|(1) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Saturday, Dec 1, 2007 15:39]; edited by Marek Kwiatkowski [07-12-04]|
In the announcement of Rudenko 70 JT - 3#, there are requested some realizations of the Rudenko paradox theme.
I quote this (by Jan Golha’s web-pages): “Rudenko Paradox: defense of a black piece consists in attack on the square from which a white piece delivers mate in the threat; in response to the defense this move by white becomes his 2nd move sacrifice on the attacked square.”
(= 8+13 )
1.Sd4-c2 ! threat: 2.Sf5*e3 +
2...Bg1*e3 3.Qd6-d3 #
2...Rh3*e3 3.Qd6-d4 #
1...Sa4-c5 2.Qd6-d3 + Sc5*d3 3.Sf5-d6 #
1...Sa7-b5 2.Qd6-d4 + Sb5*d4 3.Sf5-d6 #
I would like to tell us a few words about this mysterious theme.
The first mention I found in the Rudenko’s book “Presledovanije tiemy” - 1983 year (231-234 problems). Although the author hadn’t yet called the theme there.
Looking through the Fide Album 1983-85, we can already see two problems (358, 368) described as “White Rudenko paradox”.
Probably the first realization of the theme can be the following problem:
L`Italia Scacchistica 1954
(= 9+13 )
1...Rd2-d6 2.Sb4-c6 + Rd6*c6 3.Sf8-d7 #
1...Rh6-d6 2.Sf8-d7 + Rd6*d7 3.Sb4-c6 #
1.Qf1-h3 ! threat: 2.Qh3*h2 +
2...Rd2*h2 3.Sb4-d3 #
2...Rh6*h2 3.Sf8-g6 #
1...Rd2-d6 2.Sf8-g6 + Rd6*g6 3.Sb4-d3 #
2...Rh6*g6 3.Qh3*h2 #
1...Rh6-d6 2.Sb4-d3 + Rd2*d3 3.Qh3*h2 #
2...Rd6*d3 3.Sf8-g6 #
Indeed this old and interesting paradox was realized by composers still before 1983 year.
|(2) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Sunday, Dec 2, 2007 16:11]|
Especially, a combination of this paradox and Novotny gives very interesting possibilities.
I suggest to view the following three problems.
Revista Romana de Sah 1959
(= 11+10 )
1.Sc7-b5 ! threat: 2.Sb5-d6 +
2...Rc6*d6 3.Sd7-c5 #
2...Be7*d6 3.Sd7-f6 #
1...Rc6*g6 2.Sd7-f6 + Rg6*f6 3.Rh3-h4 #
2...Be7*f6 3.Sb5-d6 #
1...Be7*b4 2.Sd7-c5 + Bb4*c5 3.Sb5-c3 #
2...Rc6*c5 3.Sb5-d6 #
Touw Hian Bwee
2nd Pr Probleemblad 1974
(= 14+4 )
1.Bb8-e5 ! threat: 2.Sd7-f6 +
2...Rg6*f6 3.Sf7-g5 #
2...Be7*f6 3.Sf7-d6 #
1...Rg6*c6 2.Sf7-d6 + Rc6*d6 3.Sd7-c5 #
2...Be7*d6 3.Sd7-f6 #
1...Be7*h4 2.Sf7-g5 + Bh4*g5 3.Qh7-h1 #
2...Rg6*g5 3.Sd7-f6 #
1st Pr Chepizhny JT 1985
(= 12+10 )
1.Sf6-g4 ! threat: 2.Sc7-e6 +
2...Re7*e6 3.Qg5-d5 #
2...Bg8*e6 3.Qg5-e5 #
1...Re7*e4 2.Qg5-e5 + Re4*e5 3.Rd2*d3 #
1...Bg8*c4 2.Qg5-d5 + Bc4*d5 3.Bb4-c3 #
|(3) Posted by Neal Turner [Monday, Dec 10, 2007 12:57]; edited by Neal Turner [07-12-10]|
I notice that this is yet another tourney where the judge is the person receiving the problems.
I questioned this practice in a previous post in which my use of quotes in the title seems to have confused this system so that nobody could reply.
So again I ask - What is the status of these tourneys? What happened to the concept of a 'formal' composing tourney?
I am currently the director for three composing tourneys here in Finland, it's work I'd rather not be doing, but somebody has to do it - or do they? It seems quite a few prominent people seem to think it's not necessary for the problems to be presented anonymously to the judge.
I wonder what the users of this forum think?
Oh yes! What are 'Scacchographical (descriptive) orthodox compositions'
|(4) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Monday, Dec 10, 2007 13:22]|
I wonder what the users of this forum think?
Personally, if I am a judge I would rather not know who the authors are. I also prefer that when I send problem to the formal tournament that judge does not know the authors. I know that practice here in Serbia is that authors are not known to the judge.
|(5) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Monday, Dec 10, 2007 13:28]|
Personally, I also prefer anonymous judging, but there is a
certain snag: Last (and probably the only :-) time when I
browsed the prize candidates, I humorously assigned:
"This is a Maleika, this is an Ahues, this is a Bruch..."
and guess what, I was 100% correct :-) So much for
|(6) Posted by Uri Avner [Monday, Dec 10, 2007 14:18]|
Thanks, Marek, for presenting such beautiful examples of the "Rudenko Paradox" and some history which shows that the theme could as easily be called the "Matthews Paradox."
