|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
|(21) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Dec 16, 2012 23:25]|
@ Kevin & @ Kalyan
Thank you for compliments
Though I like correspondences - of all kinds - "perfect" correspondences is not a general aim for me.
Some times yes, sometimes not. Differences are also welcome.
In general, I would say a good mix of corresponding and not corresponding elements may be "perfect".
|(22) Posted by Kevin Begley [Monday, Dec 17, 2012 16:47]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-12-17]|
I quite agree -- there are good justifications for multiple solutions to be designed in something other than a perfectly analogous form!
However, if your aim is something other than perfect analogy, as I previously stated, it may require (of any would-be judge) some deeper "philosophical consideration" (e.g., is the non-analogous solution artistically justified?).
It is no simple matter to judge the complexities which arise, in your later examples -- especially considering the newness of the condition employed -- I'd prefer to recuse myself from such a task!
I quite like the interesting and original spin you have added to Petko's example, and had originally hoped it could be easily expressed in an analogous form; but, my cursory review suggests that such a matrix is not so easily achieved.
Regardless, I now see that this would require you to go well beyond the scope of providing examples for a new condition -- thus, I think it best not to ask you to reveal any further investigation (in this venue).
Your examples suggest that the condition's deeper potential may be significantly enriched -- even when the position is simultaneously simplified! -- this gives prospectors high confidence that a rush to the condition will pay off!
This may prove a very interesting tourney.
|(23) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Dec 21, 2012 20:57]|
This nice problem (quoted in my Tourney announcement) deserves to be better known !
(= 3+6 )
H#2 (2 Solns)
I. 1. Qg2 h3!(h4?) 2.Rg3 Qg4 #
II. 1. Qg3 h4!(h3?) 2.Rg4 Qg5 #
Delightful visual effects !
|(24) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013 11:09]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [13-03-13]|
The due date for receipt of entries was fixed as March 18. By this time I had hoped that Popeye will accept and adopt Superguards condition. But this has not happened. Obviously and understandably the Popeye team is very busy. While C.G.S.Narayanan has received about 25 entries, only 5 composers have participated. Some have expressed difficulty in checking, as checking is possible now only through Winchloe.
Should I extend the due date by a few months, say to May 31, 2013?
Am I being unfair to supporters who sent early entries?
|(25) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Wednesday, Mar 13, 2013 12:09]|
Generally speaking, such postponements are not encouraged, but they happen. Reasons vary, usually they can be summed under "low participation due to...".
Personally I would not do that as anybody trying new condition may well finish the problem after the deadline and send it somewhere else.
|(26) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Mar 14, 2013 07:46]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [13-03-14]|
I agree. The closing date will be 18th March. I am sure there will be some more last minute entries and that should be enough. For those having trouble checking through winchloe, Ms.Julia (of Juliasfairies.com) has already offered help. In addition now Mr.N.Shankar Ram, (India's only IM of composition) has offered to help. He can be contacted at <email@example.com>
Best wishes to all participants. Eagerly looking forward to your entries. Mr.Narayanan will accept entries till 19th night here.
|(27) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Mar 15, 2013 15:00]|
Having a possibility to check the problem at home or being obliged to send it for checking is completely another world.
It looks like the tournament is only for those who have Winchloe, as I understand it is not exactly what you intendded.
So I would say so : If you obtain for sure that Popeye will accept Superguards quickly, perhaps it is worth postponing the limit of invoices.
A practicable proposal : If popeye accepts Superguards before 18 March it can be worth postponing, if not, better seems to keep the 18 March as intended.
|(28) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Apr 9, 2013 12:00]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [13-04-09]|
Regrettably the Tourney turned out to be Winchloe only. Thanks to the efforts of Popeye team, Superguards could be included in the next release. Despite this constraint, I was delighted to receive from Mr.Narayanan 50 entries. Section A for directmates received just 10 (as I feared). Most of the problems are of good quality. The awards will be ready in about 10 days. Thanks all.
|(29) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Jun 1, 2013 17:28]|
I have finalised the award. Congratulations to the award winners. Thanks to all the participants and correspondents. The award can be seen here: http://juliasfairies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SuperguardsAward.pdf. Enjoy the beautiful problems.
Section A; Direcmates
1. Jacques Rotenberg
2. Gerard Smits
1. Borislav Gadjanski
4. Sebastian Luce
5. Manfred Rittirsch
|(30) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Jun 2, 2013 15:53]|
Thanks to Jacques Rotenberg and Manfred Rittirsch for pointing out the errors in the award. The corrected version is now posted at http://juliasfairies.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Superguards-Award.pdf
|(31) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Saturday, Jul 27, 2013 19:26]|
The award is final as I did not receive any other note of corrections or claims. Thanks to all the participants. Will the prizewinners please contact me with their postal address so that I can send them the book prizes (may or may not be a chess problem book !).
No more posts
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Seetharaman-64 Jubilee Tourney