT PRESENT in the original. The position is adjusted for hunting the wBh1 as a weasel.
With the ABSENCE of the additional hideaways for wRa6, the author himself allowed the hunting of it as a weasel in the original position. So, the diagram in post 38 points out and amends that absence which IS PRESENT in the original.

I see a crucial difference between the two approaches, but I earned a headache explaining it.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8252

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3

MatPlus.Net Forum Helpmates Goethart unpin - Can it be shown in helpmates?