From mri_two at t-online.de Mon Nov 2 06:50:42 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 12:50:42 +0100 Subject: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves References: <1747150883.200213.1257007844353.JavaMail.apache@mail71.abv.bg> Message-ID: <001a01ca5bb2$b5286470$0100a8c0@he2p306> Dear Nikolai, this problem type is very similiar to some other types of chess problems that were also discussed here in the RML, like "HAP-Chess" or Eric Angelini's "Steno Chess". This new version could be named "CCC-Chess" (capture/castle/check). > I don't think these two need to be the last problems of their kind; > but it seems now (as I suspected, and you confirmed) that it is very hard > indeed to create a completely determined game which does not make use of castling. Using the following notation: a single ply is surrounded by '[' and ']', '-' means non-capture, 'x' means capture '*' stands for a non-check giving move, '+' for a check-giving move '#' stand for mate here is one simple CCC-string, that should be correct: [-*][-*][x*][-*][x*][-*][x#] Anybody outthere who can provide a longer, uniquely solvable CCC-String? Best, mario From g.wilts at mnet-online.de Mon Nov 2 12:42:51 2009 From: g.wilts at mnet-online.de (Gerd Wilts) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:42:51 +0100 Subject: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves In-Reply-To: <001a01ca5bb2$b5286470$0100a8c0@he2p306> Message-ID: Dear Mario, yes, there is indeed a close similarity to the other existing types. Your CCC string in 7 single moves is correct. Here is another try in 9 single moves: [-*][-*][-+][-*][x*][-*][x+][-*][-#] BTW, the additional use of castling (as in the first problem of the original post from Nikolai) makes the construction of such games much easier (because it allows to determine the first moves much more strictly). Best wishes, Gerd > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]Im Auftrag > von Mario Richter > Gesendet: Montag, 2. November 2009 12:51 > An: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List > Betreff: Re: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves > > > Dear Nikolai, > > this problem type is very similiar to some other types of chess problems > that were also discussed here in the RML, like "HAP-Chess" or > Eric Angelini's "Steno Chess". > > This new version could be named "CCC-Chess" (capture/castle/check). > > > I don't think these two need to be the last problems of their kind; > > but it seems now (as I suspected, and you confirmed) that it is > very hard > > indeed to create a completely determined game which does not > make use of castling. > > Using the following notation: > a single ply is surrounded by '[' and ']', > '-' means non-capture, 'x' means capture > '*' stands for a non-check giving move, '+' for a check-giving move > '#' stand for mate > > here is one simple CCC-string, that should be correct: > > [-*][-*][x*][-*][x*][-*][x#] > > Anybody outthere who can provide a longer, uniquely solvable CCC-String? > > Best, > > mario > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > From Eric.Angelini at kntv.be Mon Nov 2 12:56:29 2009 From: Eric.Angelini at kntv.be (Eric Angelini) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 18:56:29 +0100 Subject: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves Message-ID: > here is one simple CCC-string, that should be correct: > > [-*][-*][x*][-*][x*][-*][x#] Nice idea, Mario -- this beautiful seq is impossible to decypher outside this mailing-list! Best, ?. -----Message d'origine----- De : retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] De la part de Gerd Wilts Envoy? : lundi 2 novembre 2009 18:43 ? : retros at janko.at Objet : Re: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves Dear Mario, yes, there is indeed a close similarity to the other existing types. Your CCC string in 7 single moves is correct. Here is another try in 9 single moves: [-*][-*][-+][-*][x*][-*][x+][-*][-#] BTW, the additional use of castling (as in the first problem of the original post from Nikolai) makes the construction of such games much easier (because it allows to determine the first moves much more strictly). Best wishes, Gerd > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]Im Auftrag > von Mario Richter > Gesendet: Montag, 2. November 2009 12:51 > An: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List > Betreff: Re: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves > > > Dear Nikolai, > > this problem type is very similiar to some other types of chess problems > that were also discussed here in the RML, like "HAP-Chess" or > Eric Angelini's "Steno Chess". > > This new version could be named "CCC-Chess" (capture/castle/check). > > > I don't think these two need to be the last problems of their kind; > > but it seems now (as I suspected, and you confirmed) that it is > very hard > > indeed to create a completely determined game which does not > make use of castling. > > Using the following notation: > a single ply is surrounded by '[' and ']', > '-' means non-capture, 'x' means capture > '*' stands for a non-check giving move, '+' for a check-giving move > '#' stand for mate > > here is one simple CCC-string, that should be correct: > > [-*][-*][x*][-*][x*][-*][x#] > > Anybody outthere who can provide a longer, uniquely solvable CCC-String? > > Best, > > mario > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros From g.wilts at mnet-online.de Mon Nov 2 13:19:58 2009 From: g.wilts at mnet-online.de (Gerd Wilts) Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2009 19:19:58 +0100 Subject: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: here is another try in 15 single moves: 1. [-*][-*] 2. [-+][-*] 3. [x+][x*] 4. [-*][-+] 5. [-*][x+] 6. [x*][-*] 7. [x+][-*] 8. [-#] Gerd > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > Von: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]Im Auftrag > von Gerd Wilts > Gesendet: Montag, 2. November 2009 18:43 > An: retros at janko.at > Betreff: Re: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves > > > Dear Mario, > > yes, there is indeed a close similarity to the other existing types. > > Your CCC string in 7 single moves is correct. Here is another try in 9 > single moves: > > [-*][-*][-+][-*][x*][-*][x+][-*][-#] > > BTW, the additional use of castling (as in the first problem of > the original > post from Nikolai) makes the construction of such games much > easier (because > it allows to determine the first moves much more strictly). > > Best wishes, > > Gerd > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]Im Auftrag > > von Mario Richter > > Gesendet: Montag, 2. November 2009 12:51 > > An: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List > > Betreff: Re: [Retros] The Case of the Mysterious Moves > > > > > > Dear Nikolai, > > > > this problem type is very similiar to some other types of chess problems > > that were also discussed here in the RML, like "HAP-Chess" or > > Eric Angelini's "Steno Chess". > > > > This new version could be named "CCC-Chess" (capture/castle/check). > > > > > I don't think these two need to be the last problems of their kind; > > > but it seems now (as I suspected, and you confirmed) that it is > > very hard > > > indeed to create a completely determined game which does not > > make use of castling. > > > > Using the following notation: > > a single ply is surrounded by '[' and ']', > > '-' means non-capture, 'x' means capture > > '*' stands for a non-check giving move, '+' for a check-giving move > > '#' stand for mate > > > > here is one simple CCC-string, that should be correct: > > > > [-*][-*][x*][-*][x*][-*][x#] > > > > Anybody outthere who can provide a longer, uniquely solvable CCC-String? > > > > Best, > > > > mario > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Retros mailing list > > Retros at janko.at > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > > > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > From nbeluhov at abv.bg Tue Nov 3 10:24:47 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 17:24:47 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] CCC Puzzles Message-ID: <660154201.49573.1257261887858.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> Dear Mario, dear Gerd, Here is the best I was able to come up with last night and this morning; for the sake of clarity, I will only write what the move is and not what it is not. I also find it easier to write ":" for capture (I am used to Russian notation), please excuse me for this! First, one little problem: A chess game begins with 1. [] [] 2. [:] [+] 3. [] [:+] 4. [] [:+] 5. [] [:+] 6. [] [+] 7. [] [+] 8. [] [+] 9. [] [+] ... Who wins? Then, if this problem hopefully does not turn out cooked, the game could be continued like this: 1. [] [] 2. [:] [+] 3. [] [:+] 4. [] [:+] 5. [] [:+] 6. [] [+] 7. [] [+] 8. [] [+] 9. [] [:+] 10. [:] [] 11. [+] [] 12. [:+] [] 13. [+] [:] 14. [] [:] 15. [] [:] 16. [] [:+] 17. [] [+] 18. [] [+] 19. [] [+] 20. [] [:+] 21. [:] [] 22. [:+] [] 23. [:+] [:] 24. [] [] 25. [] [#] The intended solutions for both problems are at the bottom of the post. Please write if you find them sound! Best wishes, Nikolai | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1. d4 c5 2. dc Qa5+ 3. b4 Q:b4+ 4. c3 Q:c3+ 5. Qd2 Q:B+ 6. Qd1 Qc3+ 7. Qd2 Qc1+ 8. Qd1 Qc3+ 9. Qd2 Qc3+, and the game is drawn by the triple repetition rule. 1. d4 c5 2. dc Qa5+ 3. b4 Q:b4+ 4. c3 Q:c3+ 5. Qd2 Q:B+ 6. Qd1 Qc3+ 7. Qd2 Qc1+ 8. Qd1 Qc3+ 9. Nd2 Q:N+ 10. Q:Q Kd8 11. Qa5+ b6 12. Q:P+ Ke8 13. Qd8+ K:Q 14. c6 dc 15. g4 B:P 16. Kd1 B:P+ (the following waltz between the King and the Bishop is the part of the intended solution that I find most interesting) 17. Kc2 Bd3+ 18. Kb3 Bc4+ 19. Kc2 Bb3+ 20. Kb1 B:P+ 21. R:B Kd7 22. R:P+ Ke6 23. R:P+ B:R 24. Bd3 Bf6 25. Bc2 Ra1# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From g.wilts at mnet-online.de Tue Nov 3 15:43:55 2009 From: g.wilts at mnet-online.de (Gerd Wilts) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 21:43:55 +0100 Subject: [Retros] CCC Puzzles In-Reply-To: <660154201.49573.1257261887858.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> Message-ID: Dear Nikolai, your CCC proof game (or rather CC proof game, as castling is not used) in 9,0 is correct (a nice unique beginning), but the longer one in 25.0 is unfortunately not sound: 1. d4 c5 2. dxc5 Qa5+ 3. b4 Qxb4+ 4. c3 Qxc3+ 5. Qd2 Qxc1+ 6. Qd1 Qc3+ 7. Qd2 Qc1+ 8. Qd1 Qc3+ 9. Sd2 Qxd2+ 10. Kxd2 d6 11. Qa4+ b5 12. Qxb5+ Kd8 13. Qb6+ axb6 14. Rb1 bxc5 15. Rb2 Rxa2 16. Sh3 Rxb2+ 17. Kd3 Rd2+ 18. Ke4 d5+ 19. Kf3 Bg4+ 20. Ke3 Rxe2+ 21. Bxe2 Kd7 22. Bxg4+ e6 23. Bxe6+ fxe6 24. Kf4 Se7 25. Ke5 Sg6# Best wishes, Gerd -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]Im Auftrag von ??????? ??????? Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. November 2009 16:25 An: retros at janko.at Betreff: [Retros] CCC Puzzles Dear Mario, dear Gerd, Here is the best I was able to come up with last night and this morning; for the sake of clarity, I will only write what the move is and not what it is not. I also find it easier to write ":" for capture (I am used to Russian notation), please excuse me for this! First, one little problem: A chess game begins with 1. [] [] 2. [:] [+] 3. [] [:+] 4. [] [:+] 5. [] [:+] 6. [] [+] 7. [] [+] 8. [] [+] 9. [] [+] ... Who wins? Then, if this problem hopefully does not turn out cooked, the game could be continued like this: 1. [] [] 2. [:] [+] 3. [] [:+] 4. [] [:+] 5. [] [:+] 6. [] [+] 7. [] [+] 8. [] [+] 9. [] [:+] 10. [:] [] 11. [+] [] 12. [:+] [] 13. [+] [:] 14. [] [:] 15. [] [:] 16. [] [:+] 17. [] [+] 18. [] [+] 19. [] [+] 20. [] [:+] 21. [:] [] 22. [:+] [] 23. [:+] [:] 24. [] [] 25. [] [#] The intended solutions for both problems are at the bottom of the post. Please write if you find them sound! Best wishes, Nikolai | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 1. d4 c5 2. dc Qa5+ 3. b4 Q:b4+ 4. c3 Q:c3+ 5. Qd2 Q:B+ 6. Qd1 Qc3+ 7. Qd2 Qc1+ 8. Qd1 Qc3+ 9. Qd2 Qc3+, and the game is drawn by the triple repetition rule. 1. d4 c5 2. dc Qa5+ 3. b4 Q:b4+ 4. c3 Q:c3+ 5. Qd2 Q:B+ 6. Qd1 Qc3+ 7. Qd2 Qc1+ 8. Qd1 Qc3+ 9. Nd2 Q:N+ 10. Q:Q Kd8 11. Qa5+ b6 12. Q:P+ Ke8 13. Qd8+ K:Q 14. c6 dc 15. g4 B:P 16. Kd1 B:P+ (the following waltz between the King and the Bishop is the part of the intended solution that I find most interesting) 17. Kc2 Bd3+ 18. Kb3 Bc4+ 19. Kc2 Bb3+ 20. Kb1 B:P+ 21. R:B Kd7 22. R:P+ Ke6 23. R:P+ B:R 24. Bd3 Bf6 25. Bc2 Ra1# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From g.wilts at mnet-online.de Tue Nov 3 16:38:17 2009 From: g.wilts at mnet-online.de (Gerd Wilts) Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2009 22:38:17 +0100 Subject: [Retros] CC game Message-ID: Hello, here is another CC game in 25.0 which should be correct according to the computer program I used to construct it: 1. [-*][-*] 2. [-+][-*] 3. [-*][x+] 4. [-*][x+] 5. [-*][-+] 6. [-*][-+] 7. [x+][-+] 8. [-*][-+]9. [-*][-+] 10. [-*][-+] 11. [-+][-*] 12. [x+][-+] 13. [x+][-*] 14. [-+][-*] 15. [-*][-+] 16. [-+][-+] 17. [x*][-+] 18. [-+][-+] 19. [-*][-+] 20. [-*][-+] 21. [-*][-+] 22. [x+][-+] 23. [x+][-*] 24. [x+][x*] 25. [x*][-+] The intended solution is as follows: 1. e4 d6 2. Bb5+ Qd7 3. Ke2 Qxb5+ 4. c4 Qxc4+ 5. Ke3 Qb3+ 6. Kd4 Qa4+ 7. Qxa4+ Sc6+ 8. Kc4 d5+ 9. Kc5 e5+ 10. Kb5 Sd4+ 11. Ka5+ b5 12. Qxb5+ Sc6+ 13. Qxc6+ Ke7 14. Qc5+ Kf6 15. Kb5 Rb8+ 16. Qb6+ c6+ 17. Kxc6 Bb7+ 18. Kd7+ Bc6+ 19. Kc7 Rb7+ 20. Kd8 Rd7+ 21. Kc8 Rd8+ 22. Qxd8+ Se7+ 23. Qxe7+ Kg6 24. Qxf7+ Kxf7 25. exd5 Bd6# Best wishes, Gerd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nbeluhov at abv.bg Fri Nov 6 14:54:56 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 21:54:56 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] CC game Message-ID: <329388962.4965.1257537296133.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> Dear retro-friends, First of all, sorry for the late reply and thanks for examining the two puzzles. With the priceless help of Mario Richter, here is a correction of the longer game in 36.0 moves: 1. [][] 2. [x][+] 3. [][x+] 4. [][x+] 5. [][x+] 6. [][+] 7. [][+] 8. [][+] 9. [][x] 10. [x][] 11. [x+][] 12. [+][x] 13. [][+] 14. [][x+] 15. [][x] 16. [][+] 17. [][x] 18. [x][x] 19. [][+] 20. [][] 21. [][x+] 22. [][x+] 23. [][x] 24. [][] 25. [x+][] 26. [+][] 27. [+][x] 28. [+][] 29. [+][] 30. [+][x?+] 31. [][x] 32. [][+] 33. [x][+] 34. [x][] 35. [x][] 36. [][-#] Or, in Mario and Gerd's notation, [-*][-*][x*][-+][-*][x+][-*][x+][-*][x+][-*][-+][-*][-+][-*][-+][-*][x*][x*][-*][x+][-*][-+][x*][-*][-+][-*][x+][-*][x*][-*][-+][-*][x*][x*][x*][-*][-+][-*][-*][-*][x+][-*][x+][-*][x*][-*][-*][x+][-*][-+][-*][-+][x*][-+][-*][-+][-*][-+][x?+][-*][x*][-*][-+][x*][-+][x*][-*][x*][-*][-*][-#]. It uses the same 9-move opening; intended play is below. I composed the first two by hand, but for this the computer claims it is sound, so everything should be fine. Some thoughts of mine on the CCC-genre: a) This is surely not a record. To say the least, ending the above game with 35. [x] creates a non-mate determined position, so it should be possible to squeeze more than 3 more single moves out of it, but this was right about where my patience wore out. Anyone aiming at 49.0? b) None of the games constructed till now makes any use of double checks, and they seem to be quite forcing in a game. Any ideas? c) I think that this genre could have themes on its own. For one thing, the above game contains a determined promotion, which seems interesting to force. Another point is constructing what I call "waltzes" - long sequences of the type [][+][][+][][+]... in which the King moves so that one and the same piece is able to check him again and again. Waltzes are usually determined by the fact that at the end either the King or the piece should occupy some special position - probably where they can capture something. Knights and Bishops produce very charming patterns, and it would be very enjoyable to see longer waltzes in correct puzzles. One example of what I mean by that are moves 17-20 in the cooked game, and shorter ones - moves 28-30 of this one and probably 19-21 of Gerd's game (I haven't solved it yet, but I intend to). d) Besides, no one of us used castling for the sake of the record; but probably castling would make it technically easier to implement various meaningful themes, instead of just pile up numbers. e) Finally, something a little off-beat: The CCC-genre is very, very finite. For instance, the number of possible 9-move strings is roughly 400 000 000, a good machine could enlist them in a reasonable time, and it is hard to believe that many of them would produce determined positions along the way. Yet, such a countable thing quickly obtains record chases, technical methods, themes, etc. It is tempting to think of this evolution as a small model of the development of the art of composition in general; I think that examining such a model would make many historical processes clearer. Best wishes and hope someone goes on from here, Nikolai | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Solution: 1.Pd2-d4 Pc7-c5 2.Pd4xc5 Qd8-a5+ 3.Pb2-b4 Qa5xb4+ 4.Pc2-c3 Qb4xc3+ 5.Qd1-d2 Qc3xc1+ 6.Qd2-d1 Qc1-c3+ 7.Qd1-d2 Qc3-c1+ 8.Qd2-d1 Qc1-c3+ 9.Nb1-d2 Qc3xa1 10.Qd1xa1 Pe7-e5 11.Qa1xe5+ Ke8-d8 12.Qe5-e7+ Bf8xe7 13.Pf2-f4 Be7-h4+ 14.Pg2-g3 Bh4xg3+ 15.Ke1-d1 Bg3xh2 16.Kd1-e1 Bh2-g3+ 17.Ke1-d1 Bg3xf4 18.Rh1xh7 Rh8xh7 19.Kd1-e1 Bf4-g3+ 20.Ke1-d1 Rh7-h1 21.Ng1-f3 Rh1xf1+ 22.Nf3-e1 Rf1xe1+ 23.Kd1-c2 Re1xe2 24.Pc5-c6 Kd8-e8 25.Pc6xd7+ Ke8-e7 26.Pd7-d8=B+ Ke7-d6 27.Bd8-e7+ Re2xe7 28.Nd2-e4+ Kd6-d5 29.Ne4-c3+ Kd5-d4 30.Nc3-e2+ Re7xe2+ 31.Kc2-b3 Re2xa2 32.Kb3-b4 Ra2-a4+ 33.Kb4xa4 Pb7-b5+ 34.Ka4xb5 Nb8-c6 35.Kb5xc6 Bc8-a6 36.Kc6-d7 Ba6-b5# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goran.wicklund at ericsson.com Tue Nov 10 05:33:33 2009 From: goran.wicklund at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Wicklund?=) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:33:33 +0100 Subject: [Retros] CC game In-Reply-To: <329388962.4965.1257537296133.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> References: <329388962.4965.1257537296133.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> Message-ID: <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF022728E0@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> Could this possibly be a correct extension from 35.[x]?: 35. ..[+] 36. [][+] 37. [][+] 38. [x][+] 39. [x][+] 40. [x][] 41. [][#] /G?ran Wicklund ________________________________ From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of ??????? ??????? Sent: den 6 november 2009 20:55 To: retros at janko.at Subject: [Retros] CC game Dear retro-friends, First of all, sorry for the late reply and thanks for examining the two puzzles. With the priceless help of Mario Richter, here is a correction of the longer game in 36.0 moves: 1. [][] 2. [x][+] 3. [][x+] 4. [][x+] 5. [][x+] 6. [][+] 7. [][+] 8. [][+] 9. [][x] 10. [x][] 11. [x+][] 12. [+][x] 13. [][+] 14. [][x+] 15. [][x] 16. [][+] 17. [][x] 18. [x][x] 19. [][+] 20. [][] 21. [][x+] 22. [][x+] 23. [][x] 24. [][] 25. [x+][] 26. [+][] 27. [+][x] 28. [+][] 29. [+][] 30. [+][x?+] 31. [][x] 32. [][+] 33. [x][+] 34. [x][] 35. [x][] 36. [][-#] Or, in Mario and Gerd's notation, [-*][-*][x*][-+][-*][x+][-*][x+][-*][x+][-*][-+][-*][-+][-*][-+][-*][x*][x*][-*][x+][-*][-+][x*][-*][-+][-*][x+][-*][x*][-*][-+][-*][x*][x*][x*][-*][-+][-*][-*][-*][x+][-*][x+][-*][x*][-*][-*][x+][-*][-+][-*][-+][x*][-+][-*][-+][-*][-+][x?+][-*][x*][-*][-+][x*][-+][x*][-*][x*][-*][-*][-#]. It uses the same 9-move opening; intended play is below. I composed the first two by hand, but for this the computer claims it is sound, so everything should be fine. Some thoughts of mine on the CCC-genre: a) This is surely not a record. To say the least, ending the above game with 35. [x] creates a non-mate determined position, so it should be possible to squeeze more than 3 more single moves out of it, but this was right about where my patience wore out. Anyone aiming at 49.0? b) None of the games constructed till now makes any use of double checks, and they seem to be quite forcing in a game. Any ideas? c) I think that this genre could have themes on its own. For one thing, the above game contains a determined promotion, which seems interesting to force. Another point is constructing what I call "waltzes" - long sequences of the type [][+][][+][][+]... in which the King moves so that one and the same piece is able to check him again and again. Waltzes are usually determined by the fact that at the end either the King or the piece should occupy some special position - probably where they can capture something. Knights and Bishops produce very charming patterns, and it would be very enjoyable to see longer waltzes in correct puzzles. One example of what I mean by that are moves 17-20 in the cooked game, and shorter ones - moves 28-30 of this one and probably 19-21 of Gerd's game (I haven't solved it yet, but I intend to). d) Besides, no one of us used castling for the sake of the record; but probably castling would make it technically easier to implement various meaningful themes, instead of just pile up numbers. e) Finally, something a little off-beat: The CCC-genre is very, very finite. For instance, the number of possible 9-move strings is roughly 400 000 000, a good machine could enlist them in a reasonable time, and it is hard to believe that many of them would produce determined positions along the way. Yet, such a countable thing quickly obtains record chases, technical methods, themes, etc. It is tempting to think of this evolution as a small model of the development of the art of composition in general; I think that examining such a model would make many historical processes clearer. Best wishes and hope someone goes on from here, Nikolai | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Solution: 1.Pd2-d4 Pc7-c5 2.Pd4xc5 Qd8-a5+ 3.Pb2-b4 Qa5xb4+ 4.Pc2-c3 Qb4xc3+ 5.Qd1-d2 Qc3xc1+ 6.Qd2-d1 Qc1-c3+ 7.Qd1-d2 Qc3-c1+ 8.Qd2-d1 Qc1-c3+ 9.Nb1-d2 Qc3xa1 10.Qd1xa1 Pe7-e5 11.Qa1xe5+ Ke8-d8 12.Qe5-e7+ Bf8xe7 13.Pf2-f4 Be7-h4+ 14.Pg2-g3 Bh4xg3+ 15.Ke1-d1 Bg3xh2 16.Kd1-e1 Bh2-g3+ 17.Ke1-d1 Bg3xf4 18.Rh1xh7 Rh8xh7 19.Kd1-e1 Bf4-g3+ 20.Ke1-d1 Rh7-h1 21.Ng1-f3 Rh1xf1+ 22.Nf3-e1 Rf1xe1+ 23.Kd1-c2 Re1xe2 24.Pc5-c6 Kd8-e8 25.Pc6xd7+ Ke8-e7 26.Pd7-d8=B+ Ke7-d6 27.Bd8-e7+ Re2xe7 28.Nd2-e4+ Kd6-d5 29.Ne4-c3+ Kd5-d4 30.Nc3-e2+ Re7xe2+ 31.Kc2-b3 Re2xa2 32.Kb3-b4 Ra2-a4+ 33.Kb4xa4 Pb7-b5+ 34.Ka4xb5 Nb8-c6 35.Kb5xc6 Bc8-a6 36.Kc6-d7 Ba6-b5# -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nbeluhov at abv.bg Tue Nov 10 13:06:19 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:06:19 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] CC game Message-ID: <1683907678.76414.1257876379202.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> Dear Goran, >Could this possibly be a correct extension from 35.[x]?: > >35. ..[+] >36. [][+] >37. [][+] >38. [x][+] >39. [x][+] >40. [x][] >41. [][#] The computer states that there are several ways to finish the game like this, e.g. 35. ... Bc8-b7+ 36.Kc6-b5 Pa7-a6+ 37.Kb5-b6 Bg3-c7+ 38.Kb6xc7 Ra8-c8+ 39.Kc7xb7 Rc8-b8+ 40.Kb7xa6 Kd4-c5 41.Ka6-a5 Rb8-a8# 35. ... Bc8-b7+ 36.Kc6-d7 Bb7-c8+ 37.Kd7-e8 Bc8-d7+ 38.Ke8xf7 Bd7-e8+ 39.Kf7xg7 Bg3-e5+ 40.Kg7xg8 Be5-f6 41.Kg8-f8 Be8-g6# and some more. As for double checks, I think that there is a unique beginning that contains 4. ... [++] 5. [] [+] 6. [x] [x+] and then possibly 7. [][] 8. [x+][x] 9. [][#], but this was done by hand, so I cannot be 100% sure. Best wishes, Nikolai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goran.wicklund at ericsson.com Wed Nov 11 02:11:50 2009 From: goran.wicklund at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Wicklund?=) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:11:50 +0100 Subject: [Retros] CC game In-Reply-To: <1683907678.76414.1257876379202.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> References: <1683907678.76414.1257876379202.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> Message-ID: <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF022731CD@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> In my intended solution, there are two double checks. I forgot to indicate those: 35. ..[+] 36. [][+] 37. [][++] 38. [x][+] 39. [x][++] 40. [x][] 41. [][#] If correct, it may be possible to add an extra double check: 39. [x][++] 40, [][] 41. [][++] 42. [x][] 43. [][#] /G?ran ________________________________ From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of ??????? ??????? Sent: den 10 november 2009 19:06 To: retros at janko.at Subject: [Retros] CC game Dear Goran, >Could this possibly be a correct extension from 35.[x]?: > >35. ..[+] >36. [][+] >37. [][+] >38. [x][+] >39. [x][+] >40. [x][] >41. [][#] The computer states that there are several ways to finish the game like this, e.g. 35. ... Bc8-b7+ 36.Kc6-b5 Pa7-a6+ 37.Kb5-b6 Bg3-c7+ 38.Kb6xc7 Ra8-c8+ 39.Kc7xb7 Rc8-b8+ 40.Kb7xa6 Kd4-c5 41.Ka6-a5 Rb8-a8# 35. ... Bc8-b7+ 36.Kc6-d7 Bb7-c8+ 37.Kd7-e8 Bc8-d7+ 38.Ke8xf7 Bd7-e8+ 39.Kf7xg7 Bg3-e5+ 40.Kg7xg8 Be5-f6 41.Kg8-f8 Be8-g6# and some more. As for double checks, I think that there is a unique beginning that contains 4. ... [++] 5. [] [+] 6. [x] [x+] and then possibly 7. [][] 8. [x+][x] 9. [][#], but this was done by hand, so I cannot be 100% sure. Best wishes, Nikolai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at anselan.com Wed Nov 11 05:28:32 2009 From: andrew at anselan.com (andrew at anselan.com) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:28:32 +0000 Subject: [Retros] CC game In-Reply-To: <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF022731CD@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <1683907678.76414.1257876379202.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg><390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF022731CD@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> Message-ID: <1769485433-1257934829-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1272740884-@bda023.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> When someone makes a double check do they say "double check"? I would just say "check". And if we allow double checks as distinct I think this feature would dominate the space of problems. Just my 2 cents... Andy Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device -----Original Message----- From: G?ran Wicklund Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:11:50 To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Subject: Re: [Retros] CC game _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros From nbeluhov at abv.bg Wed Nov 11 06:25:53 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:25:53 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] CC game Message-ID: <395712406.90905.1257938753455.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> Hi, > In my intended solution, there are two double checks. > If correct, it may be possible to add an extra double check This time both endings seem unique, so now Goran has raised the plank to 43 moves. By the way, my attempt at using double checks from last message was reported as cooked. Sorry if anyone has wasted time solving it. > When someone makes a double check do they say "double check"? I would just say "check". Absolutely right, in terms of the first part of the story (when we listen to a game in the neighbouring room). But double-checks are denoted in chess notation (in terms of the second part of the story), so they should be legitimate. Speaking of notation, does someone think they could use the sign '?' to denote stupid moves? I think this is the last sign left unexplored now. In almost all the CC-games constructed thus far, almost all the moves should have such a sign, but probably with a more rigorous definition ("a move that allows or misses a mate in one", say) this could allow some very interesting effects. Besides, people do tend to comment on stupid and clever moves in a chess game, so this would preserve the "story" feel of the puzzles. Just an idea, I haven't researched this one yet. Best wishes, Nikolai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goran.wicklund at ericsson.com Wed Nov 11 06:28:22 2009 From: goran.wicklund at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Wicklund?=) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:28:22 +0100 Subject: [Retros] CC game In-Reply-To: <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF022731CD@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> References: <1683907678.76414.1257876379202.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF022731CD@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> Message-ID: <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF02273792@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> Possible (?) extension: 39. [x][++] 40, [][] 41. [][++] 42. [x][+] 43. [][+] 44. [][+] 45. [][] 46. [][++] 47. [][+] 48. [][++] 49. [x][+] 50. [][#] /G?ran ________________________________ From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of G?ran Wicklund Sent: den 11 november 2009 08:12 To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Subject: Re: [Retros] CC game In my intended solution, there are two double checks. I forgot to indicate those: 35. ..[+] 36. [][+] 37. [][++] 38. [x][+] 39. [x][++] 40. [x][] 41. [][#] If correct, it may be possible to add an extra double check: 39. [x][++] 40, [][] 41. [][++] 42. [x][] 43. [][#] /G?ran ________________________________ From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of ??????? ??????? Sent: den 10 november 2009 19:06 To: retros at janko.at Subject: [Retros] CC game Dear Goran, >Could this possibly be a correct extension from 35.[x]?: > >35. ..[+] >36. [][+] >37. [][+] >38. [x][+] >39. [x][+] >40. [x][] >41. [][#] The computer states that there are several ways to finish the game like this, e.g. 35. ... Bc8-b7+ 36.Kc6-b5 Pa7-a6+ 37.Kb5-b6 Bg3-c7+ 38.Kb6xc7 Ra8-c8+ 39.Kc7xb7 Rc8-b8+ 40.Kb7xa6 Kd4-c5 41.Ka6-a5 Rb8-a8# 35. ... Bc8-b7+ 36.Kc6-d7 Bb7-c8+ 37.Kd7-e8 Bc8-d7+ 38.Ke8xf7 Bd7-e8+ 39.Kf7xg7 Bg3-e5+ 40.Kg7xg8 Be5-f6 41.Kg8-f8 Be8-g6# and some more. As for double checks, I think that there is a unique beginning that contains 4. ... [++] 5. [] [+] 6. [x] [x+] and then possibly 7. [][] 8. [x+][x] 9. [][#], but this was done by hand, so I cannot be 100% sure. Best wishes, Nikolai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nbeluhov at abv.bg Wed Nov 11 06:58:31 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:58:31 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] CC game Message-ID: <1416516718.91887.1257940711126.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> Hi again, For the 50-move game, the machine found these (I'm just copying and pasting, so the notation has some + and #'s missing): ... 39.Kf7xg8 Be8-f7+ 40.Kg8-h7 Bf7-e8 41.Kh7-g8 Be8-f7+ 42.Kg8xg7 Ra8-g8+ 43.Kg7-f6 Rg8-g6+ 44.Kf6-e7 Bg3-d6+ 45.Ke7-d8 Rg6-g7 46.Kd8-d7 Bf7-e8+ 47.Kd7-c8 Rg7-c7+ 48.Kc8-b8 Rc7-c8+ 49.Kb8xa7 Bd6-b8+ 50.Ka7-a8 Be8-c6+ ... 39.Kf7xg8 Be8-f7+ 40.Kg8-h7 Bf7-e8 41.Kh7-g8 Be8-f7+ 42.Kg8xg7 Ra8-g8+ 43.Kg7-f6 Rg8-g6+ 44.Kf6-e7 Bg3-h4+ 45.Ke7-d7 Rg6-g5 46.Kd7-d8 Rg5-g8+ 47.Kd8-c7 Bh4-d8+ 48.Kc7-b8 Bd8-c7+ 49.Kb8xa7 Bc7-b8+ 50.Ka7-a8 Bf7-d5+ and some more. Many thanks to Mario once again, I would not have been able to test these games without his help. Best, Nikolai -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From goran.wicklund at ericsson.com Sat Nov 14 09:11:22 2009 From: goran.wicklund at ericsson.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?G=F6ran_Wicklund?=) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:11:22 +0100 Subject: [Retros] CC game Message-ID: <390C600D1A38B64CA7552EA13E90D0FF023044C7@esealmw115.eemea.ericsson.se> Extension from move 41 of the 43.0 move game below to 52.0 moves (verified by computer): (ends with stale mate) 41.[][++] 42.[x][+] 43.[x][] 44.[][++] 45.[][+] 46.[][++] 47.[][] 48.[][++] 49.[][+] 50.[][+] 51.[][] 52.[][=] Complete game and solution at the very end of this mail. /G?ran From: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at] On Behalf Of G?ran Wicklund Sent: den 11 november 2009 08:12 To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Subject: Re: [Retros] CC game In my intended solution, there are two double checks. I forgot to indicate those: 35. ..[+] 36. [][+] 37. [][++] 38. [x][+] 39. [x][++] 40. [x][] 41. [][#] If correct, it may be possible to add an extra double check: 39. [x][++] 40, [][] 41. [][++] 42. [x][] 43. [][#] /G?ran Complete game: 1.[][] 2.[x][+] 3.[][x+] 4.[][x+] 5.[][x+] 6.[][+] 7.[][+] 8.[][+] 9.[][x] 10.[x][] 11.[x+][] 12.[+][x] 13.[][+] 14.[][x+] 15.[][x] 16.[][+] 17.[][x] 18.[x][x] 19.[][+] 20.[][] 21.[][x+] 22.[][x+] 23.[][x] 24.[][] 25.[x+][] 26.[+][] 27.[+][x] 28.[+][] 29.[+][] 30.[+][x+] 31.[][x] 32.[][+] 33.[x][+] 34.[x][] 35.[x][+] 36.[][+] 37.[][++] 38.[x][+] 39.[x][++] 40.[][] 41.[][++] 42.[x][+] 43.[x][] 44.[][++] 45.[][+] 46.[][++] 47.[][] 48.[][++] 49.[][+] 50.[][+] 51.[][] 52.[][=] Solution further down. 1.d4 c5 2.dxc5 Qa5+ 3.b4 Qxb4+ 4.c3 Qxc3+ 5.Qd2 Qxc1+ 6.Qd1 Qc3+ 7.Qd2 Qc1+ 8.Qd1 Qc3+ 9.Nd2 Qxa1 10.Qxa1 e5 11.Qxe5+ Kd8 12.Qe7+ Bxe7 13.f4 Bh4+ 14.g3 Bxg3+ 15.Kd1 Bxh2 16.Ke1 Bg3+ 17.Kd1 Bxf4 18.Rxh7 Rxh7 19.Ke1 Bg3+ 20.Kd1 Rh1 21.Ngf3 Rxf1+ 22.Ne1 Rxe1+ 23.Kc2 Rxe2 24.c6 Ke8 25.cxd7+ Ke7 26.d8=B+ Kd6 27.Be7+ Rxe7 28.Ne4+ Kd5 29.Nc3+ Kd4 30.Ne2+ Rxe2+ 31.Kb3 Rxa2 32.Kb4 Ra4+ 33.Kxa4 b5+ 34.Kxb5 Nc6 35.Kxc6 Bb7+ 36.Kd7 Bc8+ 37.Ke8 Bd7++ 38.Kxf7 Be8+ 39.Kxg8 Bf7++ 40.Kh7 Be8 41.Kg8 Bf7++ 42.Kxg7 Be5+ 43.Kxf7 Bb8 44.Kf8 Bd6++ 45.Kg7 Bf8+ 46.Kh8 Bg7++ 47.Kh7 Bf8 48.Kh8 Bg7++ 49.Kh7 Rh8+ 50.Kg6 Rh6+ 51.Kf7 Ke5 52.Kg8 Kf6= -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mario at velucchi.org Sat Nov 14 14:39:34 2009 From: mario at velucchi.org (Mario Velucchi) Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2009 20:39:34 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles Message-ID: <29b3a48a0911141139h11df9be5h74c680866c146f2f@mail.gmail.com> * * *Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles * * * *Harold Cataquet * *This reminds me of an old chess puzzle (by Sam Lloyd). The puzzle was a White to mate in One. The solution involved realizing that there were 9 white pawns, and which ever white pawn you removed, a mate was revealed. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Anyone have the exact puzzle [and the reference]?* --------------------- .marioV best .marioV -- Mario Velucchi via Emlia, 106 I-56121 Pisa ? ITALY mvalg at velucchi.it _ www.velucchi.it _ skype:velucchi phone +39.3487366652 +39.050502400 _ fax +39.06233238786 +39.05061431159 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Software Analyst and Developer _ Computer Mathematician Combinatorics _ Number Theory _ Cryptography _ Theory of Algorithms Coder - Database Coder - Web Coder _ Windows and Linux Environment Maths & Chess Columnist and Author _ Problem Solver Detective of Mysterious or Inexplicable Facts _ Photographer -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.velucchi.it/enjoyments www.velucchi.it/eBrain www.velucchi.it/dBlog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From retromode at web.de Sun Nov 15 02:46:47 2009 From: retromode at web.de (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Bernd_Gr=E4frath?=) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:46:47 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles Message-ID: <1917216753@web.de> Good morning, yes, it rings a bell with me! However, the problem I am thinking about is not by Loyd, but by "H. Fischer (before 1910)", and it does not contain nine white, but nine BLACK pawns! It can be found in the following book: Karl Fabel, "Kurioses Schach" (Walter Rau Verlag, 1960), page 61. Here comes the problem (#1) in FEN: 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR I guess that the author is Hieronymus Fischer (1843-1927). Have a nice day! Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Mario Velucchi" > Gesendet: 14.11.09 21:01:04 > An: itaprob at velucchi.it > CC: cataquet at ntlbusinness.com, h_cataquet at hotmail.com > Betreff: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles > Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles > > Harold Cataquet > This reminds me of an old chess puzzle (by Sam Lloyd). The puzzle was > a White to mate in One. The solution involved realizing that there > were 9 white pawns, and which ever white pawn you removed, a mate was > revealed. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Anyone have the exact > puzzle [and the reference]?