Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

1:16 UTC
ISC 2020



Remember me

Forgot your
Click here!
to create your account if you don't already have one.

Rating lists


MatPlus.Net Forum General On Duals
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Wednesday, Aug 13, 2008 13:20]

On Duals

Wieland Bruch once called me the "Master of Confusion".
This is a honor from such a dignified grandmaster. :-)
So I have to live up my reputation with the following thoughts.

1. If White has a double threat, and Black completely ignores it,
nobody calls this a dual.
2. If White has a Fleck threat (n>=3), and Black *partly* ignores it,
you may get away with it as componist, but in any case it's seen as
a flaw. Ignoring *all* of the threats -> see above.
3. If White has a single threat, and Black plays a move that doesn't
parry and instead induces a new mate, nobody calls this a dual either.
(Although I know at least one problem where the composer added
otherwise superfluous material to avoid, probably cf. Kraemer/Zepler
"Problemkunst im 20. Jahrhundert.)
4. If White has a threat, and X~ parries this but induces secondary
threats, then both the situations 1 and 3 with respect to the new
threat(s) are seen as duals for X's secondary corrections.

I see all this as somewhat illogical.
(The obvious snag is that you can't demand "Stupid black moves
may be ignored" (definitory dual avoidance :-) because if Black had
a non-stupid move he wouldn't get mated in the first time :-)

BTW, do you know a problem about "secondary stupidification"?
E.g., Black interferes with his guard line but luckily he also
interferes with a White line, avoiding a dual. (The mechanisms
of the 1st prize in the Einat/Comay 50 come to mind.)

(Read Only)pid=2610

No more posts

MatPlus.Net Forum General On Duals