It would be worthwhile to bring together all the existing examples of this theme, for general interest and avoidance of repetition and anticipation.
Can you or anyone do it?
|(7) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Monday, Dec 10, 2007 20:39]; edited by Marek Kwiatkowski [07-12-11]|
It is not an isolated case that a discovery turned out to be anticipated.
There are 2 interesting examples of this paradox in the judgment of “Troll 2005-06 “ (http://www.schach-udo.de/).
|(8) Posted by Uri Avner [Tuesday, Dec 11, 2007 15:15]; edited by Uri Avner [07-12-13]|
Thanks, Marek, for the link.
Shavyrin's example is really outstanding!
1st Prize, Troll 2006
(= 10+12 )
1.Qg6! (2.Rxf5+ exf5 3.Qxf5#)
1...S5~ 2.Sc4+ B/Rxc4 3.Qxe4(A)/Re6(B)#
1...Sd6! 2.Qxe4+(A) R/Sxe4 3.Sd3/f4#
1...Sg6! 2.Rxe6+(B) B/Sxe6 3.Qf6/Qf5#
(1...S7h6 2.Qg5 3.Qf4#)
The 3rd example (Janevski) is not the Rudenko Paradox as defined by Rudenko himself in his announcement, although the judge refers to it as such.
4th Prize, Troll 2006
(= 9+8 )
1.Re7! [2.d4+! dxe3 e.p./fxe3 e.p. 3.Rf7(A)/Qf3(B)#]
1...dxc3 2.Rf7+(A) Kxe5 3.Qd5#
1...f3 2.Qxf3+(B) Bf4 3.Qd3#
(1...Be3 2.Kd6 3.Rf7#)
(1...Ra7 2.Rf7+ Kxe5 3.Bxd4#)
The judge (Martin Hoffmann) seems not to require the defensive guarding of one of the threat's mating squares, and the ensuing Keller Paradox, as a necessary part of what he calls the "white Rudenko Paradox."
|(9) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Wednesday, Dec 12, 2007 21:43]|
Uri, you are right regarding 3rd example (Janevski).
In fact, Shavyrin’s great 3#, where we can admire a clever transfer of this paradox to Black corrections, was worth displaying.
By the way, for enthusiasts of the le Grand theme in 3#s, I still recommend 2nd PR of that successful tournament.
Although it is not connected with the topic, in my opinion, such a valuable problem may also be displayed here.
2nd Pr Troll 2005-06
(= 9+12 )
1.Qf6-f5? threat 2.Sc3-e2+ (A) d3*e2 3.Se3-c2#
1...e5-e4 (x) 2.Sc3-b5+ (B) c6*b5 3.Qf5-d5#
1...Se6-f4 2.Qf5*h7 e5-e4 3.Qh7*e4# but 1...Rh4-e4 !
1.Qf6-f3! threat 2.Sc3-b5+ (B) c6*b5 3.Qf3-d5#
1...e5-e4 (x) 2.Sc3-e2+ (A) d3*e2 3.Se3-c2#
1...Se6-f4 2.Se3-f5+ Qh7*f5 3.Qf3-e3#
[1...Qh7-e4 2.Qf3*e4+ Rh4*e4 3.Se3-f5#; 1...Rh4-e4 2.Sc3-e2+ d3*e2 3.Se3-c2#]
A witty scheme based at simple overload of Black Pawns. Additionally, an unpinning key and the change after 1…Sf4. Bravo !!!
|(10) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Wednesday, Jan 16, 2008 14:04]|
Describing early the theme, I intentionally omitted one detail.
Now, I am ready to present it.
Thus, in the book “Presledovanije tiemy”, we can still find the problem nr 281 (see below!) with a commentary. There is written: “the theme was already considered in the problems 231-234“.
1st Hm Europe Echecs 1967
(= 10+8 )
1...Qb1*f5 2.Sf2-e4+ Qf5*e4 3.Bf6-e7#
1...Bc8*f5 2.Rf7-d7+ Bf5*d7 3.Bf6-e7#
1.Qg5-c1! thr:2.Sd8-b7+ Qb1*b7 3.Sf2-e4#, 2...Bc8*b7 3.Rf7-d7 #
1...Qb1*f5 2.Rf7-d7+ Qf5*d7 3.Sf2-e4# , 2...Bc8*d7 3.Sd8-b7#
1...Bc8*f5 2.Sf2-e4+ Qb1*e4 3.Sd8-b7 #, 2...Bf5*e4 3.Rf7-d7#
|(11) Posted by Rauf Aliovsadzade [Monday, Jun 23, 2008 06:10]|
Does anybody know of a Rudenko Paradox example with White's non-checking
second moves in the solution?
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Threemovers Rudenko paradox