| |
Main
Date: 21 Oct 2006 04:50:38
From:
Subject: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
I have been studying the Vladimirov theme since I was stuck by its
beauty.
I have spent some hours (and more hours) and I could finally prepare
the following compostion:
r2b4/8/1QNP4/p1R2P1p/3PB1R1/3PkPP1/nBP3P1/4K3
Try: 1. d5? But 1. ... Bf6! (unique refutation)
Try: 1. Bd5? But 1. ... hxg4! (unique refutation)
Key1. Re5! (unique)
1. ... hxg4 2. Bd5# (unique mate)
1. ... Bf6 2. d5# (unique mate)
The key pieces are the same as those in diagram 7 in the following
review article: http://www.matplus.org.yu/VLADI.HTM
although the dressing is different and some avoidance mechanisms are
somehow unrelated.
Could you please be so kind as to comment on what aspects can be
perhaps considered an improvement and on what aspects it is surely
worse?
Thank you very much in advance.
My booklet "Chess Pellets" containing my first ever ten compostions is
ready and I will be pleased to send it by email upon request.
Jos=E9 Potrosal
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:41:54
From:
Subject: Re: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
I have recently posted two tentative Vladimirov chess problems
r2b4/8/1QNP4/p1R2P1p/3PB1R1/3PkPP1/nBP3P1/4K3
8/B6q/3P1Pp1/2R4P/1pQPP3/2R3N1/4P2p/4KBkr
and:
[email protected] wrote:
> You definitely fulfilled the theme. Just to make sure, I ran the
> problem through WinChloe, which is an excellent program that recognizes
> many themes, and it also recognized your Vladimirov.
I am very disappointed with my composing. Yes, perhaps WinCloe (and me
before) considers them a Vladimirov since they fulfill the technical
theme requirements. However, now I realize that they are absolutely
worthless since they have a major and more general drawback, and now I
understantd that it is indeed very important: The key move creates a
threat that is actually one of the tries. In other words (and in
general): After the key move I have thematic mates in thread. I have
carefully studied the published Vladimirovs and they don't have this
unforgivable flaw. I liked the Vladimirov even when I couldn't
appreciate this important feauture. Now I even like them more. I am
learning the hard way, I really hate being this naive.
JP
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 09:51:47
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Are you sure you don't want my booklet? Your name is there...
I certainly do! I sent you my real email address because I am sure I
will enjoy it.
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 09:17:57
From:
Subject: Re: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
Thank you very much again. We both know that I wouldn't be doing this
hadn't it been for your incredible ability to encourage me.
For a while I was afraid I had fallen in frustation, the Vladimirov has
been tough. But now I know I can, ideas and new patterns keep coming to
my mind (the problem now is that I also dream them!). What's next? I am
lost in this jungle....
> What is the point of Black pawn a5? I couldn't tell immediately, but I
> didn't look close either.
Very observative. At the last moment I had also forgotten why it was
there and I almost posted the position without it. I think this is a
drawback of the position, since it is only there for theme purity.
Without the black pawn at a5 try d5 (thematic) and then there are two
refutations 1. ... Bf6(thematic) and Ra4 (spoils the theme).
Are you sure you don't want my booklet? Your name is there...
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 08:53:32
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
You definitely fulfilled the theme. Just to make sure, I ran the
problem through WinChloe, which is an excellent program that recognizes
many themes, and it also recognized your Vladimirov.
What is the point of Black pawn a5? I couldn't tell immediately, but I
didn't look close either.
Good work again. Keep it up, and you will continue to improve. Again,
you have progressed in a few weeks to a level it took me a year to get
to. Someday, I may be asking you for advice on composition!
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 08:44:10
From:
Subject: Re: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
Thanks for your kind answer Bob.
> Try: 1: Ne5? But 1. ... Nc3 (Unique? after 2. Nc4+ Kxd4)
I am not sure what you mean. There is only one refutation to Ne5, 1.
... Nc3. You are right.
I mail you my booklet. Feedback is apreciated.
JP
|
| |
Date: 21 Oct 2006 15:12:52
From: Bob
Subject: Re: A Vladimirov chess problem
|
[email protected] wrote:
> I have been studying the Vladimirov theme since I was stuck by its
> beauty.
> I have spent some hours (and more hours) and I could finally prepare
> the following compostion:
>
> r2b4/8/1QNP4/p1R2P1p/3PB1R1/3PkPP1/nBP3P1/4K3
had to modify your FEN slightly to paste into my computer playing
program.
r2b4/8/1QNP4/p1R2P1p/3PB1R1/3PkPP1/nBP3P1/4K3 w -- 0 1
White to mate in two.
>
> Try: 1. d5? But 1. ... Bf6! (unique refutation)
> Try: 1. Bd5? But 1. ... hxg4! (unique refutation)
Try: 1: Ne5? But 1. ... Nc3 (Unique? after 2. Nc4+ Kxd4)
> Key1. Re5! (unique)
> 1. ... hxg4 2. Bd5# (unique mate)
> 1. ... Bf6 2. d5# (unique mate)
>
> The key pieces are the same as those in diagram 7 in the following
> review article: http://www.matplus.org.yu/VLADI.HTM
> although the dressing is different and some avoidance mechanisms are
> somehow unrelated.
>
> Could you please be so kind as to comment on what aspects can be
> perhaps considered an improvement and on what aspects it is surely
> worse?
> Thank you very much in advance.
Problem composition is not in my skill set. So I have a great
appreciation for those that can do it!
Afraid I can offer little in constructive help, but I think your
composition is excellent.
>
> My booklet "Chess Pellets" containing my first ever ten compostions is
> ready and I will be pleased to send it by email upon request.
>
> Jos� Potrosal
Looking forward to it. Keep up the good work.
Bob
--
|
|
