MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

8:24 UTC
ISC 2020
 
  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-2020

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Twomovers All for one, one for all!
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
(1) Posted by Milan Velimirović (+) [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 02:01]

All for one, one for all!


Some may not like what I am going to say here, but it bothers me for some time... I am sorry for a long post, but at least (without a false modesty!) you will see some quality twomovers.

I sent 4 (four) twomovers for FIDE Album 2001-2003. I think that there hardly have been a shipment with better matched quality of entries in the history (of course, since there were only 4 problems this is not so strange). If you have some spare time take a look at them, I'll show all four.
 
[1] Milan Velimirovic
1.Com Schach-Aktiv 6/2001
(= 10+9 )
#2*
 

  1... Kb6 2.Bd4:#
  1... Kb4 2.Qc4#
  1... Kd5: 2.Re5#

1.Sd4:! ~ 2.Qb5#
  1... Kb6 2.Sdb5#
  1... Kb4 2.Sdc2#
  1... Kd5: 2.Qh5#
  1... Bc4 2.Qc4:#
3 changed mates after self-pin by BK moves. This task have been realised earlier only three times:
1) Touw Hian Bwee, 2.HM The Problemist 1969, Ka8 Qc6 Ra3 e8 Bc1 f1 Sb7 e4 Pa2 g4 h7 (11) - Kd4 Rd2 f3 Be7 Sd3 Pc5 f4 (7), #2*, 1... Kc4,Ke3,Ke5; 1.Sf6!
2) Romeo Bédoni, 1.pr Blikeng 80 JT 1993-4, Kb3 Qe2 Ra6 f4 Bc8 f6 Sa4 e4 Pa7 c5 d2 d4 (12) - Kd5 Rd7 Be5 Sb6 Pb4 c7 h6 (7), #2*, 1... Kd4:,Kc6,Ke6; 1.Qg2!
Both are excellent problems despite each has one thematic Q/B promotion mate (which underlines the difficulty of the task, but still...)
3) Milan Velimirovic, 2.Pl Liga Problemista 2000, Kd1 Qc6 Ra3 e8 Ba2 a7 Se4 h4 Pa6 b2 b4 c2 c4 (13) - Kd4 Qg8 Rb8 Be6 f4 Sb3 Pa4 c5 d2 f3 g6 (11), #2*, 1... Kc4,Ke3,Ke5; 1.Sxc5!
Battery creation simplifies the job, but note thematic battery mates in actual play.

The problem on diagram is based on similar mechanism, but it's still sufficiently different to be the original problem. Sadly, it probably had no chance to survive the opinion of the three judges for FA 2001-3: no tries, no double threats, no letters associated with moves... Who was the idiot to compose such problem in 21st Century? Well, I was! And not only once...

The second problem:
 
[2] Milan Velimirovic
1.Prize Wola Gulowska 2001
(= 12+13 )
#2*
 

  1... Sd6 2.ed6#
  1... Sf6 2.ef6#
  1... Sf4 2.Sc4#
  1... gf3 2.Sd5#

1.Qf5:! ~ 2.Re4#
  1... Sd6 2.Sd5# (2.Sc4?)
  1... Sf6 2.Sc4# (2.Sd5?)
  1... Sf4 2.Qf4:#
  1... gf3 2.Qf3:#
  (1... Rb6:+,Bf5: 2.Bb6:,Sf5:#)

Ideal Ruchlis; dual avoidance
("My God! This guy is living in the past!")
Here I didn't write 'A's and 'B's beside the transferred mates but judges might have assumend them, so this one had chances.

The third one:
 
[3] Milan Velimirovic
1.Place YU-2001, Zrenjanin 2001
(= 9+10 )
#2 v
  1... Bc5: 2.Rc5:#
  1... Se7: 2.Re6#
  (1... Sc2: 2.Bd5#)
1.Bg8? Re7:! (= set play)
1.Qg8? Bc5:!
1.Rfe5? ~ 2.Sd4#
  1... Bc5: 2.Rc5:#
  1... Se7: 2.Qe6# (2.R4e6?)
  1... Sc2:/Sf5 2.Bd5#
  1... Qe5: 2.d8S#
  1... Bc3!
1.Ree5! ~ 2.Sd4#
  1... Bc5: 2.Qa4# (2.Rfc5?)
  1... Se7: 2.Re6#
  1... Sc2:/Sf5: 2.Qg2:#
  1... Qe5: 2.d8S#
  1... Bc3 2.Qa4#
Mutual obstruction of white rooks in try and key move;
3 changed mates; interceptions of BQ focal lines
This one had good chances since the solution looks rich, one could even recognize a "difficult" and widely appreciated pseudo le Grand in inevitable side variations (captures by BQ).

And the last but not the least:
 
[4] Milan Velimirovic
4.Prize Wola Gulowska 2002
(= 8+5 )
#2*
 

  1... Sb5 2.Qb5:# (2.Bg2?)
  1... Sf5 2.Bg2# (2.Qb5?)
  1... Se4! 2.Rd3:# (2.Bg2?/Qb5?)

1.Re4! ~ 2.Rd4#
  1... Sb5 2.Qb7# (2.Qc4?)
  1... Sf5 2.Qc4# (2.Qb7?)
  1... Se4:! 2.Se3# (2.Qc4?/Qb7?)
  1... Ke4: 2.Qc6# (model!)
  1... Bf2/Bc3 2.Sc3#

Separation and correction; 3 changed mates
("In fact, this guy is a dinosaur!")
For me this is a beauty, but it could hardly pass the three judges!

Only one of four made it according to the results on PCCC site. I heven't seen it, but I was told by Misha Mladenovic that the first day the list was announced there were two problems of mine, the next day there was only one. Pity they stopped there, just one day more and the remaining one could have been thrown out.

To my opinion, if any of four is selected, it is a big injustice to reject the remaining three. As a matter of fact I think it is a crime to separate them, like separating The Three Musketeers from D'Artagnan. I may be subjective, but I doubt. When it is about the twomovers nobody can pull my leg. Anyway, this is my contribution to all the discussions about the judging the Albums
 
(Read Only)pid=1434
(2) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 08:07]

Yes, unfortunately nowadays it's important that problem does have as more duals as possible in order to get prize or be selected into FIDE album. It's just important that there is a unique solution. Then you write all checkmates and put letters next to them. If there is a new original combination of letters that's a big plus. If it happens that problem shows some pseudo theme then the prize is granted for sure. That's how it looks to me.

I can confirm that when preliminary twomover results were published Milan had 2 problems selected. The day after there was only one. There was no any explanation why this happened what is very strange. If somebody made mistake typing results, what is very likely to happen, then at least some comment/footnote should be put. This way it looks like somebody is doing fine tuning of results even after final selection. I would never even thought about this before until Harry confirmed that some helpmates were accepted even after the deadline date and that they were added later on to the selection. For me this is a big mistake and it does leave a lot of space for manipulation.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1435
(3) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 15:21]

The whole FA selection 2001 - 2003 should be done again after this much manipulation (we talked about other things in other threads).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1436
(4) Posted by Paz Einat [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 19:56]

Milan's post came at an interesting time! I was thinking in the last few days of giving a mini-lecture showing 3 to 4 problems which were not selected for FA's. I have to say that this is not something unique to the current Album. Of course I thought of a couple of my problems but if you have additional outstanding problems (and outstanding is the only way I can describe Milan's quartet) please send me.
I have not made the decision to give a mini-lecture yet (I do have a good name for it, though) but any encouragements can push me in this direction. Actually I am sure many composers can give something like this.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1437
(5) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 21:51]

 QUOTE 
I can confirm that when preliminary twomover results were published Milan had 2 problems selected. The day after there was only one. There was no any explanation why this happened what is very strange. If somebody made mistake typing results, what is very likely to happen, then at least some comment/footnote should be put.

I agree, some explanation should have been given.

 QUOTE 
I would never even thought about this before until Harry confirmed that some helpmates were accepted even after the deadline date and that they were added later on to the selection. For me this is a big mistake and it does leave a lot of space for manipulation.

I already explained this point, and imho it is irrelevant. There were only 10 problems, claimed to be lost by the post. This can happen, all three judges accepted to evaluate the additional problems. I cannot see why this is a big mistake.

 QUOTE 
The whole FA selection 2001 - 2003 should be done again after this much manipulation (we talked about other things in other threads).

Sorry, but you should justify such a statement. And preferably address it to the FIDE Album sub-committee and not in a public forum.

 QUOTE 
I was thinking in the last few days of giving a mini-lecture showing 3 to 4 problems which were not selected for FA's. I have to say that this is not something unique to the current Album.
have not made the decision to give a mini-lecture yet (I do have a good name for it, though) but any encouragements can push me in this direction.

May I consider this as an "application" for a mini-lecture in Rhodes? Atm there are not many, and this can be really interesting. I always remember Kovacevic's mini-lecture in Pula (I think it was in 2000, but I'm not sure), where he analysed some WCCT awarded and unlucky twomovers.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1438
(6) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 22:52]; edited by Siegfried Hornecker [07-09-15]

 QUOTE 
Sorry, but you should justify such a statement. And preferably address it to the FIDE Album sub-committee and not in a public forum.


Of course not all done again (would take too long) but the fairy and moremovers section should be reviewed by someone neutral.

http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1189889460&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=213
http://www.matplus.net/pub/start.php?px=1189889512&app=forum&act=posts&fid=gen&tid=135

The one we have here is not really relevant but it's another brick in the wall.


Yes, sometimes I need some time to think over it, my first reaction was inappropiately excessive.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1439
(7) Posted by Uri Avner [Saturday, Sep 15, 2007 23:47]; edited by Uri Avner [07-09-15]

Milan, why don't you ask director Udo Degener about the issue of 2 or 1 points? There is always the possibility of a mistake somewhere.
By the way, I've enjoyed all 4 problems!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1440
(8) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 00:47]

 QUOTE 
Of course not all done again (would take too long) but the fairy and moremovers section should be reviewed by someone neutral.

The issue of the fairies section is in the Rhodes agenda, and I don't see any problem with the moremovers section.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1441
(9) Posted by Milan Velimirović (+) [Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 01:34]

 QUOTE 
Milan, why don't you ask director Udo Degener about the issue of 2 or 1 points

It's not about points, it's about problems!

I can give another example where I am not necessarily a good guy, I'm afraid. I hesitate since, again, it will be not a short post (although not as long as the "opening" one).

And Paz, I gave a similar mini-lecture at one of PCCC Congresses in early 1980's. I was so irritated at that time that I said "pass" for next four Albums. Without any effect... except on my "score", of course.

The bottom line is that as far as we have the democracy we will not have the ideal method of selection. Too many personal, national, political and other subjective interests! What we need is a few wise men to decide for us, but - a "catch 22"! - how to elect them in a democratic way? :)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1442
(10) Posted by Uri Avner [Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 05:07]

Milan, of course it is about problems. I did not think otherwise!
I can well understand your feelings regarding the selection of your problems. I can tell you secretly that you are not alone (what a surprise)!
I have this wild dream of forming a group of wise composers whose aim is to find the perfect (ok, I'll settle for "good") solution to the selection issue. In our real world this might prove no more than one of those dreams, but before we wake up perhaps we should give it a go all the same.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1443
(11) Posted by Paz Einat [Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 07:55]

Well, this becomes really phylosophical. First, Milan is entering into the Utopia and than Uri into the issue of "Good". Socrates wouldn't be of much help here - just more confusion...but he wold have enjoyed the problems.

The bottom line (maybe) is back to te suggestion Uri had - a second chance album with either a selection of "Unique" judges or many judges (5?).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1445
(12) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 15:56]

I'm even more dinosaurian than Milan and don't even bother
to send in problems for the FIDE album. Fact is, another
style is hip at the moment and my vanity isn't big enough
to see me printed at all costs :-) Hey man, in 100 years
we all are dead, buried and forgotten. No chance of getting
more fame than Warhol's 15 minutes...

Hauke
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1446
(13) Posted by Milan Velimirović (+) [Sunday, Sep 16, 2007 16:34]

 QUOTE 
in 100 years we all are dead, buried and forgotten

... but only those of us who used to be known :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1447
(14) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Sep 17, 2007 14:42]; edited by Frank Richter [07-09-17]

Dear Milan,

as far as I know was your second qualified #2 anticipated and couldn't be included in the album. You may ask Udo for details - no manipulation took place here!

But the whole question is not new and I'm afraid, will never be answered satisfactorily. Here an contrary example from the album 98-00:

D. Papack & P. Gvozdjak
Cyclone 2000
(= 12+10 )

#2, 2 solutions
1.Sxd4! (2.Qf5#) Kd3/Rxb5/Kd5 2.Sc5/Dxf3/Sf6#
1.Lb8! (2.Sc5#) Kd3/Txb5/Kd 2.Qxf3/Sf6/Qf5#

The problem shows a 4fold Shedej cycle in two-solution-form - the second
realization without promoted force or other weaknesses.

It was rated with 3.5 - 3 - 1(!!).
(For explanation: "1" may be understood as "a problem by beginners")

Why the big discrepancy? One judge meaned, that the realization with 2 solutions is a reason to disqualify the problem.
But do we live in the 19th century?

