MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

9:10 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 Fairies Take&Make helpmate
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
(21) Posted by Alex Levit [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 12:50]

Very cool version! On the one hand I don't know what is better:
use white rook or white and black pawn for flight taking.
But on the other hand this version thanks for nice cook tries is better for solvers.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8394
(22) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Monday, Apr 30, 2012 13:08]

My favorite is clearly the first version of Jacques - the one without check. Well done.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8395
(23) Posted by Kevin Begley [Tuesday, May 1, 2012 09:09]

@Dan,

>"I agree that CODEX wording is less than ideal."

This is something of an understatement, but we all agree that the codex should clarify the issue, and that's more than enough!
Funny how we all await codex improvements... as if they were the premium Glengarry leads.


I could swear this issue came up in a previous thread -- where it *seemed* to me that Jacques' position was the consensus interpretation... I even suspected that Uri had made an agreeable comment, but I can not locate that old thread (maybe it just doesn't exist).
At any rate, a perceived consensus (which may have only been a dream) is not real clarification.
On that much, we all agree.

That said, it's worth pointing out that Jacques' position is currently the default... like it or not.
If editors elsewhere will (re)publish the problem as original, and judges will consider it in their award, what recourse is there?
note: After a few months, all judgement is final.
On the other hand, people who care about awards might have to worry about some judges.

I'm content with either interpretation (originals I have published in this forum are not intended to be republished).
I'd just like to know from the codex which interpretation is correct...

As I see it, there are three distinctions in any problem shown in this forum:
1) an original intended for publication in Mat Plus Forum,
2) an original which the composer reserves the right to republish (unless the codex invalidates this practice), and
3) schemes, not intended as a publication (these anticipate nothing, and do not belong in databases).

I think we're also in agreement that the 2nd category should be allowed.
For example:
Suppose I invent a new fairy condition, which I intend to introduce in an article.
Say I have a few involved problem ideas, but, absent any solving tools, I decide I'd like to solicit joint help.
How can I solicit interested parties from the community, if I can not show the ideas (in problem form)?
Why can't I reserve the right to republish these?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8402
(24) Posted by Bojan Basic [Tuesday, May 1, 2012 12:09]

@Kevin:

I found these earlier topics:

http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&tid=177

http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&tid=190

http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?app=forum&act=posts&tid=227
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8403
(25) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 1, 2012 13:49]

May the administrator, if he has time to do so, re-direct the posts 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24 under the already existing : "Codex: Definition of Publication" ?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8404
(26) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 1, 2012 20:21]

I'd like to add some elements to compare the diagrams in post 11 - let's call them D1 and D2

those already said :

a) D2 has a check in one solution, D1 has not. This is for Dmitri in favor of D1. (for me it is unclear)
b) There are some cook tries in D2 that are not in D1 - that might be, for me slightly in favor of D2

other elements :

c) Geometric : the thematic squares in D1 are in one solution h4-h6-f4-f8-h6, and in the other g6-e8-e4-a8-e8 a precise diagonal/orthogonal echo. In D2 the squares are g4-g6-e4-e8-g6 and f6-d8-d4-h8-d8 that is a weaker correspondence.
d) due to cook tries in D2 Bf6 & Rg4 are both needed, but in D1 Bg6 & Rh4 are in turn useless - it means that D1 could be shown as twins a)D1-g6 b)Rh4->Bg6

all in all :

here is how I understand that :

a) b) and d) have together, for me, low value compared to c)

about d) there are some details to add. I don't like twins when not needed. Here in D1 there is a black unit useless for each solution, at least it is well balanced! You have to be aware that some people will call that "weasel" and for that reason will reject the problem!

about the position of Dmitri in post 6, Alex asks in post 21 if a white Rook is so evidently better than a white pawn & a black one. I agree with the question. Here you have mainly the benefit that the black pawn is specially unwanted because it blocks in one solution and have no use in the other.

So, up to now, I would say : my preference goes to D1
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8405
(27) Posted by Dmitri Turevski [Tuesday, May 1, 2012 23:08]

That is quite an analisys, Jacques! It was a great pleasure to read your post.

I may have not made myself clear, when i said that i prefer D1 over D2 and my version with black and white pawns (say D0). I mentioned the check only to avoid the ambiguity, not because that was the main reason.

The reason i prefer D1 is because of its harmony. I would like to add two points to yor analisys:

 QUOTE 
if a white Rook is so evidently better than a white pawn & a black one.

In D1 wRc3 pairs perfectly with the static wBd7. And this Rook-Bishop pair echoes the two other Rook-Bishop pairs. And it even makes the diagram one unit lighter! So evidently better to me.

 QUOTE 
black unit useless for each solution ... some people will call that "weasel"

First of all, having tried to find a sound setting myself, these units do not seem so useless to me. Consider these two statements:
- Intended mate is long-ranged
- "Useless" black pieces initially attack a white long-ranged piece (by mechanism)

Now the solution (of D1):
1.R×h6(Rf4) e×f4(Bf8) 2.K×f3(Kf4) Bh6‡ (3.B×e8-?? no way to cut-off the bishop!)
1.B×e8(Be4) f×e4(Ra8) 2.K×e3(Ke4) Re8‡ (3.R×h6-?? no way to cut-off the rook!)

I know this is a very cool feature of the scheme. I was specifically looking for it and i have found it. People may call it weasels or whatever, who cares.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8406
(28) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 1, 2012 23:56]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-05-02]

Dmitri : wonderful remarks !! I agree with each one.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8407
(29) Posted by Alex Levit [Monday, May 14, 2012 16:15]

New one. Very simple but I hope funny:

(= 3+1 )
Ser.H#25 Take&Make, Circe Parrain
(3+1) C+

6.Kxd6-b8 7.Kb7[+wBd5] 8.Kxc7-f6 9.Kf5[+wRc5] 11.Kxd5-b7 12.Kb6[+wBd4]
13.Kxc5-f5 14.Kf4[+wRc4] 17.Kxc4-c6 18.Kd5[+wRd3] 19.Kxd4-b2 20.Kc2[+wBe4]
21.Kxd3-h3 22.Kh2[+wRd2] 25.Kxe4-h1 Kf1[+wBf3]#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8548
(30) Posted by Geoff Foster [Tuesday, May 15, 2012 01:33]

Nice problem! When the black king captures a line piece it has to hide behind another piece on the next move. The following problems show captures of a rook and bishop, but I didn't think of combining them into the one problem!

Geoff Foster, harmonie 2011
(= 2+1 )
SER-H#13
Take&Make + CirceParrain

1.Kd6 2.Kxe6-g4 3.Kh5[wBf7] 4.Kxg6-g7 5.Kf6[wPf5] 6.Kxf7-d5 7.Ke4[wBg6] 8.Kxf5-f6 9.Ke7[wPe6] 10.Kxe6-e7 11.Kf8[wPf7] 12.Kg7 13.Kh8 f8=Q#

Geoff Foster, StrateGems 2012
(= 2+1 )
SER-H#16
Take&Make + CirceParrain

1.Kb6 2.Kxc5-h5 3.Kg4[wRb4] 4.Kxf4-f5 5.Ke6[wPe5] 6.Kd5 7.Kc5 8.Kxb4-g4 9.Kf5[wRa5] 10.Kxe5-e6 11.Kd7[wPd6] 12.Kxd6-d7 13.Kc8[wPc7] 14.Kb7 15.Kb6 16.Kxa5-a8 c8=Q[wRa6]#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8550
(31) Posted by Geoff Foster [Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:01]

An extra capture can be added to Alex's problem, as below.

(= 3+1 )
SER-H#25
Take&Make + ParrainCirce

4.Kxb7-d7 5.Ke6[+wRc6] then as before
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8553
(32) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:30]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-05-15]

The problem of Alex seems to be cooked in 21 by Wchloe as follow :

