| |
Main
Date: 08 Oct 2006 13:08:56
From:
Subject: chess problem terminology
|
I am having fun composing tentative chess problems. I started a few
weekends ago and I am a bit confused by the obscure chess problem
terminology.
I am trying to learn the theme "switchback" and I composed the
following direct 3# to illustrate it (if I am not wrong):
8/2N2Q2/2b1B3/2p1k3/5R2/2Kp4/4Pr2/8
Can anyone please tell me whether this is a "switchback" or not
(understood as a "theme") ?
I am not sure whether the term aplies also to the black.
Thank you in advance.
Jos=E9 Potrosal
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2006 04:13:13
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
> It is true that I chose my own pattern of key pieces,
> and from this point of view it is completely original (although
> evidently it was a bad choice, but I didn't want to use the same
> pieces as the published results).
I want to give credit were credit is due. The pattern of pieces used in
my Vladimirov effect is not original. Now I have found it in the
problem 21 in the link above. It was used in the master piece of the
Vladimirov theme.
With all my respect to M. Stojnic.
JP
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:23:28
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Thats a pretty decent block problem, Jose. I am not a two mover
> specialist, so I hesitate to make too much in the way of commentary,
> but there is no doubt you are progressing well.
I publish it in my booklet slightly changed (I could supress a pawn):
8/4N3/K3p1N1/8/2pnk1b1/8/Q1PPB1P1/BR5R white to play and mate in two
(banny theme)
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:17:59
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
Thank you very much. I include the position in my booklet (chess pellet
n 6). I also include a twin changing the white queen from f7 to g6,
(chess pellet n. 7) white also to play and mate in three moves.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 13:14:46
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
>
> Why not place the WQ on a4 and the WK at g5? The key Qd1 is more
> attractive to me.....
Great idea. Thank you very much. I'm including it in my booklet (chess
pellet n 8). I want to publish here the final version:
883R46K1Q4pp17k5r white to play and mate in five moves.
|
| |
Date: 14 Oct 2006 07:22:40
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
I'll burn my book. After the Banny theme it presented the Vladimirov.
It stated that "there are fewer exaples because it's a newer
theme". Published in 1992. It is imposible that a composer can write
such an oversimplification of the truth. I am convinced that he has
never tried to compose a single interesting position. I have found the
Vladimirov theme really hard. Fortunately I found an authoritative
review paper about it:
http://www.matplus.org.yu/VLADI.HTM
I have enjoyed reading that column (from 1997). It uses the word
"mechanism" and classifies the positions of the theme accordingly,
as I had anticipated that should be. I have admired the problems. How
can the composers duplicate the theme in the same board? The same
pieces play different key roles depending on the phase of play. What a
beautiful interlocking: The world should awake and admire this!
As for humble me, I had tried to copmpose a Vladimirov (how naive).
When I understood its complexity I resigned to compose a position with
a Vladimirov effect. Even to compose it with a single variation has
been really hard. It is true that I chose my own pattern of key pieces,
and from this point of view it is completely original (although
evidently it was a bad choice, but I didn't want to use the same
pieces as the published results). I needed no less than 22 pieces, to
get a #2 riddled with duals in the non-thematic play. I believe the
position is legal. The key move is atrocius, but the Vladimirov effect
had absolute priority in this exercise.
Here it is, if I have made no mistake:
2r5/P1p2p2/KpQ1bn2/1P6/2RBPk1P/P2R2NP/1r3p2/5B2
Try 1. e5? But 1. ... Bg4! (unique refutation)
Key 1. Bxf6 (unique key) if 1... Bg4 then 2. e5# (unique mate)
Time to take a rest.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 13:18:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> succeded, now I am not very eager to compose a similar but better Banny
> immediately. Rather, if I can find some time, I'll try a different
> theme (copying a known mechanism) just to acquire technique. I realize
> that the field of chess composition offers a way to express one's
> creativity (envisaging themes, finding generic mechanisms to achieve a
> certain theme) but this should come later.... hopefully.
This is a great idea. Everyone started somewhere!
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 07:05:47
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
I am not particularly attracted to the 2# but I think I need to study
them. I just chose a theme, the Banny, and then I copied a known
mechanism, i.e. "two different black pieces take a white one to
refutate two different mates, then the key move pinnes (guessing the
meaning of the word) the piece in that same square". My composition
probably does that with few success (in terms of economy, beauty of
mates, number of pieces..) but I took it as challenge to achieve the
technical requirements. I sticked to my first chosen key pieces,
solving all the incompatibilities that emerged, and since I somehow
succeded, now I am not very eager to compose a similar but better Banny
immediately. Rather, if I can find some time, I'll try a different
theme (copying a known mechanism) just to acquire technique. I realize
that the field of chess composition offers a way to express one's
creativity (envisaging themes, finding generic mechanisms to achieve a
certain theme) but this should come later.... hopefully.
