MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

14:43 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions WCCT-11, section E
 
You can only view this page!
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3
(21) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 20:45]

 QUOTE 
In E56, can the wBe2 be replaced by a wPe2? With bBh2 removed for legality...

This was commented by a judging country and justified with the assumption that "Obviously, the author’s aim was to arrange sacrifices of officers only."
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23859
(22) Posted by Torsten Linß [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 20:58]

OK. Though, what's the point in using a wB instead of a wP if that piece acts as a pawn only? And costs extra material.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23860
(23) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 21:44]

Marcos, your E64 is a lovely gem that would likely do better in a non thematic tourney. Juraj's comment (19) gives a very good explanation why.

Torsten (22) Good point. The effect of sacrificing officers only is really fake. I guess the rest of the play compensates for this weakness.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23861
(24) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 21:54]

@ Neal
I agree with you, it's obvious why E92 was not placed higher than E55. And I hope you agree with me, it's equally obvious that the quantitative exam of the intensification of the theme cannot be an absolute criterium. On the other hand, I have my doubts about the importance of the immediate "availability" of the sacrificed piece for being captured, and the choice involved. I think this circumstance favours the interplay between White and Black, and that's nice, to have a more vivid interplay. However, the essence of the theme still is the paradox of the sacrifice of a white unity. And I think this paradox is intensified a little if the capture is delayed, whatever the reason for the delay. Besides, two pieces are two pieces, and I keep thinking that the second solution of E92, with the underpromotion to R, is gorgeous. It's highly paradoxal that two entire white pieces are put in prise for two moves, and there's nothing better they can do than being captured.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23862
(25) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 21:54]

I think the white sacrifices in E56 are not subtle at all but Sd1/Be2 are at least reciprocally useful in both phases just as Rf8/Bh8 are in Zilahi. Altogether, high quality. Be2 is not economical but in this case, I'm afraid, we shouldn't deny the author's choice.

And E16 is just an extended h#3, to artificially add the introductory 2 sacrifices of fraudulently the 'same' piece on different squares. The twinning, 'in Forsberg style', is an ugly touch which not only deceives about 'one and the same piece' but also, quite paradoxically, creates a delusion of two 'reciprocally' functioning pieces. The remaining h#3 is indeed nice.

Also, I share Neal's view on E92.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23863
(26) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 22:02]

@Marcos,

 QUOTE 

E80
h#6
1.Rc5 Kg1 2.Kc4 g3 3.Qb4 Kf2 4.fxg3+ Ke3 5.Sd3 Ke4 6.Bc3 cxd3#

...its most outstanding feature is something I never had seen before: "The black moves are made by six different pieces, and none of them may be replaced by another of a different kind (the rook must be a rook, the queen must be a queen, and so on)."

This problem got just 3.4 points. Again, I think it deserved more.


I very much enjoyed that problem. I don't pretend to know better than anyone else how many points it deserves.
However, I'm naturally skeptical of any problem which comes with a thematic justification absent a clearly stated theme.
After all, if allowed to define for ourselves what constitutes value, we would each deserve a world record for being ourselves.

After some investigation, I only grew more skeptical of that claim.
The statement is correct in suggesting all six black units -- it says pieces, but we may charitably presume it meant to say "units" (pieces is reserved for officers) -- have moved once in the solution.
I wasn't aware that was an accepted theme, but I will concede it's a mildly interesting achievement in a helpmate (double it, with unit-nature synchronicity for white/black, and I'll lift an eyebrow).

However, the comment goes on to imply all six black units must have been of their given nature.
This is a self-promotion claim which can not be confirmed -- the meaning here is either misleading or deliberately deceptive.

When I read the claim "the rook must be a rook", at first I thought the meaning was clear: if the Rook (which lands on c5) were a unit of a different nature, this specific checkmate would not be mate.
But, that's clearly not true: if the Rook on c5 were a Knight, the White King on e5 would be in check (thus, no checkmate to black); but, why can't the Rook on be a pawn? It's still mate.
And what of the black pawn that moved -- it's not even involved in the mate! Why must this be a pawn?

So, maybe that statement only means, this would violate the specific path taken by the White King in this specific problem. Huh? So what?
Or worse, maybe it only means, "I couldn't find a way to make it work -- it would violate correctness of this specific problem, given this specific mate, and this specific white King path, etc."

Given any other eye color, I would not be me. It had to be just this color of blue (defined clear down to the sub-atomic level) or I wouldn't function as me.
I fail to see how such a claim can be verified. Further, I fail to see evidence that it should be considered significant (unless there is evidence I was needed to be exactly me for some stated purpose).
That's what is missing: the stated purpose (also known as: the central theme of the problem).

I can move all six types of units, for both sides, in a help-game. Easy.
I don't consider that publishable, and I would not boast that the nature of the units I moved had to be units of that very nature, or my proofgame would not be a sound version of my proofgame.
Unless I'm missing something here, this claim amounts to meaningless self-promotion.

Don't believe me? Try to express that claim as a theme.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23865
(27) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 22:26]

@Nikola
I see you're perfectly capable of fraudulently imitate Chris Feather's reasoning: "And E16 is just an extended h#3, to artificially add the introductory 2 sacrifices of fraudulently the 'same' piece on different squares." Wow! Congratulations!

And you recognize that E56 is good, despite of the "poor motivation" of the sacrifices. Not bad, otherwise we should conclude that all the judgement is poor, because several other problems share the same motivation... And also two important predecessors, the two of them selected for the FIDE Album 2010-2012 (problems E216 and E223, besides E217, partially).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23866
(28) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 22:45]

@Kevin
Thank you for your comment, but maybe the intention of the author was more modest. All he claims is that, in this particular seetting, you cannot use a pawn on c7, for example, in the place of the rook on c4, for several reasons (not in the mate position, of course!); not a bishop on d2, instead of a Queen, for several reasons; equally not a bishop on h7 or g6, instead of a knight on e5, again for several reasons; not a Queen on f6, instead of a bishop, because the problem would be unsolvable; and finally, the unity which controls e3 must be a blocked pawn, of course. Just to remember, we're talking about the initial position, not the mate position. I don't know if I understood well your concerns.

And you should admit that you don't need to be very charitable to take "six pieces" for "six unities". After all, there's just a black pawn playing...Anyway, thanks!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23867
(29) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 23:13]

Marcos, thanks for congratulations, although I didn't understand what were your points about both E16 and E56.
In the latter, the motivations are poor, and they require extra material blocking the paths which then must be removed from the board during the play. Placing the pieces on the board should be convincingly motivated, and here it is most trivially motivated.
The motivation for the delayed acceptance of sacrifices looks good, better than it actually is, but OK, nobody is perfect.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23868
(30) Posted by Marcos Roland [Thursday, Sep 29, 2022 23:50]

@Juraj and Kostas
Thank you both for your comments, but allow me to put the question in another way. The WFCC thinks that it is important to separate a "top 20" to be included in a bookelet, rigth? What is the reason for that? Maybe they want to highlight some compositions for some sort of "posterity", right? And this doesn't necessarily imply that the top 20 are "objectively" the best, right? (Because it is very hard to compare some pairs of problems). Let's suppose we have just two places left to complete our booklet, and we have three problems to choose two between them:

E23

(= 5+13 )

h#4 2 sol.

1.Sd8 exd5 2.Ke4 Sxc6 3.Kxd5 Sc7+ 4.Kxc6 d5#
1.Bd8 dxc5 2.Kd4 Sxd6 3.Kxc5 Sd3+ 4.Kxd6 e5#

E48

(= 5+9 )

h#3.5 2 sol.

1...fxe5 2.Kf4 Sxd6 3.Kxe5 Sf3+ 4.Kxd6 e5#
1...exf5 2.Ke4 Sxe6 3.Kxf5 Sh6+ 4.Kxe6 f5#

E53

(= 3+4 )

h#5 just 1 sol.

1.Rb3 g4 2.Ka4 g5 3.Ba3 Kd5 4.Rxg5+ Kc4 5.Ra5 axb3#

Now the question is: which pair would you choose?

As for myself, well, first I separe E23, because for me it's clearly better than E48. So, it remains to compare E48 and E53. Even if I am in trouble to make this comparison, I would choose E53, because it's beautiful and different! Very little adds to our booklet having E48, giving that E23 is better. But E53 has its definite flavor!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23869
(31) Posted by Marcos Roland [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 00:08]

I would like to give just an example of an original, courageous judgement. In the section E of the 10th World Cup of Composing, judge Marko Klasinc called our attention to this curious, intriguing single-liner in two moves(!?):

10th World Cup, 2022
E55 – Commendation

(= 7+15 )

h#2

1.cxb3 e.p. f4 2.Sc3 Qd4#

His words: "A fresh idea, as author describes it: In the initial position there are 10 obstacles for 2.Qd4#. Each black move in B1 and B2 liberates four and white two of them in W1."