--------------------- > .marioV > > best .marioV > > -- > Mario Velucchi > via Emlia, 106 > I-56121 Pisa ? ITALY > > mvalg at velucchi.it _ www.velucchi.it _ skype:velucchi > phone +39.3487366652 +39.050502400 _ fax +39.06233238786 +39. > 05061431159 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------------------------- > Software Analyst and Developer _ Computer Mathematician > Combinatorics _ Number Theory _ Cryptography _ Theory of Algorithms > Coder - Database Coder - Web Coder _ Windows and Linux Environment > Maths & Chess Columnist and Author _ Problem Solver > Detective of Mysterious or Inexplicable Facts _ Photographer > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------------------------------------- > www.velucchi.it/enjoymentswww.velucchi.it/eBrainwww.velucchi.it/dBlog > > _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list > > Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros ______________________________________________________ GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de From mri_two at t-online.de Sun Nov 15 06:48:37 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:48:37 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles References: <1917216753@web.de> Message-ID: <003f01ca65e9$91ddd4a0$0100a8c0@he2p306> Hi, > the problem I am thinking about is not by Loyd, but by "H. Fischer (before 1910)", and > it does not contain nine white, but nine BLACK pawns! > Here comes the problem (#1) in FEN: > 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > I guess that the author is Hieronymus Fischer (1843-1927). In another source exactly this problem is attributed to Sam Loyd. Maybe 'H.Fischer' was one of the many pseudonyms, good old Sam used?! Btw. here are some other 9-black-pawn position: F.Mendes de Moraes 1R6/B3p2p/Bp1pK3/2p5/3kp1pQ/2p2p2/2P5/3N2N1 #1 Leopold L?wy Fern vom Alltag 7 1925 bNNK4/1k6/p1p1Pp2/6Pp/6pR/2pPp1B1/1p3Qp1/R6B #1 John Frederick Keeble Jamaica Gleaner 27/12/1890 2R5/3p1N2/p3p3/1p3pp1/1Bpk4/N2ppQ1b/8/K6B #1 and yet one more (but with a different stip): Lothar Finzer Die Schwalbe (XIII) 04/1971 B2R4/1p2Pr2/3p1p1b/1Qpk1Kpq/3p2p1/1p3p1b/B3Pr2/3R4 #0 With 9 white pawns, there is e.g. the followoing joke problem (but only the removal of some pawns allows a #1): George Leathem The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 #1 Best regards, mario From retromode at web.de Sun Nov 15 08:46:00 2009 From: retromode at web.de (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Bernd_Gr=E4frath?=) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 14:46:00 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source Message-ID: <1917627953@web.de> Hello again, "H. Fischer" is certainly not a pseudonym. By now, I have found Fabel's source for the problem: It is in: Problematicus, "150 Schachkuriosit?ten" (Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1910), page 13, and the author of the problem is given as "Hieron. Fischer". By the way: "Problematicus" really is a pseudonym (of Max Weiss)! Best wishes, Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Mario Richter" > Gesendet: 15.11.09 13:15:21 > An: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" > Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles > Hi, > > > > the problem I am thinking about is not by Loyd, but by "H. Fischer (before 1910)", and > > it does not contain nine white, but nine BLACK pawns! > > > Here comes the problem (#1) in FEN: > > 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > > > I guess that the author is Hieronymus Fischer (1843-1927). > > In another source exactly this problem is attributed to Sam Loyd. > Maybe 'H.Fischer' was one of the many pseudonyms, good old Sam used?! > > Btw. here are some other 9-black-pawn position: > F.Mendes de Moraes > 1R6/B3p2p/Bp1pK3/2p5/3kp1pQ/2p2p2/2P5/3N2N1 > #1 > > Leopold L?wy > Fern vom Alltag 7 1925 > bNNK4/1k6/p1p1Pp2/6Pp/6pR/2pPp1B1/1p3Qp1/R6B > #1 > > > John Frederick Keeble > Jamaica Gleaner 27/12/1890 > 2R5/3p1N2/p3p3/1p3pp1/1Bpk4/N2ppQ1b/8/K6B > #1 > > and yet one more (but with a different stip): > Lothar Finzer > Die Schwalbe (XIII) 04/1971 > B2R4/1p2Pr2/3p1p1b/1Qpk1Kpq/3p2p1/1p3p1b/B3Pr2/3R4 > #0 > > > With 9 white pawns, there is e.g. the followoing joke problem > (but only the removal of some pawns allows a #1): > George Leathem > The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 > 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 > #1 > > > > Best regards, > > mario > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > ______________________________________________________ GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de From elkies at math.harvard.edu Sun Nov 15 10:29:23 2009 From: elkies at math.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:29:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles Message-ID: <20091115152923.8E550F8CE@abel.math.harvard.edu> "Mario Richter" writes: > Btw. here are some other 9-black-pawn position: Thanks. Interesting to compare the various mechanisms. Pity about the dual in > Leopold L=F6wy > Fern vom Alltag 7 1925 > bNNK4/1k6/p1p1Pp2/6Pp/6pR/2pPp1B1/1p3Qp1/R6B > With 9 white pawns, there is e.g. the followoing joke problem > (but only the removal of some pawns allows a #1): > George Leathem > The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 > 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 > #1 Looks like each of White's 9 pawns can be removed: Qd3/h3/xf4, Nd4/g7 or Nh4/e7, and Re5/Rg5 would all be checkmaate. What I don't see is why the Black pawns on d7 and h7 are needed. I've also seen (but cannot remember the position or source) another such joke, where each side has an illegal cluster of three pawns such as White a2,b2,a3, and there's a different mate in one for each of the 3x3=9 ways of making the position legal by removing one pawn from each of those two triangles. NDE From elkies at math.harvard.edu Sun Nov 15 11:57:51 2009 From: elkies at math.