MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

16:54 CET
 
  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

Rating lists
01-Jul-2019

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Twomovers if you were the judge, is it worthy of some award?
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Friday, Nov 2, 2012 19:37]

if you were the judge, is it worthy of some award?


Quite the disappointment, this not getting anything...For the longest time I've been wondering what the judge did not see in this problem. Might anyone offer their thoughts on some possibilities? Yes there are 25 men and the wB is a nightwatchman in the thematic try, but all are in play after the key...

Eugene Rosner &Eric Hassberg
Problemist 1984
(= 12+13 )

#2
1.Rxe6? (2.Rd6#)
1....fe 2.Rxe5#
1....Kxe6 2.Qxf7#
1....de 2.Qa8#
Qxd4!
1.Sxc4! (Sxb6#)
1....Qa5 2.Sxe3#
1....Kxc4 2.Bxb3#
1....Bxc4 2.Qg2#
1....Qxd4 2.Rxd4
total change, total parallel play, pins in threat and variation, self block, king flight.
 
(Read Only)pid=9037
(2) Posted by Michael McDowell [Friday, Nov 2, 2012 22:28]

The pawns at a4, b2 and c2 are also unemployed in the try. For me the unused white bishop in the try is just too big a defect. It completely ruins the aesthetic appeal of the problem. I think the judge was correct to exclude it.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9039
(3) Posted by Harri Hurme [Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 00:23]

Hello!

I think that claiming a problem uneconomical one should show how it can be done more economically.

I tried myself, but failed so far.

Actually I propose the following position, which is less economical, but all white units have _some_ function in both phases.

(= 12+14 )

2# try

The play is quite identical with the original version. Note that wSa3 prevents a black dual (= a second refutation 1.-c3!) in the try 1.Rxe6?. I have added bPa5 which prevents second variation (1.-Qa5) with the same continuation as in the variation 1.-Qb4 in the solution. Some problemist call _that_ as a black dual, but I think it is simply "second variation with the same continuation", not necessarily a black dual. Unfortunalely the Codex does not define "variation" at all, a major shortcoming in the Codex.

I do not claim that this version is any better than the original excellent problem, just the opposite, even if it is formally more economical. Pity that the original version did not get any award, in my mind. Often flight giving keys are underestimated, also here. In my mind the biggest shortcoming is the refutation 1.-Qxd4!, which is too obvious. Especially because it appears also in tries 1.Qxf7? and 1.Qa8?.

Best regards Harri Hurme
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9075
(4) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Nov 6, 2012 19:05]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-11-06]

This is a nice problem with matched play. But, total change is not appreciated by many judges, especially by somone like Mr.Mansfield. Apart from the unused WB in the tryplay, some judges also consider the unwanted black pieces in each phase. In this problem, some black units are unnecessary in either phase. This also might have been considered a weakness by the judge.

My view, a commendation.
 
(Read Only)pid=9081
(5) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Wednesday, Nov 7, 2012 23:54]

thanks Harri! so i guess the role of the wB in the try is to block the check after 1....Rxa3?!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9086
(6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Nov 9, 2012 11:44]

<Captain Obvious> We also would have to know your competitors.
Maybe the competitors were simply better and the judge didn't want a
prize overinflation. <shrug>

On an independent scale 0-10, I'd give a 7.

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9095
(7) Posted by Geoff Foster [Saturday, Nov 10, 2012 01:22]

The judge of The Problemist 1984-II was Aaron Hirschenson. He awarded 4 prizes, 2 honourable mentions and 4 commendations. Here are the top two prizewinners. I can show some more if you want.

C.J.R.Sammelius, 1 Prize, The Problemist 1984-II
(= 12+8 )
#2

1.Qd6? >2.Se6 (A)
1...Re5 (a) 2.Qb4 (B)
1...Rc5! (b)

1.Re8? >2.Qb4 (B)
1...Rc5 (b) 2.Qe4 (C)
1...Se5! (c)

1.b4? >2.Qe4 (C)
1...Se5 (c) 2.Se6 (A)
1...Re5! (a)

1.Bd2! >2.Bc3
1...Re5 (a) 2.Qb4 (B)
1...Rc5 (b) 2.Qe4 (C)
1...Se5 (c) 2.Se6 (A)

In 3 tries the white threats and mates are changed in cyclic fashion and so are the black defences and refutations -- a perfect combination.

R.van Dooren, 2 Prize, The Problemist 1984-II
(= 9+6 )
#2

1.Rd6? >2.Rf6
1...Be2+ 2.Rxe2
1...Bg5 2.Rf2
1...Bxh2!

1.Rd4? >2.Rxf4
1...Be2+ Rxe2
1...Be4 2.Qxe4
1...Bxh2 2.Rf2
1...Bg5!

1.Rf2! >2.Rd5
1...Bxh2 2.Rd4
1...Bg5 2.Rd6
1...Be2 2.Rxf4
1...Be4 2.Rxf4

Banny Theme. The tries and refutations reappear after the key as defences and mates. In addition there are changes after 1...Be2/Be4. Good construction and nice combination of half-battery and halfpin to create the theme.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9099
(8) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Saturday, Nov 10, 2012 10:28]

It seems that unemployed pieces (Michael's post 2) did not bother judge too much in the 1st Prize (Pb3,Bg8,Rh4).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9102
(9) Posted by Uri Avner [Saturday, Nov 10, 2012 13:26]; edited by Uri Avner [12-11-10]

Mistake by a judge? Tell me about it!
The problem deserves a place somewhere in the award.
At least no malicious intent there :)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9103
(10) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Saturday, Nov 10, 2012 15:34]

I guess the judge was bothered by the pawns giving away the key.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9104
(11) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Sunday, Nov 11, 2012 13:37]; edited by Eugene Rosner [12-11-11]

I believe our problem appeared in 1984-I. there were 2Pr, 3HM, 3C. the 1st prize was won by Josef Retter, where tries and key all take 2 flights, an interesting problem to say the least!

The story of this thread seems to have a happy ending. I took the chessboard out over this past shabbat(sabbath) and came up with a total reworking of the matrix. I hope to have it published in The Problemist soon and I will share with you all once there. I'm actually quite pleased by it and I'm glad I had a chance to make something new that is much more economical(both for White and Black!) On this topic, would it be bad form to discuss a problem before it appears in an award? Now that we have internet forums it presents some issues does it not? If a judge stumbles upon it, can it improperly influence his jurying?
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9109
(12) Posted by Eugene Rosner [Sunday, Nov 11, 2012 13:38]

thanks Uri!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=9110
(13) Posted by Geoff Foster [Sunday, Nov 11, 2012 22:26]

The problem appeared in 1984-II. It was C6958 on page 494 of the November 1984 issue of The Problemist.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=9113

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum Twomovers if you were the judge, is it worthy of some award?