20:59 CET
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Threats and duals (spawnoff thread) |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | | (1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, May 10, 2012 14:22] | Threats and duals (spawnoff thread)
Take a problem with secondary threat correction (or what
the name is, I'm not sure it is what I think it is :-)
or even better a secondary Fleck (here I know definitely :-)
1.A (2.B) c~ 2.D,E,F
Would you see a move c' that just parries D as a worse dual
than the same thing in a free primary Fleck?
My, are you illogical then :-)
1.A (2.B) c~ 2.D
Would you see a move c' that is so idiotic that it introduces
a new mate E in addition to D as a dual? A move x that doesn't
parry B and introduces a new mate F isn't seen as a dual
after all (at least nowadays). My, are you even more illogical :P))
Hauke
| | | (2) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 17, 2012 03:58]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-05-17] |
You bring up a very interesting point.
Threat notation doesn't hold for Fleck Themed problems.
And, therefore, the definition of duals has to be altered.
So, what new notation is required, and what constitutes a dual within this new framework?
Furthermore, shouldn't the proper notation be stipulated, in the problem?
| | | (3) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Thursday, May 17, 2012 09:48] |
@Hauke.
On the subject of Fleck theme, is it OK (or even desirable!) in an otherwise perfectly accurate ideal/total primary or secondary Fleck example to have a single move that actualizes all the threats - i.e. 1....c 2.A,B,C,... #? I think this actually improves thematic clarity, particularly for secondary Flecks. Moreover, in offshoot themes like Combinative Separation, such a 'null move' is demanded!
| | | (4) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Thursday, May 17, 2012 13:55] |
@Kevin - and since there is no such thing as a pass move in chess,
does it follow that there are no such things as threats? :-)
Hauke
(Note: Today is "Fathers Day" in Germany, meaning that countless
rednecks run around bombed, blitzed, stuffed to the gills etc.
[use Garbage "The boys wanna fight" for more synonyms if needed]
I'm a teetotaler and want to point out this posting was made
with 0.00 promille - in case anyone thought otherwise :-)
| | | (5) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, May 17, 2012 16:52] |
@Hauke,
It really does not logically follow, from a lack of free-move, that threats are not part of problems (or the game).
Imagining the free move is only a method, which is used to determine the threat.
If you're serious about this, could you please provide an alternative notation (which does not use threats)?
| | | (6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, May 18, 2012 11:27] |
Naaaah, total unserious :-)
But still, threats are a fictional device to simplify our thoughts,
and as it is with devices, it just takes one inventive
trickster to make them run amuck:
H. Reddmann, Schach-Report #4480
#2 a) Dia b) Sd4->e6
Just ponder whether Black "prefers" to be mated with his knight on d4 or e6.
Of course, it makes no difference for him - only threat and mate after correction
are swapped in a) and b), to the effect they get almost equivalent.
Hauke
| |
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net Forum General Threats and duals (spawnoff thread) |
|
|
|
