﻿﻿ MatPlus.Net

Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

22:38 UTC
 ISC 2022

Remember me

 CHESS SOLVINGTournamentsRating lists1-Jan-2022
 B P C F

MatPlus.Net Forum General Consider It: The "Anti-Babson"

### Consider It: The "Anti-Babson"

I came across a funny problem in PDB today: https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1247777

Stefan Felber, Augsburger Allgemeine, 6/30/2012
#4
(= 12+9 )

From a mere glance at its structure, one might presume it is an interesting Babson Task. Yet it is not. For every promotion by Black, White simply promotes into a queen. This is contrary to the challenge of the Babson Task.

Whether intentional by the author or not, I would consider this problem an Anti-Babson, if such a term holds meaning. It runs up the Babson river, humorously contradicting the Babson values.

Not quite. 1...e1=B 2.Kxa4

shankar, even with a delay, 3. c8=Q+ still happens, fulfilling the "Anti-Babson" proposal. Early realizations are not always perfect. Even in a normal Babson, the White promotion is not required to be immediate. Case in point: https://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/P1239195

Since 2. c8=Q is the threat anyway, only 1... e1=B is a proper defense.

To call it Anti-Babson makes no sense.
There is nothing more than a black AUW, no additional value.

It may very well be non-sense Olaf, hence why I brought it up for discussion. I wonder if it is possible to create problem, if one does not exist (which, given how it works, is probably already the case), that we could agree on as "Anti-Babson".

Well, let's take the definition and the "Anti":
Babson: A problem with four main lines, that consist of a defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, which forces White to promote to the same piece type in each case.
Anti-Babson (incomplete form): A problem with four main lines, that consist NO defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, but black moves force White to promote to a queen, rook, bishop or knight.
Anti-Babson (full form): A problem with four main lines, that consist NO defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, and black moves force White NOT to promote to a queen, rook, bishop or knight.

So I think, that already several Anti-Babsons exist ... ;)

A true Anti-Babson would be a retractor. If black unpromotes a queen, white must unpromote a queen, etc.

QUOTE
A true Anti-Babson would be a retractor. If black unpromotes a queen, white must unpromote a queen, etc.

That still feels like a normal Babson, only in retractor.

"True Anti-Babson" in a longmover would require four anti-Babson defenses, that is white has a single threat - promoting to piece X, which black parries by promoting exactly to X, something like:
1.Key!
1... a 2. A (threatening Q-promotion) 2...a1=Q! ...
1... b 2. B (threatening R-promotion) 2...a1=R! ...
1... c 2. C (threatening B-promotion) 2...a1=B! ...
1... d 2. D (threatening S-promotion) 2...a1=S! ...

I am anti “Anti” as a prefix. It’s ambiguous and subjective

QUOTE
Well, let's take the definition and the "Anti":
Babson: A problem with four main lines, that consist of a defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, which forces White to promote to the same piece type in each case.
Anti-Babson (incomplete form): A problem with four main lines, that consist NO defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, but black moves force White to promote to a queen, rook, bishop or knight.
Anti-Babson (full form): A problem with four main lines, that consist NO defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, and black moves force White NOT to promote to a queen, rook, bishop or knight.

Anti-Babson (??? form): A problem with four main lines, that consist of a defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, each of which allows three different White solutions; namely, each promotion to the remaining three piece types.

Or this one?

Anti-Babson (????? form): A problem with four main lines, that consist of a defensive promotion of a black pawn to a queen, rook, bishop or knight, which forces White to promote to all three of the remaining piece types in each case.

QUOTE
I am anti “Anti” as a prefix. It’s ambiguous and subjective

I agree; it seems to me like "Anti-X" can mean "X avoidance" (Anti-Grimshaw), "X but by the opposite side", "X but in retro play form" (Anti-Albino), "X but in the try play" (Anti-Balbo), "X but backwards/in reverse on the board" (Anti-Bristol) and various other possibilities. Can we at least agree to call "X avoidance" themes "X Avoidance" instead (e.g. "Grimshaw Avoidance")?

(12) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Dec 17, 2021 10:56]

Thirded; I once coined "Anti-Moskau/Anti-Führer" (with the intended
meaning that the wrong White try opens a Black line, allowing Black
to successfully execute a Moskau/Führer defense; a bit of
political punning is compleeeeetely unintended :-). Wieland was
not amused since he interprets "Anti" otherwise here. Moral:
When naming, terseness and clearness might be mutually exclusive.

On the bright side, it stimulates the creativity of the composers :-)
(My first interpretation agreed with that of Eddie - all promotions
*except* the identical one work.)