<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>“Vladimir Zabunov – 85 MT” 2014 AWARD</title>
		<description>Discuss “Vladimir Zabunov – 85 MT” 2014 AWARD</description>
		<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2026 03:22:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.kobulchess.com/en/component/jcomments/feed/com_content/515/10.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Rodolfo Riva says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6846</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I still don't see the foolish "tries" 2.Sd-b6?? and 2.Sc-b6?? as real choices. These moves are not allowed by the rules of the game so they are NOT-EXISTENT as an alternative. Anyhow, as often happens, you missed the crucial point: while the mentioned "tries" are not available as plausible choices, at B2 Black has many other choices: 2.Sc7?, Se7?, 1.Sf6? etc. etc. wich fail because of some different reasons and regardless of the result of the play. If you are not confused about the meaning of dual and plural you see that the supposed Dual avoidance is a delusion (or hallucination or as you want to name it). Erroneous claims have only the effect of hiding the main content an the good points: in this case the originality of the idea and the astonishing economy.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rodolfo Riva</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 16 Aug 2015 11:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6846</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nikola Predrag says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6841</link>
			<description><![CDATA[However, I wouldn't mention such a simple direct dual avoidance (making a dualistic move impossible) if this was not a basis for strategical dual avoidance. You must first comprehend what is strategy before seeing what is "childish".]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nikola Predrag</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6841</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nikola Predrag says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6840</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I apologize, I didn't understand what you've meant by: -"Notice that the author and some commenters never claimed for the Dual avoidance. How come they have not done?"- I can't guess what in your statement could be relevant here, but don't bother, I'm not really interested about "How come they have not done". What you might mean by "childish" is your problem. I mentioned the simple tactical dual avoidance, but even that looks too complicated to you. The rules previously ALLOW both bSs to move to b6 in B1 or in B2, if this possibility in B2 is not avoided by the play. Only AFTER B1 and NOT previously, the possibility is lost. That is simple but still shoowing the essence of dual avoidance, the previously existing possibility is disabled by the play.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nikola Predrag</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:07:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6840</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rodolfo Riva says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6837</link>
			<description><![CDATA[For sure you're exhausted (and you will need to explain to yourself the basic elements) if you dont see the contradictions and errors in your statements. I don't believe in the "Supernatural tries" and never said that 1.Scb6 Rg4 2.Sd5xb6 is possible. On the contrary, when you write "...I believe that 1.Scb6 actively makes 2.Sdb6 impossible ."(that great intuition!) it means you are looking at the foolish move 2.Sdb6 as a PLAUSIBLE try or choice of move. De facto this childish move is not PREVIOUSLY allowed by the rules of the game and it is as if it did not exist. So the Black (and even the White) has no choice and there is no Dual avoidance. Somewhere in your comments you wrote "...true dual avoidance is the result of the play". Now are you trying to say that it is the result of hallucination? In my previous comment I wrote "some commenters" (not "all commenters") and it seems you don't respect them.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rodolfo Riva</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6837</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nikola Predrag says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6836</link>
			<description><![CDATA[So you believe that 1.Scb6 Rg4 2.Sd5xb6 is possible? On the contrary, I believe that 1.Scb6 actively makes 2.Sd5-b6 impossible. b6/b4 are the TWO apparently equally good arrival squares for tempo move by bSd5 if bSc4 plays bi-valve in B1. Since 1.Sc4-e3 would introduce harmful effects, the correction of the bi-valve move B1 avoids the dual by disabling one of the mentioned arrivals in B2. You are obviously confused about the strategy and the tactics so, that would have to be clarified before any other discussion. One commenter did claim for the Dual avoidance, but you don't respect him. That's your private choice and I don't care about it. I'm exhausted by explaining the basic elements.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nikola Predrag</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 09 Aug 2015 21:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6836</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rodolfo Riva says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6832</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The choice between 8 random moves does not mean exactly choice between 2 moves. We name it correction play. You seem confused about arithmetic. As in the case of Problem177 you have confused cause and effect. Of course the choice of moves at B1 are not due the effects of the previous play that occurs in the solution. So we should look at the "tries" as a cause of the effects that lead to the supposed Dual avoidance. After B1 there are some effects but the White has no choice in order to fill the obvious gaps of the initial position. Paradoxically or not there is no avoidance so where is the Dual avoidance? Someone confuse avoidance and allowance. "About what is poor": are the completely avoided strategy and the tactical "accidents" that you quote in your comments the rich beautiful strategy? Notice that the author and some commenters never claimed for the Dual avoidance. How come they have not done?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rodolfo Riva</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2015 09:52:31 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6832</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nikola Predrag says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6831</link>
			<description><![CDATA[No.258.1 shows a simple tactical dual avoidance and fantastic strategical dual avoidance: (1.S4~? Rg4 2.Sd5-b6) 1.Sc4-e3? Rg4 2.Sd5-b6/Sd5-b4 (dual) 1.Sc4-b6 Rg4 2.Sd5-b4(Sd5-b6??) Corrected interference with bB in B1 avoids dual 2.Sd5-b6. A complete strategy is avoided. Gate-opening in B1 and line-closing in B2 fails because 8 moves by respective bS can not properly "only open" the gate. One of the moves (to b6) solves the problem but it's not the same strategy. Gate-opening by one bS disables the planned line-closing by the other. The only remaining strategy is bi-valve in B1 and B2 must be a pure tempo move. The complete random wheel by Sc4 in B1, and the exact move to b6 by Sd5 in B2, is the avoided strategy. When playing to b6 makes B1 exact, B2 becomes a complete random wheel but square b6 is lost for Sd5. You seem to be rather confused about what is poor, you recognize only simple tactical effects.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nikola Predrag</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2015 06:25:54 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6831</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rodolfo Riva says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6828</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Of course, and in contradiction to some of your previous comments, if you don't care about the true essence you can name Dual avoidance any foolish "try" or any "fake maneuver" with poor or whithout strategic content on the basis of some appearances, as you can sell hot air if you find the buyers. Even your comment to the Problem 258.1, 3rd Prize, shows that you are confused about the themes.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rodolfo Riva</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2015 22:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6828</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nikola Predrag says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6827</link>
			<description><![CDATA["...Why you want to avoid them?..." Of course, if you want some play WITHOUT fulfilling the stipulation, you don't have to avoid any "harmful effects". And if the play has no specific goal at all, what could be a meaning of "harmful effect"? But if a mate is stipulated, the solution must avoid or compensate for all harmful effects.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nikola Predrag</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jul 2015 21:12:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6827</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Rodolfo Riva says:</title>
			<link>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6823</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Quoting "Avoidance of a harmful effect of the play is the very essence of dual avoidance." I think you're confused about the theme and have missed the crucial point: the theme REQUIRES harmful (and useful) effects. Why you want to avoid them? What theme are you talking about??]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Rodolfo Riva</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 16:35:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.kobulchess.com/en/tournaments/awards/515-vladimir-zabunov-award.html#comment-6823</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
