Problem 688: Kostas Prentos

Recent updates

Bulgarian Successes

zname

Bulgarian Composers

bgcomposers2

Theme on focus (6)

th6en

Visitors

Problem 688: Kostas Prentos - Helpmate

(29.12.2015) Nice helpmate from Kostas Prentos showing critical moves and unpins!

688. Kostas Prentos (Greece)

29.12.2015

H#2 b) -Pc5 (7+12)

a) 1.Bd4 Bg6 2.Sf5 Bf7#
b) 1.Rd4 Rb7 2.Sb6 Rc7#

Grimshaw, Pelle moves with critical play, Indirect unpins. ODT. (Author)

Correction of 4th Prize from Sabra TT, Kobe WCCC, 2012 (WinChloe ID: 472119) in the draft award. (See the discussion) at http://juliasfairies.com/wccc2012-the-awards/

Comments

0 #1 Vitaly Medintsev 2015-12-30 15:25

Since I am the judge of h#2 section I have to ask whether this helpmate participate in Kobulchess 2015 IT?

Quote

0 #2 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-12-30 16:16

I understand that the earlier version (provisional 4th prize) was disqualified from the Sabra TT, being non-thematic. My view is that this qualifies for the Kobulchess 2015 tourney.

Quote

+1 #3 Vitaly Medintsev 2015-12-30 19:34

Quote:

My view is that this qualifies for the Kobulchess 2015 tourney

In this case - just to increase the originality - I offer the following version:

1.Rh6 Bh7 2.Sg6 Bg8#

1.Ba7 Rb7 2.Sb6 Rc7#

Here we have critical black moves with line-vacating effects, multisolution form and better economy.
The author's idea (by Kostas Prentos) could be presented in various interpretations.
I think Grimshaw on B1 is less organic than critical moves. Also, the pins in initial version are not essential as it was pointed out by Nikola Predrag during discussion on juliasfairies.com/wccc2012-the-awards/

Quote

+1 #4 Kostas Prentos 2015-12-31 06:22

The reason I revisited this problem after so long was to see if it was possible to give an essential role to the pins. It turned out that it was possible - unless I am missing something, again!

Abandoning the pins is a completely different story. There are many ways to go; one example is Vitaly's version, shown above. Most likely, the economy can be improved more and this can become a new problem, quite different from the original.

Whether problem 688 is eligible for this informal tourney, or not, is completely Vitaly's call. The original problem was heavily flawed and disqualified from that composing tourney. In my view, the flaw was equivalent to being cooked. I am not sure what happens when a correction of a cooked problem is published in a different source. This is a similar case. Anyway, this is not important to me.

Quote

0 #5 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-12-31 08:41

Quoting Kostas Prentos:

The original problem was heavily flawed and disqualified from that composing tourney. In my view, the flaw was equivalent to being cooked.

This was also my reasoning. But a different view will be equally logical. As Kostas correctly put it, the judge can decide!

Quote

0 #6 Vitaly Medintsev 2015-12-31 12:24

Quote:

Abandoning the pins is a completely different story.

Yes, it is but it is the most important thing in this case since the similar schemes using Grimshaw and the pins have been shown many times, see for example:

Quote

+1 #7 Nikola Predrag 2015-12-31 16:21

Chess problem asks for understanding the MOTIVATION for the chess-play BEFORE making a move.

ORIGINAL problem shows AN ORIGINAL MOTIVATION, at least in some detail.

Kostas's problem presents the anticritical Pelle move and Grimshaw.
(Well, Grimshaw motivation is artificial in a), because wPc3 is superfluous for that particular solution.)

However, the anticritical Pelle motivation for the arrival effects in B2 seems original, at least as compared to the preceding examples mentioned by Vitaly.

Unfortunately, for the wide public it's much easier to perceive various effects OF the play than to understand the motivations FOR the play.

Computing was always easier than thinking, but the modern fascination with the power of computers makes us "happily abandoning" our greatest advantage - the ability to think

Quote

+1 #8 Vitaly Medintsev 2015-12-31 17:39

Quote:

Chess problem asks for understanding the MOTIVATION for the chess-play BEFORE making a move.

No doubt, the MOTIVATION is a highly important thing in composing.
That is why I think that combination of anti-critical W1 with critical B1 is more
organic (harmonious) than a combination of anti-critical W1 with Grimshaw.
So, my version was a product of thinking not computing

Happy New Year, Nikola!

Quote

+1 #9 Nikola Predrag 2015-12-31 18:12

Happy New Year Vitaly and everyone else!

The earlier problems that you've mentioned DO NOT present the Pelle-motivation succesfully!

Kostas has succeeded and that simply shows that your idea makes a different problem with different motivations.
"Computing" was not related to the creation of your idea.
It was about comparing the earlier problems with the Kostas's original.
There is the same apparent effect but not the same motivation.

Quote

+1 #10 Kostas Prentos 2016-01-01 05:22

Nikola, thank you for the comment. It saved me the time, in-between two twelve-hour shifts at work, to argue about the previous examples that were quoted here. Of course, there may be other examples that essentially anticipate the content of 688 - composing short helpmates has become a dangerous dance in a minefield, nowadays.

I will try to follow up on Vitaly's suggestion (comment #3) this weekend. Happy New Year to all! Have fun composing!