So you will see, that the whole selection process is not fair for everybody, especially "non trendy" composer. But as you see - overmodern is as bad as very old-fashioned.
By the way, for the same reason as above some problems were excluded from the album 01-03 too.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1449
(15) Posted by Milan Velimirović (+) [Monday, Sep 17, 2007 15:17]; edited by Milan Velimirović (+) [07-09-17]

D. Papack & P. Gvozdjak
Cyclone 2000
version MV :))
(= 12+10 )
#2 v
 
1.Bb8? ~ 2.Sc5#
1... Kd5 2.Qf5#
1... Kd3 2.Qf3:#
1... Rb5: 2.Sf6#
1... Sb7!
(underlining the weakness of a strong flight-taking move!)

1.Sd4:! ~ 2.Qf5#
1... Rb5: 2.Qf3:#
1... Kd5 2.Sf6#
1... Kd3 2.Sc5#
1... Kf4: 2.Qf5#

What is the reason for 2 solutions??? For my money the original position was cooked.

 
   
(Read Only)pid=1450
(16) Posted by Frank Richter [Monday, Sep 17, 2007 15:36]

You are really a dinosaurier, aren't you?

The reason is that the authors decided to present the content in the 2-solution-form.
Of course it is very simple to avoid this.

The main question was the terrible discrepance between the album judges. How it is possible to avoid this?

I personally also like the 2- or more-solution-form in a problem, if the solutions are very strong connected and the refutation is obvious.
Example (#2):
1.A? (2.X/Y#) a!
1.B! (2.X#) a 2.Y#
1.C! (2.Y#) a 2.X#
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1451
(17) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Sep 17, 2007 21:24]

I am also against flight taking key and two solutions in twomover. I do not think that there is any justification to have two or more solutions in twomover. Also if there is flight taking key that's a cook and not solution.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1453
(18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Sep 18, 2007 00:11]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [07-09-18]

It happened to me to compose orthodox 2-movers with 2 or 3 solutions, and I feel good with this :

Jacques Rotenberg Europe Echecs 1993
(= 6+8 )

2# 2 solutions

1.Bf6! blocus
1…S~ 2.d4‡
1…Sd4! 2.Bé7‡

1.Sd6! [2.Qç4‡]
1…S~ 2.Qd4‡
1…S×d6! 2.Bd4‡

also :

Jacques Rotenberg Phenix 1997 1st rec.
(= 12+8 )

2# 3 solutions

1.Qé4! [2.B~‡]
1…Rç1 2.Sf4‡
1…Qé2,Q×d2 2.Sé5‡
1…Bf1 2.é8=Q‡
(1…b×ç5 2.R×ç5‡
1…Q×ç7+ 2.R×ç7‡)

1.Qf4! [2.B~‡]
1…Rç1 2.Sé5‡
1…Qé2,Q×d2 2.Qd6‡
1…Bf1 2.ç8=Q‡
(1…b×ç5 2.R×ç5‡)

1.Qg4! [2.B~‡]
1…Rç1 2.é8=Q‡
1…Qé2,Q×d2 2.ç8=Q‡
1…Bf1 2.Qd7‡
(1…b×ç5 2.R×ç5‡
1…Q×ç7+ 2.R×ç7‡)

both problems can be easily shown with 1 sol
the second one showing a carrousel with 3 black lines is one of my favourites
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1454
(19) Posted by Paz Einat [Tuesday, Sep 18, 2007 00:51]

Milan and Misha, may I ask why?

Why one of two solutions is a cook and why a flight giving key is bad?
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1455
(20) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Tuesday, Sep 18, 2007 11:14]

Paz, you made a typo. ;-)

Personally, I also have occasionally composed problems
with 2 solutions (Problem-Forum 288 for example) or
flight-taking keys. But there was always a good reason
for it - i.e., it wasn't possible in any other way.
(An Alfil on e1 like in PF288 doesn't count as "any" :-)
And when *I* can't do it, nobody can (and I usually
commit suicide in shame when somebody let me eat my
words - boy, have I been revived often :-)

The point Milan demonstrated was: two solutions in the
mentioned problem were not neccessary, and that by
just a small beauty operation. Question B: Is the
try Bb8 so hard to see that overlooking it and thus
the whole theme is easy? I don't think so, but that
would be a definitive point for two solutions.

Rant, distilled: If you can avoid two solutions or
a flight taking key without marring the problem
otherwise, DO IT!

Hauke the Direddmanndon :-)
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1457

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

MatPlus.Net Forum Twomovers All for one, one for all!