I don't want to become too enthusiatic, I see a lot of work to do if I
want to take it seriously... and I am very busy. I cannot commit
myself, but yes, maybe we should discuss it by email. I'd like to have
a look at the Banny problem you composed to see if I can figure out the
mechanism you used.
You can find me at gmail. Thank you for your interest.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 05:01:44
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
Thats a pretty decent block problem, Jose. I am not a two mover
specialist, so I hesitate to make too much in the way of commentary,
but there is no doubt you are progressing well.
Would you like for me to see if I can find a problemist in Barcelona
who might be willing to show you some tips? I can't guarantee anything,
as I don't have any contacts in Spain, but I know people who might.
Sometimes a face to face meeting where you can "push wood" together is
the most helpful of all.
|
| |
Date: 13 Oct 2006 04:46:42
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
I will certainly look at it. I just did a problem with a Banny, which
was accepted into a Russian magazine (Chess Leopolis), so I can't post
it here, but I would be happy to send it to you by email.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 14:41:04
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
> Have fun with your composing...
Today is a national holiday (I'm in Barcelona) and I could stay home
composing. Yes, I had fun, but I'll have to slow down, my wife is
already complaining that "I play too much chess".
This one took me about seven hours, from deciding what to do to the
final result. I had to keep changing the plans during all the way.
I am not very happy with this position because I could not eliminate
some duals (but they arise after non-thematic black defenses and can
even somehow be considered equivalent mates). But I post it because I
won=B4t work further on it. I think I have learned a lot. Since my
technique skills are very limited I am aware that I must exercise.
I wanted to create a 2# with phases of play and so on, the so-called
"modern themes" if I am not wrong. I studied different diagrams in
one of the chess books I bought, in which the positions are classified
by themes. As a novice I found particularly easy to visualize the
"Banny theme". After having a careful look at some diagrams I
learned how to distill the important thematic pieces to those needed
for the sake of problem correctness and then I worked the other way
round with my own composition.
8/4N3/K3p1N1/4P3/2pnk1b1/8/Q1PPB1P1/BR5R (please consider it as a mere
exercise)
Let's see if I understood it:
Try: 1. Qxc4 [A]; But 1. ... Bxe2 [a] ! (unique refutation)
Try: 1. Rh4 [B]; But 1. ... Nxe2 [B] ! (unique refutation)
Key move: 1. Rbe1! (unique)
If 1. ... Bxe2 [a] or 1. ... Nxe2 [b] then 2. Rh4 [B] # or 2. Qxc4
[A] # (unique mates)
I thing I am beginning to see what this is all about. Needless to say I
am even more impressed by the work of the true chess composers.
Please do not hesitate to correct me if I am wrong with any of the
previous concepts.
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 11:44:22
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
> So I think I'll leave this position in the cellar for a while before
> including it in my collection.
>
> Thank you very much again for your kind encouragement.
You are a very st man, Jose. I was told to "put certain positions in
the cellar" when I first started composing but wanted to publish
quickly. As a result, my early efforts in problemdom are very shaky,
and downright embarrassing!
You are correct in that this looks like an endgame type position. One
composer who often uses such matrices is B. Kozdon, a German
International Master who is very highly regarded. If you like those,
you might want to look at some of his directmates; they look simple,
but have a complexity that belies the minimal material (especially for
the white side) that he uses.
Have fun with your composing...
|
| |
Date: 12 Oct 2006 00:35:10
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Why not place the WQ on a4 and the WK at g5? The key Qd1 is more
> attractive to me.....
I had the feeling that a King key-move in this sort of position was
"softer". It is true that, in contrast to your suggestion, it takes a
flight square for the black king, what I certainly didn't like. My
reasoning was that leaving the queen on d1 added a reasonable try:
Qh1+. For the very same reason the WR is on d7, making of Rh7+ another
plausible try. I was trying to mislead the white player to check the
black King. The "problem-factor" (I suppose this is self-explicative)
may help the solver to rule them out automatically, and then I like
more your key-move .
I surprised myself thinking in terms of a "playable position" instead
of "problem purity", I think it has to do with this particular pattern
of pieces that reminds me of an end-game position (although I haven't
read anything about them and I was just guessing). The picture you are
getting of my way of thinking is very accurate. I have always loved all
kind of geometrical recreations and mathematical games in general (I am
not a mathematician, though). I had read something about chess problems
but never considered it since the day I posted that first try here.
So I think I'll leave this position in the cellar for a while before
including it in my collection.
Thank you very much again for your kind encouragement.
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 19:30:34
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
[email protected] wrote:
> That is better than any of the others, although you do have the
> drawback of taking a flight square for the BK - h4. But it gets better
> all the time....
Why not place the WQ on a4 and the WK at g5? The key Qd1 is more
attractive to me.....
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 17:18:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
That is better than any of the others, although you do have the
drawback of taking a flight square for the BK - h4. But it gets better
all the time....
|
| |
Date: 11 Oct 2006 14:50:53
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
> I will also include a mate in five with a quiet key move,
> two lines of play, economy and no duals:
>
> 83R45K285pp17k5r23Q white to play and mate in five moves.
>
The correct Forsyth notation is: 8/3R4/5K2/8/5pp1/7k/5r2/3Q4
I have a guess that this problem is very amenable to be converted into
a white-to-play-and-win kind of problem if you give more strength to
black, e.g.:
8/3R4/5K2/8/5pp1/n6k/ppP2r2/3Q4 (the same mate in five for white still
holds)
Perhaps (but this I cannot find out) if white doesn't find the mate in
its first move by playing too agresively, black can always find the way
to win (or draw) the game.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2006 12:19:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Thank you very much for your answer, you are becoming a kind of mentor
> to me...
No problem. Anything I can do to help.
>
> As for the other problem, I think I understant its beauty. Different
> mates, and the key move does not take flights away for the black king,
> something I have found difficult to compose.
>
> As for my trivial black switchback I'll include it in my booklet (chess
> pellets) that is becoming my own history in the long way of chess
> composition. I will also include a mate in five with a quiet key move,
> two lines of play, economy and no duals:
I'm on the road (travelling!), so I can't look at it for awhile. But
again I will say your progress is phenomenal. Every problem of yours
gets a little better. I think you probably have a firmer handle on art
and aesthetics than I did, since I spent so many years as a practical
chess player.
And some of the best chess composers do not play chess at all, or even
think of it as a game. You strike me as this type. If you keep at it, I
have no doubt your name will appear above a diagram in a chess magazine
one day!
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 13:37:05
From:
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
Thank you very much for your answer, you are becoming a kind of mentor
to me...
Finally I decided to read about chess problems and I even bought some
books. It would be great if I could compose a problem of the "modern
themes". Maybe I can find some time next sunday to have a try.
I liked your "switchback". I think I can appreciate the idea. I have
also found the problem in a Virginia Chess magazine. I am a bit
confused by the existence of dual solutions (if I am using the terms
appropriately), but I guess it is not important if they are not in the
main thematic line. I couldn't understand the function of the pawn at
e5 since the problem seems to work just fine even without it, and then
for the sake of economy... I just mention these because these are the
kind of things that I am considering when I am testing new
compositions, but now I am not sure whether it is always the way to go.
As for the other problem, I think I understant its beauty. Different
mates, and the key move does not take flights away for the black king,
something I have found difficult to compose.
As for my trivial black switchback I'll include it in my booklet (chess
pellets) that is becoming my own history in the long way of chess
composition. I will also include a mate in five with a quiet key move,
two lines of play, economy and no duals:
83R45K285pp17k5r23Q white to play and mate in five moves.
JP
|
| |
Date: 09 Oct 2006 12:08:13
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: chess problem terminology
|
Hello Jose!
A black switchback in that position is trivial, and not thematic.
I sometimes write articles for state magazines, Internet sites etc. in
addition to what I publish in the world's leading problem magazines,
mainly to show OTB players how chess problems are not always obscure,
and can improve their play.
Here is a problem I used to illustrate the switchback theme:
FEN: 7k/5Kpr/5pQ1/4p1b1/6P1/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
Here are the main lines (mate in 5)
1. Ke6 {threatening Qe8#(#1)} Rh6 2. Qe8+ Kh7 3.Kf7 Rg6 (3... Rh5 4.
Qf8/g8+ ) 4. Qg8+ Kh6 5. Qh8
It is not an ideal version of a switchback by any means. But it seemed
very game-like, and thus, players might enjoy it.
As to king flights by black, star and L pattern flights are considered
to be aesthetic. Here is a small mate in 2 that shows star flights of
the black king:
FEN:8/8/8/5N2/6p1/6B1/4N1k1/1BK5 w - - 0 1
1. Kd2 Kf1 2. Ne3#
(1...Kf3 2. Nh4#
(1... Kh3 2.Nf4#
(1... Kh1 2. Be4#
You can see that the key move takes no flights away from black, and he
can move to each of the 4 white squares surrounding him in the pattern
of a star, but is always mated..
Today the most popular "switchback-type movement" is the rundlauf,
where a piece takes a circuitous route back home. The paradox is - if
the piece didn't stand initially in a good spot, why would it return to
its home square?
If I can help you anymore Jose, let me know.
|
|