Quote

0 #11 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-01-01 09:37

Quote:

composing short helpmates has become a dangerous dance in a minefield, nowadays

Sure! Therefore to save time for composing we should start with the pattern research in online chess problem databases that is computing

Quote

+1 #12 Nikola Predrag 2016-01-01 19:38

Vitaly, simply entering a position and waiting for a program to find a match, that is computing.
But the quality of an answer depends on the quality of a question. Creation of a good input to a program, for the "pattern research", requires thinking.

And the "effects" might still hide the motivations. It's not enough even to ask the program to search for "line-closing", "critical move" or whatever.
Computer can't interpret the motivations since it can't be programmed for interpreting.

For instance, C.Jonsson shows the unpin in only one phase of P0547368 and there's no unpin in P0580133. And neither of these problems shows Grimshaw. (There's one accidental line-interference in P0580133 1.Be5)

A valid "pattern research" requires first a good input-question and finally a proper interpretation of the results.
And that's thinking, the mere computing might only deceive you.

Quote

+1 #13 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-01-01 20:23

Nikola, computing can never be the main goal of a composer but the pattern search can be a useful tool for a composer as well as for a judge. Will be a composer deceived by the result of using this tool or will not is entirely dependent on composer's ability to think.
In the following problem (see the second solution after B1) the motivation is the same as in Kostas's h#2

But that's not the point. The point is the pins (Pelle moves) are not essential for this particular pattern BK+WR+WB since the basic motivation for the white is orthogonal/diagonal transformation that could be performed without 'artificial' moving along pin-lines. My version proves this.

Quote

+1 #14 Nikola Predrag 2016-01-02 02:06

Pankratiev's position presents TWO problems, each with one solution. Put wK on a1 and you'll see DIFFERENT motivations.

Kostas's position, even with the twinning, shows ONE problem (although the Grimshaw is not fully convincing).

O/D transformations may be a CONSEQUENCE of the play and then they could make a pattern of the content.
The patterns do not make an original chess-play just by themselves.

Your version shows the different motivations and therefore, the similarity of O/D pattern is completely irrelevant (meaningless).

By the way, there's very little of any transformation in your version.
At least, the Grimshaw by Kostas shows a transformation of a mechanism.

Quote

+1 #15 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-01-02 10:01

All the problems shown during this discussion are based on white ODT as an internal driver for the particular pattern BK+WR+WB in h#2.
The black play can only bring additional nuances (more or less interesting) to a greater or lesser degree of interdependence in the play of both sides.

In this pattern, the white have to move twice by the same liner officer to arrive on terminal square which is on the neighbouring orthogonal/diagonal. They have to do this with or without moving along pin-lines. So why do we need to restrict the freedom of the white force by initially installed (static) pins?

Generally speaking, the static elements rarely make chess problem sense since they are well observed in initial position and make the solution obvious in most cases.
The idea would be more paradoxical if these pins were created dynamically as in the following problem:

Quote

+1 #16 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-01-02 10:03

continuation #15

Yes, anticipatory Grimshaw on B1 in Kostas's h#2 is the only static feature which combines both solution. But the true mechanism could be dynamic.
The problem shown below is far from harmony; it is just a rough example how we can make it.

3nq3/1p1B4/nrR4K/1p1k4/1P1br1p1/4P3/8/8

Quote

0 #17 Seetharaman Kalyan 2016-01-02 12:54

Thanks for quoting David Shire's example which is different from the rest. I can only repeat Kostas's comment "H#2 is now a minefield of anticipations... it takes real courage to compose anything" Added by me: "Dont try any H#2 with less than 8 solutions"

Quote

0 #18 Nikola Predrag 2016-01-02 13:29

Vitaly (and Seetharaman), there are two distinct points of discussion so, let's not confuse them.

Kostas was persistent to achieve the unpin-motivation for the arrival in B2, and finally he has succeeded!

None of the examples you gave was succesful in this. Put wK on e8 in Shire's problem to see the "motivation for unpin".
There's NO ODT related to the unpin!

So far, No.688 has no precedent.
That's one point!

You're right that there are more "elegant" or "organic" and EASIER motivations for ODT-patterns but they could make the different compositions.
That's the other, different point!

Quote

0 #19 Nikola Predrag 2016-01-02 13:30

Kostas's challenge was the unpin.
Creation of an abstract system relies on thinking - interpreting the relevance.
Computing just applies some already given abstraction with fixed meaning of what is relevant and what is not.

One may practice various shoots to an empty goal but the challenge is to score when there's a goal-keeper and the whole opposing team. Then you may appreciate the shooter's skill to find a precise trajectory through the "defensive wall".

You know, the opponents are not positioned to make the shoot easier but to make it hardly possible.
That's the relevant point which is so easily "interpreted" as "irrelevant" by sheer computing.

Therefore I appreciate the Kostas's challenge!

Quote

0 #20 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-01-02 15:16

Quote:

You're right that there are more "elegant" or "organic" and EASIER motivations for ODT-patterns but they could make the different compositions.
That's the other, different point!

I agree and that's the main point!
In Kostas's challenge we see two static elements in the black play on B1 & B2. They are not related to each other. The sequence of these elements depends on the basic motivation - white ODT.

In the pattern, the black play could be more dynamic and non-obvious, and the motivation could be more subtle.

Quote

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post