|
|
| (1) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Thursday, Mar 27, 2014 16:06] |
Anti-Pape
 (= 8+11 )
Mate in 2
SH, original
1.d:e5 d5!/f6! 2.e:d6!/e:f6! mate.
1.-d6? 2.e:d6/e6 mate
1.-f5? 2.e:f6/e6 mate
QUOTE
Pape definition: Two en passant captures of the key pawn
So in my opinion the Anti-Pape definition would be:
Two en passant captures by the key pawn
By definition the following modification would work, but IMO the spirit is gone with the defense 1.-f6 being the same as 1.-f5.
 (= 9+11 )
SH, original
1.d:e5 d5/f5+ 2.e:d6/e:f6 mate
Can this be shown in a way to make f5 second main variation without f6 being the same variation and without using fairy pieces?
|
|
| (2) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Mar 27, 2014 18:22] |
What is the question? Both e5xf5 ep. and e5xf6 end in the same position which is legal or not and in which there's mate or not.
|
|
| (3) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Thursday, Mar 27, 2014 19:15] |
Do you mean something like this?
 (= 9+4 )
1.Qxe4 zz
1...d5 2.exd6#
1...f5 2.exf6#
1...d6/f6 allow the additional mates 2.Qc6#/Qg6#
|
|
| (4) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 13:55]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [14-03-28] |
Yes, only the key isn't made by the pawn in your problem, so the theme is not fulfilled. :-)
QUOTE
(2) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Mar 27, 2014 18:22]
What is the question? Both e5xf5 ep. and e5xf6 end in the same position which is legal or not and in which there's mate or not.
Yes, there should be a differentiation between the two moves so for example f6 ends in two mates while f5 only allows the e.p. mate. One way is that f5 gives flight fields to the Black king (which is why I put the bishop on e4 originally, it probably can be removed in my position).
|
|
| (5) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 15:38]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-03-28] |
Hm, dualistic mates would not save, they would ruin the problem. Of course, some threat could make 1...f5 a defence and if 1...f6 is not a defence, duals would be irrelevant. That's easy if Black threats to check wK on the diagram:
 (= 6+6 )
#2
|
|
| (6) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 16:22] |
@Nikola - didn't see your version, thus I made up my own :-)
 (= 7+5 )
(Somewhat) Nicer key.
Hauke
|
|
| (7) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 16:49]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-03-28] |
Allowing 2 checks is indeed beautiful but Siegfried asked for a key move by the thematic wP.
|
|
| (8) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 18:30] |
Set play and changed mates might offer a bit more but that's up to twomover composers.
 (= 8+5 )
#2
|
|
| (9) Posted by Geir Sune Tallaksen Østmoe [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 19:16] |
Wow. Completely independent of Nikola, I made my own (second) attempt:
 (= 8+4 )
|
|
| (10) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Mar 28, 2014 21:59]; edited by Nikola Predrag [14-03-28] |
And it's Meredith. I actually started with your scheme and then "improved it" by removing the need for bBa3. Then I had to add bPg6&bSe1, forgetting that bBa3 prevents the cooks. Pretty stupid from me :-)
|
|
No more posts |
MatPlus.Net  Forum General Anti-Pape |
ISC 2024
