Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 429: Araz Almammadov & Kenan Velikhanov - Helpmate
arazvelikhanov(29.07.2014) Welcome to Araz Almammadov who sends a joint composition with his compatriot Kenan Velikhanov. It shows anticipatory interference and white sacrifices.  





429. Araz Almammadov &
Kenan Velikhanov (Azerbaijan)
H#3        2 sol.       (5+15)
 1.Sg3 Rxe5+ 2.Kxe5 Rhe4+ 3.Kf5 Sd6# 
 1.Sf2 Rxd4+ 2.Kxd4 Ree4+ 3.Kd3 Sc5#


+3 #1 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-29 11:27
When the symmetry became welcomed in chess composition?
+1 #2 Kenneth Solja 2014-07-29 12:26
Symmetry is not bad thing, but here I see too much black power which is not needed .. But before saying anything else I have to check the position and revalue it first .. Solutions are OK.
+1 #3 Seetharaman Kalyan 2014-07-29 16:51
Quoting Vitaly Medintsev:
When the symmetry became welcomed in chess composition?

Welcome is for the composer. Hope he will improve in future.
0 #4 Nikola Predrag 2014-07-29 17:20
Symmetry in principle is most welcome as for instance O/D reciprocity. But simple mirroring is trivial because there's actually one solution just repeated in the mirror.
Reciprocity of wR's somewhat improves the impression here.
But a mirrored play can at least be economic.
The worst feature here is 2 sets of black pieces, each one for one phase only.
Active play of the same black pieces to the mirrored positions would minimize the effects of trivial mirroring.
+1 #5 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-29 18:23
The fact of publication of such problems means that welcom is not only for the composer :-)
+1 #6 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-29 18:31
#2 Symmetry is not bad thing

I suppose that symmetry (simple mirroring which is presented in this h#3 basically) is awful thing in composing, but orthogonal-diagonal analogy (O/D reciprocity, as Nikola wrote) is good thing!
0 #7 Nikola Predrag 2014-07-29 20:21
The best problems are praised mostly because of a rich symmetry.
Symmetry of "abstract" relations is more exciting than spatial symmetry but still, echo mates are widely praised, (too) often for merely spatial symmetry.

Mirrored mates and even a mirrored play could be interesting if there is some logical change of relations which is not simply mirrored. That's not easy to achieve and it would probably remain in the shadow of the mirrored features.
+1 #8 Diyan Kostadinov 2014-07-29 20:24
Vitaly, each composer can decide what to compose depends of his opinion and skills. It is not possible to be published only masterpieces (I don't know even one tourney in the world where all problems are great and 100 percent awarded, do you?).
The judge will decide in his award which are good problems in the tourney and which are not.
+1 #9 Рауф Алиовсадзаде 2014-07-29 22:41
Quoting Vitaly Medintsev:
When the symmetry became welcomed in chess composition?

Симметрия это -красота,гармония!
Сравните с архитектурой.
Одним словом,в симметрии ничего плохого нет!
Есть проблемисты (довольно-таки известные-имён не называю),которые выступают против симметрии,а сами нет-нет опубликуют задачку-другую с симметрией.
А это называется ханжеством.
+2 #10 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-30 03:56
Diyan, I'm not talking about the quality of a chess problem, I'm talking about the thing that should be avoided in composing - trivial symmetry in the play. As far as I know it is not opinion, it is one of the basical principles in composing of nowadays. Am I wrong?
0 #11 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-30 04:02
Сравните с архитектурой.
Одним словом,в симметрии ничего плохого нет!

Рауф, зачем расширять тезис? Я говорю исключительно о полной симметрии в игре сторон в шахматной задаче. Если бы целью архитектуры было озадачивание гомо сапиенса, полагаю, и в ней симметрия была бы "вне закона"...
+4 #12 Kenneth Solja 2014-07-30 05:45
Vitali, Symmetry in positioning is not bad thing, but if also the solution is symmetrical at the same time, then the artistic feeling is lost (as the case is in this problem).

I have done myself several problems with symmetrical positioning, but the solutions have been asymmetrical, and those problems have also been successes.
+1 #13 Рауф Алиовсадзаде 2014-07-30 12:48
Пусть будут и задачи с полной симметрией,что в этом плохого.
Лучше симметрия,чем плохая война!
-1 #14 Nikola Predrag 2014-07-30 16:21
There is a misunderstanding because of different interpretations of the word.
Symmetry is everywhere and it is the basis of our perception of beauty.

Here it's not about the beauty.
Mirroring is a kind of symmetry which we notice immediately as a sign of beauty.
But what does it mean for the content of a problem?

The other solution is just repeated, showing NOTHING NEW in the play and content.

So, it's not about the beauty but about a false 2-phase content.
The "united content" of the whole problem (in all phases/variations) creates a completely new dimension. That united content can't be seen in a dimension of a single phase.

Simple mirroring usually shows too little of "united content" and does not justify the existence of two phases.
-1 #15 Nikola Predrag 2014-07-30 16:21
If we compare the chess composition and the architecture, we should compare the relevant features.
A good flat means a good organization of the room, kitchen and bathroom. That organization is a "united content" in a new dimension.
A perfect symmetry of 3 bathrooms (without a kitchen and a room) would not create a dimension of a good flat.

Only the reciprocity of the white Rooks is here a small sign of a unifying dimension.
There are just two symmetrical "bathrooms", but we can use them both as a bath or as a toilet (with a full "reciprocity").
0 #16 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-30 18:46
- exactly!
So, there is no problem - no chess problem :-)
-1 #17 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-07-30 18:49
Vitali, Symmetry in positioning is not bad thing, but if also the solution is symmetrical at the same time, then the artistic feeling is lost (as the case is in this problem).

Kenneth, I completely agree with this, but I was talking about symmetry in the play (solution) only.
+3 #18 Рауф Алиовсадзаде 2014-07-30 19:55
Nikola, I cannot help wondering about this 'Much Ado About Nothing'!
These two, Araz and Kenan, very good problemists, by the way,decided to compose a symmetry this time,-what's wrong with that!
Why so many words?
Why this upsetting!?
It isn't worth it, is it?
+2 #19 Elmar Abdullayev 2014-07-31 07:26
Zadaca otlicnaya ne ponimayu pricom tut simmetriya xto ploxogo v simmetriyi ? Rauf mellin polnostyu s vami soqlasen
-2 #20 Nikola Predrag 2014-07-31 15:04
Rauf, my intention was not to discuss about this problem but about the general concept of symmetry. Someone uses the word without being aware of its genuine meaning. The false and imprecise interpretation of a concept then becomes too easily accepted by the others.
Saying "Symmetry is bad" is a complete nonsense! We always and everywhere search for the symmetry for we could not exist without it!

I've commented partially this problem only to "translate" what Vitaly had actually ment by saying that symmetry is not welcomed. And the point is about the economy, not about the symmetry.

I understand Vitaly's view as:
"There is not enough content for two phases, so one of the solutions is superfluous and that means bad economy."

Add comment

Security code



site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov


Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments