Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 431: Janos Csak - Helpmate

csak(31.07.2014) We ends the month with one excellent helpmate by Janos Csak with reciprocal black moves, Zilahi, creation of white indirect batteries after double line openings by the blacks and two white pieces play on the same square, good position - meredith.

 

 

 

431

 

Comments  

 
+2 #1 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-31 15:13
Taclically saturated Meredith with paradoxical line-closing effect on f3 square, though it seems accidental.
Also the motivations of black moves is slightly imbalanced: line-opening and blocking e5 in the play of BRe4 / line-opening and avoidance of direct check to WK in the play of BSg2.
Nevertheless the problem produces a very good impression!
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Rodolfo Riva 2014-07-31 17:43
Well found mechanism, the closing on f3 is the icing on the cream.
Imbalanced motivations are unimportant here.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Seetharaman Kalyan 2014-07-31 19:20
More than the Zilahi, what is interesting is what happens on the line h1-d5! Doubly closed initially, black opens it twice, but white also closes it before opening it finally !! So much is happening in two moves. Masterly touch!
Quote
 
 
+1 #4 Nikola Predrag 2014-08-01 02:31
Delusions can be impressive at first glance. I wouldn't buy the glittering trinkets but who likes it, let him be. wBh1 is on the board to guard only one square twice and to fake the "rich line effects".
Much too expensive.

However, I like the idea of repeating the same black moves with the same motivations when their order completely changes the white tactics.

Much cheaper would be lack of tempo showing a change of theme. A solver sees 1...Sc2 2.Rxe3 Se1# and thinks it's about the pin-mates. But it's about Zilahi.
White Kc4 Rc3 Se3 Rg2
Black Pe4 Pf4 Rd3 Kf3 Sb1
Stipulation H#2
Quote
 
 
+2 #5 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-08-01 05:58
Here is the picture of Nikola's version
Quote
 
 
+1 #6 Rodolfo Riva 2014-08-01 13:38
More economical version:
White Kd7 Se5 Rg5 Pb3 Se6
Black Kd5 Sh7 Rf5 h#2
1.Rxe5, Rg4 2.Sg5, Rd4#
1.Sxg5, Sg4 2.Re5, Sf6#

Anyway I think my version is too aseptic and I prefer the lively version by Janos.
Quote
 
 
+2 #7 Author 2014-08-01 16:58
Dear my friends, I say thank you for this care to this little idea, all topic elements deliberate yet Umnov and it f3 the closing of a field and his opening... With thanks, Janos
Quote
 
 
0 #8 Nikola Predrag 2014-08-01 17:39
Rodolfo, I've had that version but just before posting it, I noticed that 1.Sxg5 is not a pure tempo-move.
That's why the scheme was a bit changed, which has introduced that tempo-try with an altered strategy.

I am very fond of the dynamics of logic.
The visual line-effects in the original are indeed amusing but except Sg2(x)e3, they are just the accidents without a motivation.
Chess-play is essentially about the motivations and visual features belong to the visual arts.
The transient white interferences on f3 could be paradoxical in fighting genres, but that simply does not exist in help genres.

I respect the visual features too, but I don't understand how they can be more important and praised than the genuine chess-motivations.

Janos, there is no Umnov in helpmates. Umnov has an exactly opposite meaning in #n. In h# it should be called anti-Umnov.
Quote
 
 
0 #9 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-08-01 19:50
Here is the picture of Rodolfo's version
Quote
 
 
0 #10 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-08-01 20:01
There is a view: in the helpmate problems, if it is not proved (by means of retrograde analysys) what side has to move first, any side may start to build a mate position for black king, and, having a solution that is shorter than specified in stipulation at least one half-move, this must be classified as a short solution (exept the thematic set play), i.e. such a problem is incorrect (coocked).
What do you think about this, dear chessfriends?
Quote
 
 
+1 #11 Rodolfo Riva 2014-08-01 22:05
Many thanks Vitaly, your notes show once more
that the original is the best version
Quote
 
 
0 #12 Nikola Predrag 2014-08-01 22:39
A problem is a chess position. Position is determined by the right of move, beside other things.
Stipulation determines the position by strictly defined right of move.
h#n* means that there is a twin b) called set-play. That twinning does not make a change on the board, but changes the right of move.
Set-play is a twin with a different position, just like the usual twins.
Image on the diagram is not a position.

I didn't mention a set-play in my example.
I mentioned a plan/strategy but I should have written it more precisely:
1.~ Sc2 2.Re3 Se1#
Seeing that, a solver finds also:
1.~ Sf5 2.Re3 Sh4#
1.~ Rcc2 2.Rxe3 Rcf2#
Then she/he looks for B1 and sees that Rxe3 must happen in B1 as well as Sxc3.
That changes the strategy and tactics.
Quote
 
 
0 #13 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-08-02 06:59
I have edited my previous comment (#10) for better understanding.
The point is about such type of a coock as the short solution.
For instance, if an orthodox threemover solves in two moves, then we consider that threemover has a short solution.
As well as in the case of h#3 that solves in two moves.
But in direct mates the white and the black are fighting (confrontation).
In the helpmate problems the both sides help each other to reach a goal - mate to black king (synergy).
So, the question is: is a half-move, presented in non-thematic set play, enough for recognizing this set play as a short solution in helpmates?
Quote
 
 
+1 #14 Rodolfo Riva 2014-08-02 07:21
In my view redundant setplay (with or
without superfluous repetitions of moves)
detracts
Quote
 
 
0 #15 Diyan Kostadinov 2014-08-02 10:38
Dear Rodolfo, I saw that you are registered and have an account in the website. Please login with your username and password in the Sign-in module in the right side of the site and your comments will be published instantly (you will not wait an approval from the admin).
Quote
 
 
0 #16 Nikola Predrag 2014-08-02 12:57
Vitaly, I'm not sure what you mean.

If the set-play is indicated, it is a twin like any other twin, which must have only the intended solution.
If a set-play is NOT indicated by the author, then there is simply no such twin.

We have no right to change the author's position and say "Now there is a short solution".
Changing the right of move means changing the position.

Rodolfo, you are right about a redundant set-play. But there's a difference between the tries and the set-play.
A try doesn't mean a different position while a set-play does.
Logic try in my example starts with some undetermined hypothetical black move. When that move must be determined, the logic will be changed.

1...Sc2 is different than 1.~ Sc2, because the starting position (the right of move) is not the same!
Quote
 
 
0 #17 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-08-02 13:40
First, the case is about helpmates in which the set-play is NOT indicated.
Quote:
We have no right to change the author's position and say "Now there is a short solution".

May we say "There is a short solution", if author's position e.g. h#3 solves in two moves? Of course we may! So, the point is about half-move. If some author's h#3 (without any thematic set-play) solves in 2.5 moves, this helpmate problem has a short solution i.e. coocked, isn't it so?
Quote
 
 
0 #18 Nikola Predrag 2014-08-02 13:59
If the diagram with stipulation h#3 has a solution as h#2, it's a cook called short solution.
The stipulation determines the position by the right of move for ONE SIDE. The same diagram with the OTHER SIDE having the right of move, is NOT the same position and therefore NOT the same problem.
Changing the right of move is equivalent to relocating some piece on the board.

A solution of the changed position is not a cook/short solution, because it's not the same problem!
Quote
 
 
0 #19 Seetharaman Kalyan 2014-08-02 14:09
Quote:
wBh1 is on the board to guard only one square twice and to fake the "rich line effects".

When a piece opens a bishop line, guard to only one square in the black king field can be opened.
Quote
 
 
0 #20 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-08-02 14:25
Quote:
The stipulation determines the position by the right of move for ONE SIDE

What about DUPLEX?
Helpmates have completely opposite logic in comparision to direct mates - cooperation, collaboration, synergy. Therefore any side has the right to move first in order to reach the goal - I belief so! :-)
By the way, I have failed to find any convincing proof (in available sources) of the approval quoted above...
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments