Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006
8:55 UTC
| |
MatPlus.Net  Forum Competitions Sven-Hendrik Loßin 35 JT (Selfmate) |
| |
|
|
|
|
You can only view this page!
| | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4 | | (61) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 19:42]; edited by Steven Dowd [14-02-05] |
Kevin-
I had given up any hope for rational adult discussion when the "living in another reality" comment was lobbed out there. I've learned through bitter experience that once a statement like that is made, you really just need to step back slowly from the bar and go home. Although I couldn't resist that one little barb at the fellow who thinks size=ability.
It's too bad, because I have found that strong argument often leads to a greater respect for the ideas of others. I was learning something from the examples, even if I was skeptical.
But no matter what the reason, once you start getting statements along the line of declaring you, even if in a veiled way, insane (who else lives in another reality?), it's over. One, or maybe multiple, parties had reached their tolerance point of each other. At that point, it doesn't matter who is right or who is wrong. Again, time to go home.
I'll be happy to see more examples here, if anyone posts them, although I won't be participating in the discussion, and I certainly hope the tourney has some neat entries. I see it as way of creating problem "mashups," which, even if we can't agree on definitions, should at least show things no one has tried before.
| | | (62) Posted by Kevin Begley [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 23:53]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-06] |
I quite agree that conflict avoidance is generally the wise path (to self-preservation).
Intelligent individuals benefit nothing from inconsequential confrontation.
However, the world has changed -- much that once was is lost...
As I have noted, this is territorial bullying -- designed to make problemists "walk away from the bar."
How many threads can you walk away from, before you've abandoned a forum?
How many problem journals (and online outlets) must you forsake (to avoid petty snipers), before all fellowship to problem chess is broken?
Withdrawal encourages pursuit, until all dominion will have been surrendered to a pack of cowards, who posed no real threat.
How much surrender will you have sustained, before all the days have gone down into shadow?
And, then you'll wonder: How did it come to this -- what became of the Knight, and the Rider?
You have only one choice: one of you must destroy the ring.
| | | (63) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Wednesday, Feb 5, 2014 23:59]; edited by Sven Hendrik Lossin [14-02-06] |
@Steve:
In Milans and Karis Encyclopaedia:
Harmut Laue Theme
[..]
Black adapts a defensive motif which White exploits in his attack.
He gives P1259144 as an example.
P.S. 'Motivinversion' is a keyword in the PDB. You can find numerous mostly brilliant examples there. Look and enjoy!
| | | (64) Posted by Steven Dowd [Thursday, Feb 6, 2014 16:30] |
@Sven Hendrik
Take a lesson from a teacher with 30 years experience:
A smug suggestion to visit the library is never conducive to the goal.
| | | (65) Posted by Arno Tungler [Friday, Feb 7, 2014 04:12] |
Here is an example, also one with 30 years of age (guess, who was the judge...)
Hartmut Laue
1 Prize Die Schwalbe 1984
 (= 13+11 )
s#3 (13+11)
If you look a bit at the position, you note that the black battery could be forced to work if d5 or f6 would be protected. Therefore, for Black the line-opening to those squares by 1...Sb~ or exd3 would be fatal. However, if White himself covers those flights Black can use that for defence: 1.Sb4? (2.Qf6+) Sd1! and 1.g8=S? (2.Qd5+) exd3! as now the same line-opening is fatal for White! Please note that the nice paradox effect that is so appealing to me and to some others who have posted here their thoughts is in the motives (or motivation?) of the moves. Here the same motive - taking of a flight of the black king - can be used by White (in the threat) and Black (with his defense). In this example this is achieved in a reciprocal way in two tries.
However, that is not all! After the key 1.h8=R Black answers with very deep strategy. Since against the threat 2.Rh6! and 3.Qe5+ the two responses 2...Sxd3 and exd3 do not help - again due to the fatal line-openings - Black closes these lines in advance: 1...c3! or 1...R4g2! However, now White has managed to outwit Black. Again White uses just this motive for himself and with 2.Sb4! resp. 2.g8=S! takes advantage of the advance line-closing!
This sort of dual motivation of White and Black is not possible in orthodox more-movers and thus was named for decades "selbstmatttypisch" in German (maybe typical for selfmates is more acceptable than selfmate-specific?) and I fully agree with that. The fact that a similar "motive-inversion" is also possible in orthodox more-movers with stalemate does not really deprive the genre its "special" feature as many more (yes, literally all) motives can be used in that way in self-stipulations.
| | | (66) Posted by Sven Hendrik Lossin [Friday, Feb 7, 2014 08:49]; edited by Sven Hendrik Lossin [14-02-07] |
DELETED
Thank you for closing this thread, admin!
| | | (67) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Friday, Feb 7, 2014 12:49] |
a) You can imagine my open mouth when I found myself Lesley-Gore-wise
anticipated by Guy Sobrecases in the "other" thread (with the
Selivanov s#4) by 5 years. Damn, seems I haven't any original ideas
anymore! (No, it was decidedly NOT a clever innuendo for once :-)
b) That said, being a practical thinker and somewhat tired of this
thread, I propose the following: On Kevins next round birthday, HE
gives the party, and the theme will be: Stalemate-induced motive inversion
in the direct mate (n# or e.g.). Since numerous Kling/Seeberger examples
exist, alternative more difficult motivations (e.g. Black unpins White
so that piece can capture somewhere to stalemate Black; White then uses
the fact that his piece is free now) would be most welcome.
No fake motive inversions, please (e.g. already in the #2 we have the good
old Schiffmann parry, but of course Black doesn't pin himself for the sake
of pinning himself, that's completely unwanted by him!).
I think everyone here will agree this would be more beneficial for the
problem world than prolonging this thread...aw bummer, now I have
done it myself :-)
Hauke
| | | (68) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Feb 7, 2014 14:11] |
No Hauke, this just wont do. You have too many undefined terms...
Start by defining 'birthday'... Kevin is very much born already... how can he have another birthday ? :)
Of course definitions are also needed for Stalemate, free, motive, inversions etc...etc... :)
| | | (69) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Feb 7, 2014 14:24]; edited by Kevin Begley [14-02-07] |
@Sven,
Thanks for excerpting such a beautiful lamentation... but, you forgot to close with:
"This has been a reading from the local Smarties-Pusher, to the dean of admissions [bells clanging]"
@Hauke,
I'd prefer to be more expansive...
I hereby announce the KJB 47JT, which shall have three-sections, for any kind of Chess problem which shows:
Section 1) Time-Invariant adherence to the Orthodox classification.
Section 2) Stipulational Specificity.
Section 3) Schrodinger's Checkmate.
In totality, zero examples exist.
Send entries (before Sun, 29 Jun 2014 00:00:00 GMT) to:
Santa Claus
1 Reindeer Lane
North Pole
My award will travel backwards through time, to be published in Mat Plus Forum, on Fri, 7 Feb 2014.
...
My award:
Thanks to everyone who participated.
Zero entries received.
The overall quality was indeterminate.
| | | (70) Posted by Administrator [Friday, Feb 7, 2014 14:32] |
This Thread is closed. It turned to personal level and produced
several personal insults.
| |
No more posts | Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 3 4
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Sven-Hendrik Loßin 35 JT (Selfmate) |
|
|
|
ISC 2024
