﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

6:40 UTC
 ISC 2021

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jul-2021
 B P C F

Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2

### Diagonal/Orthogonal Echo

Recently, I found this on the net (see from page 124)

http://valsur.livejournal.com/179756.html

It was the paper that introduced the terminology :
Écho diagonal / orthogonal

Great article Jacques - both theoretically important and very inspiring. Thank you!

You are both lucky to be able to read it :(

...and I think you can't expect a lot from any automatic translater, sorry.

A problem from Jacques’ article:

J.Morice
Thèmes-64 1976
(= 9+1 )

Mate in 2 (b) g4 > g5

(a) 1.Bb3 (b) 1.Ra8

Version

(= 7+1 )

Mate in 2 (2 solutions)

Does the saving in material excuse the two solution stipulation? Does it need to be excused?

@Michael

In any case, the problem shown is not one of the greatest of the article.
The purpose to show it was to demonstrate that even simple things may be charming with this kind of echo.

Now to compare the versions, I would say so :

1) I have nothing against multi-solutions.
2) I think economy is a great thing
3) In your version the queen is out of play.
4) In the original version all the pieces have a clear use.

All in all, I don't feel that your version is better, but it would be interesting to get other opinions.

Soory as this is off-topic, but:

"Does the saving in material excuse the two solution stipulation?"

????

I'd always prefer two solutions to a change in position.
In my opinion:
Two solutions in one position (No changes needed) > Twinning (One change) > Zero Position (Two changes)
Changes in the position are always constructionally helpful to the composer.

Just my 2 cents.

Sven, the only word I disagree with is "always"

Okay, Jacques, I agree with you, for example if the twinning itself is part of the content.
Although I usually prefer the moves to be the content and not the twinning.

Direct mates or selfmates are somewhat different than helpmates. I have the impression that 2(or more) solutions form has not always been prefarable to twins. I wonder whether this was the case also for helpmates in the past, because twins or helpmates with set play were more popular in the beginning. So, it may be that directmates or selfmates have not evolved as much through the years, but the twin form seems to be at least aspopular as the multiple solutions form in problems of these genres.

Excellent article Jacques! I can understand some French, and this makes it easier, but even without that, it is worth studying the examples.

Thank you Kostas

Dear Kostas,
it is just natural that the twin form is very popular.
To be allowed to change the position is helpful for the composer while showing the same content without twinning is usually much more ambitious.

Hi Sven,

I agree with you and the ranking of different types of twins or multiple solutions. In fact, there are also, good and bad twins. For example, moving a piece on the square of another piece is not a good twin, although it is better than zero-position.

What I meant to say was that in orthodox problems, at some point in history, it was considered unpleasant to have more than 1 solution, even if the extra solution(s) were thematically linked to the first one. So, the composers preferred to have twins, rather than two solutions. I am not sure what the case is today. Maybe somebody else with more knowledge of orthodox problems and their aesthetics can correct me if I am wrong.

In helpmates, I have no doubt that multiple solutions are preferable to twins, and if I am not mistaken, it has always been like this, except, maybe, at the very beginning.

Dear Kostas,

you are right. Again and again orthodox problems (including selfmates) with multiple solutions are even considered as incorrect, are excluded from tourneys and/or get 0 points in Album competitions. I cannot understand this. If a composer like to present his idea in a two-solutions form, so it is his decision and not an unsound chess problem.

On multiple solutions see :

http://www.matplus.net/start.php?px=1376606662&app=forum&act=posts&tid=228&fid=xshow2&page=0
(Posts 14 to 40)

I believe that I was wrong when I wrote that multiple solutions in directmates were not seen favorably by problemists and judges in the past. It appears (from the old discussion in this forum) that even now there is not a clear consensus in favor of one or the other opinion. My opinion does not have much value, but I would accept two solutions in a twomover, provided, of course, that they had strong thematic connection. For those who compose directmates or selfmates, it might be clever to choose a twin form instead of multiple solutions and keep everyone (including themselves) happy.

Jacques, a very important article indeed ... more than hundred examples, what a veritable compendium!

twins vs two sols: with the black King stalemated, it's roughly the same. The watching function of the white Queen in Morice's presentation is a good feature, and so the clearances defined by the board limits alone in Michaels's version - - -

Zero position: But in some instances is the better form - some quite scarce instance when even "Black to play" will not work ...

Well, at last - and according with F. M. Arouet: "All Chess problem forms are good, except the boring ones"

I know that many composers prefer the multi solution form to twins, especially in helpmates. It is true that twinning can be helpful to composers, as sometimes it can be like having an extra half move. But I find that many twin problems have an additional interest. If the composer is lucky he can be find a really interesting twin which poses the question .... Why the other solution(s) do not work in the twin. Subtle twin(s) can be more interesting for this reason than multisolutions.

Regarding the multiple solution question I found a very interesting comment to the 1st commendation in this award:

"По международному кодексу множественные решения вполне допустимы. По российскому кодексу, со слов А.Феоктистова, нельзя в крупных конкурсах и в альбомах России. Можно в менее значимых конкурсах, если судьи пожелают. Что это, маразм высшей пробы? Опять отделяемся от буржуазного запада – у них своя свадьба, а у нас своя. Опять строим новое советское общество. Как же стыдно и обидно за Россию!"

I could translate to German, who would translate to English?

Google Translate is completely sufficient to get the gist of the statement:

"According to the international code of multiple solutions are acceptable. According to the Russian Code, the words A.Feoktistova, not in major competitions in albums and Russia. Possible in a less meaningful contests if the judges want. What is this insanity highest order? Again separate from the bourgeois West - they have their own wedding, and we have our own. Again, building a new Soviet society. How embarrassing and sad for Russia! "

Hauke <opens popcorn bag>