1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké6 6.Kd7 7.K×ç6(Kç8) 8.Kd7(Rd5) 9.K×d6(Kf4) 10.Ké4(Bç6) 11.K×d5(Kd8) 12.Kç7(Rç4) 13.K×ç6(Kb5) 14.K×ç4(Kç7;Bd5) 15.Kd6(Rd3) 16.K×d5(Kç4) 17.K×d3(Kh3;Bé4) 18.Kh2(Rd2) 19.Kg3 20.Kf4 21.K×é4(Kh1) Kf1(Bf3)‡
1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké6 6.Kd7 7.K×ç6(Kç8) 8.Kd7(Rd5) 9.K×d6(Kb4) 10.Kç4(Bé6) 11.K×d5(Kd8) 12.Ké7(Ré4) 13.K×é6(Kf5) 14.K×é4(Ké7;Bd5) 15.Kd6(Rd3) …
1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké6 6.Kd7 7.K×ç6(Kç8) 8.Kd7(Rd5) 9.K×d6(Kb4) 10.Kç4(Bé6) 11.K×d5(Kd8) 12.Ké7(Ré4) 13.K×é6(Kd5) 14.K×é4(Ké7;Bf5) 15.Kf6(Rf3) 16.K×f5(Kg4) 17.K×f3(Kb3;Bé4) 18.Kb2(Rf2) 19.Kç3 20.Kd4 21.K×é4(Kh1) Kf1(Bf3)‡
1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké6 6.Kd5 7.K×ç6(Kç8) …
1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké6 6.K×d6(Kb8) 7.Kb7(Bd5) 8.K×ç6(Kf6) 9.Ké5(Rb5) 10.K×d5(Kç4) 11.K×b5(Kb8;Bç6) 12.Kç7(Rç4) …
1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké6 6.K×d6(Kb8) 7.Kb7(Bd5) 8.K×ç6(Kd6) 9.K×d5(Kb7;Rç5) 10.Kb6(Bd4) 11.K×ç5(Kd5) 12.K×d4(Kb2;Rç4) 13.Kb3(Bd5) 14.K×ç4(Kç7) …
1.Kg2 2.Kh3 3.Kg4 4.Kf5 5.Ké4 6.Kd5 …
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8554
(33) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:04]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-05-15]

Winchloe cooks in 8 the Geoff's sh13# :

1.Kd6 2.K×é6(Kf5) 3.K×g6(Kg7;Bf7) 4.K×f7(Kg6;f6) 5.K×f6(Kf7;Bé7) 6.Kg8(g7) 7.K×g7(Kg8) 8.Kh8(h7) Bf6‡
1.Kd6 2.K×é6(Kf5) 3.K×g6(Kg7;Bf7) 4.K×f7(Kg6;f6) 5.K×f6(Kf7;Bé7) 6.Kg7(g6) 7.K×g6(Kg7) 8.Kh8(h7) …

and his sh16# is a correct sh15# !

1.Kb6 2.K×ç5(Kh5) 3.Kg4(Rb4) 4.K×f4(Kf5) 5.Ké6(é5) 6.Kd5 7.Kç5 8.K×b4(Kf4) 9.K×é5(Ké6;Ra5) 10.Kd7(d6) 11.K×d6(Kd7) 12.Kç8(ç7) 13.Kb7 14.Kb6 15.K×a5(Ka8) ç8=Q(Ra6)‡

... and the last position of the Alex's by Geoff is a correct sh19# !! :

1.Ké6 2.Kd5 3.Kç6 4.K×b7(Kd7) 5.K×d6(Kç7;Rb6) 6.K×b6(Kç6;Bç5) 7.K×ç5(Ka3;Rb5) 8.Ka4(Bç6) 9.K×b5(Kb8) 10.Kç7(Rç4) 11.K×ç6(Kb5) 12.K×ç4(Kç7;Bd5) 13.Kd6(Rd3) 14.K×d5(Kç4) 15.K×d3(Kh3;Bé4) 16.Kh2(Rd2) 17.Kg3 18.Kf4 19.K×é4(Kh1) Kf1(Bf3)‡
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8555
(34) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, May 15, 2012 16:09]

All that looks not so simple...

You may think of twins...

a first example :

(= 3+1 )
sh#13
Take & Make, Circe parrain

a)diagram
b)Ke2->d2
c)Ke2->e7

a)
1.Kç6 2.K×d5(Kd7) 3.Kç6(Rç4) 4.K×ç5(Ka3) 5.Kb3(Bd5) 6.K×ç4(Kç7) 7.Kd6(Rd3) 8.K×d5(Kç4) 9.K×d3(Kh3;Bé4) 10.Kh2(Rd2) 11.Kg3 12.Kf4 13.K×é4(Kh1) Kf1(Bf3)‡
b)
1.K×ç5(Ké7) 2.Ké6(Bç4) 3.K×d5(Ka5) 4.Kb4(Ré4) 5.K×ç4(Kd5) 6.K×é4(Kd4;Bd3) 7.K×d3(Kf1;Ré3) 8.Kf2(Bd4) 9.K×é3(Ka3) 10.Ka2(Ré2) 11.Kb3 12.Kç4 13.K×d4(Ka1) Kç1(Bç3)‡
c)
1.Kç6 2.K×d5(Kd3) 3.Kç4(Rç6) 4.K×ç5(Ka7) 5.Kb7(Bd5) 6.K×ç6(Kç5) 7.K×d5(Kb7;Rd6) 8.Kç7(Bé5) 9.K×d6(Kh6) 10.Kh7(Rd7) 11.Kg6 12.Kf5 13.K×é5(Kh8) Kf8(Bf6)‡
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8557
(35) Posted by Alex Levit [Tuesday, May 15, 2012 16:57]

@Jacques But Popeye v4.59 says that my problem is C+ ! I think critical point is here:

(= 3+1 )

After 13.Kxc6-b5 move 14.Kxc4-c7 is illegal by Popeye because wB reborn on d8!
So we have two way of understanding Take&Make condition.
1) Make part of the move is a normal move (Popeye) or
2)Make part of the move is Anticirce type reborn (Winchloe). I feel that Popeye is right here.
For example castle is illegal (unlike Anticirce) when King goes back to e1 after capture.

@Geoff I know about extra capture possibilities but in my version bK is in check:
(= 3+1 )
Ser-H#25
Take&Make, Circe Parrain

My first position have one nice feature: switchbacke of bK. But your position is good example of new type
of twins: a)Ser-H#25 (Popeye) b)Ser-H#19 (Winchloe)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8558
(36) Posted by Geoff Foster [Wednesday, May 16, 2012 00:48]

Here is a quote from 'Take and Make Chess - Beauty and Dynamics!' by Petko Petkov (p.44 Mat Plus Review Spring-Summer 2010):

"As a general conclusion we should accept that in a combination between Take & Make and another condition, Take & Make has priority. For example, this special feature is very clear and important in all syntheses between Take & Make and a lot of conditions from the great Circe family. Practically it means that the effect of the Take & Make move in its full two phases 'Take' and 'Make' must be realised and then or simultaneously the effect from the other condition must be shown. This principle figures in Popeye (version 4,55) and it is a conception of the programmers."

However, Circe has priority in WinChloe, so Circe rebirth occurs first, then the "make" part of the Take&Make move.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8560
(37) Posted by Geoff Foster [Wednesday, May 16, 2012 01:21]

Here is another example:

Chris Feather, Fairings 2011
(= 3+8 )
H#2 2.1.1...
Take&Make + CirceExchange(also known as PWC)

1.bxa6-a7[wPb7] bxa8-f3[bBb7] 2.Be4 fxe4-g6[bBf3]#
1.Sxa6-a7[wPc7] cxb8-e5[bBc7] 2.Bd6 exd6-f8=S[bBe5]#

This is C+ using Popeye. However WinChloe finds no solution, because after 1...bxa8 the black bishop is reborn on b7, preventing the 'Make' move from a8 to f3. Similarly after 1...cxb8 the black bishop is reborn on c7, preventing the 'Make' move from b8 to e5.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8561
(38) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, May 16, 2012 03:42]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-05-16]

To refer to Circe is not mandatory for describing "take and make".

You have two ways to see the take & make move :
1) It is a move itself as a whole
2) Only the part "take" is the move, the part "make" being secondary (a kind of side effect)

in favor of 1), the fact that pawn promotion is only after the "make" part.
in favor of 2), the fact that "make" part cannot capture.

The choice of Winchloe to admit castling after a "make" move of the King or of the Rook, is not evident.

In any case, it seems needed to say "Take & make + Circe parrain (popeye like)" or "Take & make + Circe parrain (Winchloe like)"

The question of priority Take & make + PWC is another point, not bound with the previous one.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8562
(39) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, May 16, 2012 07:12]

Take&Make is a complete move. It cannot be temporarily halted at "Take" part to apply another fairy condition like CirceParrain or PWC. It is evidenced by the fact that during the Take part, either king can be in passing check, the move being complete only after the Make part. So there cannot be two different interpretations. Winchloe has to be corrected if necessary.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=8563
(40) Posted by Joost de Heer [Wednesday, May 16, 2012 09:17]

IIRC, in an article on Take&Make in Die Schwalbe, the authors mentioned this problem. They 'solved' it by defining 'Circe[variation] + Take&Make' as Circe having the priority, and 'Take&Make + Circe[variation]' as T&M having the priority.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=8564

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4

MatPlus.Net Forum Fairies Take&Make helpmate