Of course, the World Cup is not a thematic tournament, but anyway the multisolutions form is to be preferred.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23870
(32) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 00:37]

Well, after a better look at E56, the 'quality' doesn't seem as 'high' as it appeared before that.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23871
(33) Posted by Kostas Prentos [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 00:54]

Funny story from the 3rd WCCT 1984-1988. The theme required a checking tempo move by White or Black in a h#2. Places 2-9 of the helpmates section were almost identical problems (rotated positions, and slightly different ways to incarcerate the wK). Here is the most successful of those problems:

Zivko Janevski
3rd WCCT, 2nd place
(= 4+10 )
h#2 4.1.1.1
1.S4g5 Sh6+ 2.Bxh6 Sd6#
1.Rg5 Sd6+ 2.Bxd6 Sh6#
1.g5 Sg7+ 2.Bxg7 Se7#
1.S6g5 Se7+ 2.Bxe7 Sg7#

Since the WCCT is not an anthology of problems, but the award of a thematic tourney, there is no provision to leave out a specific problem, in favor of a more original, or different than the rest. The top 20 scoring problems are included in the booklet. I am not sure how this rule was introduced. There are many things I dislike about the WCCT and this doesn't even come close to the top.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23873
(34) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 00:59]

@Marcos,

Thank you for the clarification.
I agree it's a nice one liner, even if thematically modest. I have no opinion on the number of points it deserved (but I wouldn't expect too much from a strong Thematic Tourney).
I was troubled by the implication that the movement of unique six units might constitute thematic content. It's interesting, but I suspect a database search would reveal it's barely noteworthy.
Beyond that, the claim that the nature of each unit was somehow essential is a claim I still do not appreciate (and if I fully understood the claim, I doubt I would buy it).
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23874
(35) Posted by Marcos Roland [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 03:15]

@Kostas,
Janevski's problem is excellent, I liked it. Another curious story is about the 2nd Inter-Nations Match for Chess Compositions, 1968/1971, organized by The Netherlands. In the helpmates section, the thematic requirement was h#3 featuring double checks. According to Gil Kleber, the number of double checks was a decisive factor. Felix Sonnenfeld won the first place, with this curious setting:

(= 11+10 )

h#3*

Set play: 1...Bxg3 2.Rxf4 Sxf4+ 3.Ke5 Sd3#
Real play:1.Sc2+ Kb2 2.Sxe3 Sxe3+ 3.Kd4 Sc2#

We see 2 double checks in the set play and 3 in the real play. Total: 5 double checks.

The second place went to V.Korolkov & Lev Loshinsky, with this "clearer" setting:

(= 8+11 )

h#3*

Set play: 1...Bxf5+ 2.Kxd5 Be6+ 3.Ke4 Bd5#
Real play:1.Rc2+ Kd1 2.Rc4 Bxf5+ 3.Kxd5 Be4#

We see 3 double checks in the set play and 3 in the real play. Total: 6 double checks. However, the judges considered that one of the double checks of Loshinsky's problem (Bxf5#) was repeated, so they counted just 5 double checks.

So, a "drawn" happened: 5-5! I don't know the reasons the judges gave for Sonnenfeld getting the first place. We see that both problems handle with tempo issues. Maybe Sonnenfeld's problem was chosen because it features a "more organic" relationship between set play and real play, with the WK participating in the mate position of the real play. I really don't know, I would like to have this information, if someone knows.

The only I can tell you is: Felix didn't like his problem. He showed it to me only once, while he loved to show, every now and then, his other first place winner, a h#2 for the 2nd WCCT, 1980/1983. When speaking of this h#3, he used to say: "Oh, yes, first place, but it is trash. I don't like it!"

Of course, Felix loved the first place he got. But he didn't like the problem which won it for him...

A further information: Loshinsky was Sonnenfeld's greatest idol.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23875
(36) Posted by Frank Richter [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 08:35]

Regarding the movement of all different units in a h# you may check award of Quick-Composing TT-263 at superproblem.ru:
http://superproblem.ru/htm/tourneys/quick-tt/results/2021/tt-263_award.html
There were both colors allowed, but many examples show this for black pieces.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23877
(37) Posted by Marcos Roland [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 09:57]

Thank you, Frank! I said I never had seen it before, but I didn't mean it was never done before. I just didn't know this TT had occurred.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=23878
(38) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 15:20]

It is interesting to compare the E64 with the following problems:

Guy Sobrecases, Rolf Wiehagen
Mat Plus, 2010
Spec. HM
(= 3+4 )
h#5.5

1...Ba1 (B~?/K~?) 2.Bd4+ cxd4 3.g2 d5 4.g1=R dxc6 5.Rxa1 c7 6.Ra7 c8=Q# (MM)

It is possible to prolong the solution by moving the bBa7 to c1 or e1 (h#6).

http://helpman.komtera.lt/?fen=k6K/b7/2p5/8/8/2P3p1/1B6/8&moves=5.5

Giles Regniers, Gerard Smits
(after Guy Sobrecases, Rolf Wiehagen)
Probleemblad, 2011
(= 3+4 )
h#5

1.Bf2 Sa1 (S~?/K~?) 2.Bc5 bxc5 3.g1=R c6 4.Rxa1 c7 5.Ra7 c8=Q# (MM)

http://helpman.komtera.lt/?fen=k6K/8/1p6/8/1P6/8/2N3p1/4b3&moves=5
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23879
(39) Posted by Viktoras Paliulionis [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 16:38]

When I saw E53, I remembered one my problem:

Viktoras Paliulionis
Moskow tourney, 2014
Commendation
(= 3+3 )

h#4.5 (3+3)

1...Se3 (A) 2.Rf5 Ke2 3.Rh5 Kf3 4.Rxe3+ Kf4 5.Rh3 Sg6# (B) (IM)
1...Sg6+ (B) 2.Kg3 Sf4 3.Re3 Se2+ 4.Kg2 Kd2 5.Kf1 Sxe3# (A) (IM)

Reciprocal delayed sacrifices on e3 (wS/bR).
Thematic content is somewhat different from E53, but the motivation of the white sacrifice is the same.

http://helpman.komtera.lt/?fen=7N/8/8/8/2N4k/2r5/5r2/3K4&moves=4.5
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23880
(40) Posted by Marcos Roland [Friday, Sep 30, 2022 17:03]

Great research, Viktoras, thanks! Well, I am at the same time disappointed, embarrassed and happy. In the first place, I cannot be sure everyone will trust me, but I hadn't any idea of the existence of these problems. The position of the WB on b2 in Sobrecases's problem embarrasses me, yes, because it's very similar to my B on g7. But this a great coincidence! We had the same idea, with different aplications. That happens.

Now, trying to compare the problems, in the first place, concerning Sobrecase's composition, I prefer the h#6 version, simply because I always prefer a h#6 or h#5 rather than a h#5.5. Rounded numbers stipulations are always better in helpmates, I think, because of the cooperative nature of the genre (each side plays the same number of moves).

Second, I think that both E64 and the Giles Regniers' & Gerard Smits' version of Sobrecases's are clearly better than original Sobrecases's problem, although the later is fine!

Then, if the three problems were presented in the same competition, I think I would have a hard time choosing between E64 and the other. First, I confess that my heart beat with great excitement when seeing Giles Regniers' & Gerard Smits' version. Great! And that's why I am at the same time happy. Only now I realize how good it is my E64, seeing such a great problem to which I can compare it! Before seeing Giles Regniers' & Gerard Smits' problem, I had some trouble evaluating mine, because it's always difficult to anyone to evaluate his own works. In my case, I always tend to see them as ordinary works. I had to do a great abstration exercise to figure out a place for my composition in the field. And I changed that place several times!

Well, havind said that, I'll try to summarize a rough comparison between the two problems. Anyway, that is always difficult for me, because one of them is mine. To simplify thinks, I will refer to the other problem as "RS". So, first, the Sc2 in RS has one option more than the Bg7 in E64, and that's a small advantage for RS. Second, RS presents two promotions, better than E64 in this aspect; however, this advantage is counterbalanced by the White's choice in E64: 4.e8=R (e8=Q?). Third, the reason for the lack of a tempo move by the WK in RS is much subtler than in E64, and I appreciate this. Fourth, the tempo tries in E64 are more complex and richer. Fifth, E64 performs also the pseudo-theme by Black. Sixth, the delay of the capture in RS is one move longer, and this, in my view, is another small plus.

In short, that's it. About economy, both problems are perfect miniatures, and both mates are models. I would place the two problems side by side. I would like to have your view, great Viktoras, and also the others' views, if they like!

Needless to say, if the judges of the WCCT-11 had considered more seriously E64, and had done the same research Viktoras has done, most probably my problem would lose any chance of a good marking, because of partial anticipation. C'est la vie. Fight goes on...
 
   
(Read Only)pid=23881

Read more...
Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3

MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions WCCT-11, section E