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:57:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Retros] 9 white pawns, cont'd Message-ID: <20091115165751.3E49AF8CE@abel.math.harvard.edu> I wrote: | > With 9 white pawns, there is e.g. the followoing joke problem | > (but only the removal of some pawns allows a #1): | > George Leathem | > The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 | > 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 | > #1 | Looks like each of White's 9 pawns can be removed: Qd3/h3/xf4, | Nd4/g7 or Nh4/e7, and Re5/Rg5 would all be checkmate. What I | don't see is why the Black pawns on d7 and h7 are needed. On further thought, even after removing one of White's nine pawns the position is illegal WTM unless it's the e5 or g5 pawn that's removed (when Black could have just played 0...e5xf4 or g5xf4); perhaps that's what Mario R. was hinting at. Removing Pe7 also results in an impossible pawn configuration (where's the a-pawn?). I haven't tried to check whether any of the other eight choices give White too many captures. In any case the pawns on d7 and h7 don't help. There's also a dual mate Qb1(d3) in the -Pd3 branch. It seems that this is easily fixed by moving Re3,g3 to e1,g1, which also lets us eliminate the retro-illegality issue by moving wPf3 and bPf4 down to f2 and f3 -- again assuming that we can retract 0 e2xd3++ (or 0 g2xh3++) Kf5 without introducing too many pawn captures on any of the seven branches that keep Pd3 and Ph3 on the board. NDE From nbeluhov at abv.bg Sun Nov 15 12:36:43 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:36:43 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles Message-ID: <1920103026.54259.1258306603795.JavaMail.apache@mail71.abv.bg> Here's one more: I. Vereschtagin, 1992 http://www.janko.at/Retros/d.php?ff=1B1Q4/2pp4/1RpkpR1b/N1p2n2/1B2Kpr1/3ppp2/2b1r1q1/7n.htm Who has more mates? At first, it seems that White has four ways to mate in one and Black - five, but of course that's not really the case. > Removing Pe7 also results in an impossible pawn configuration As for interesting pawn configurations, this strongly reminds me of problem 16 from Fabel's masterworks: http://www.janko.at/Retros/Masterworks/Part2.htm Best wishes, Nikolai ----------------------------------------------------------------- ????? ???????? ?????? ?? Vesti.bg! http://www.vesti.bg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mri_two at t-online.de Mon Nov 16 05:13:07 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:13:07 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source References: <1917627953@web.de> Message-ID: <007301ca66a5$65237520$0100a8c0@he2p306> Hello, >> 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > "H. Fischer" is certainly not a pseudonym. By now, I have found Fabel's source > for the problem: > It is in: Problematicus, "150 Schachkuriosit?ten" (Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1910), > page 13, and the author of the problem is given as "Hieron. Fischer". I know Fabel's book, so I knew that the problem is there attributed to H.Fischer. My guess was, that - since Fabel's book as well as the one by Problematicus are only collections of problems published elsewhere, the attribution to H.Fischer might be only a misinterpretation of something like "H.F." - a pseudonym, that was used by Sam Loyd. I took the information, that the above problem was composed by S.Loyd, from the book "Schachmatnaja Mosaika" by V.M.Archakov (Kiev,1984), where it is given as problem no.388 and even is surrounded by a little story, that explains, why Loyd composed this problem. So it would be good to know the original source of the above problem. Anybody outthere who can help? > By the way: "Problematicus" really is a pseudonym (of Max Weiss)! Another pseudonym of Max Weiss was "Traumulus". Are there any further "...us"-pseudonyms? Best wishes, mario From retromode at web.de Mon Nov 16 05:33:32 2009 From: retromode at web.de (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Bernd_Gr=E4frath?=) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:33:32 +0100 Subject: [Retros] =?iso-8859-15?q?Sam_Loyd=27s_Cyclopedia_of_Puzzles=3B_Fa?= =?iso-8859-15?q?bel=27s_source_again?= Message-ID: <1918766353@web.de> Hello, Max Weiss and Hieronymus Fischer were quite well aware of each other (as I learned when I read the "Wiener Schachzeitung" from 1898-1949 completely!). So I guess that the latter would have corrected the former if he wrongly wanted to ascribe a problem to him. Jeremy Gaige (in his book "Chess Personalia") gives the following pseudonyms of Max Weiss: "Antom Ph" (perhaps a misprint for "Anton Ph"), "Ernest Bisani", "Problematicus". Like Mario, I would be very interested in early sources which ascribe the problem to Loyd. Of course it would be best if the original publication (by Loyd or Fischer) in a magazine could be found. On the other hand, it is also possible that Fischer contributed originals to Weiss's book... Best wishes, Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Mario Richter" > Gesendet: 16.11.09 11:15:34 > An: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" > Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source > Hello, > > >> 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > > > "H. Fischer" is certainly not a pseudonym. By now, I have found Fabel's source > > for the problem: > > It is in: Problematicus, "150 Schachkuriosit?ten" (Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1910), > > page 13, and the author of the problem is given as "Hieron. Fischer". > > I know Fabel's book, so I knew that the problem is there attributed to H.Fischer. > My guess was, that - since Fabel's book as well as the one by Problematicus > are only collections of problems published elsewhere, the attribution to H.Fischer > might be only a misinterpretation of something like "H.F." - a pseudonym, that > was used by Sam Loyd. > > I took the information, that the above problem was composed by S.Loyd, > from the book "Schachmatnaja Mosaika" by V.M.Archakov (Kiev,1984), where it is > given as problem no.388 and even is surrounded by a little story, that explains, > why Loyd composed this problem. > > So it would be good to know the original source of the above problem. > Anybody outthere who can help? > > > > By the way: "Problematicus" really is a pseudonym (of Max Weiss)! > > Another pseudonym of Max Weiss was "Traumulus". > Are there any further "...us"-pseudonyms? > > Best wishes, > > mario > > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > ______________________________________________________ GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de From mri_two at t-online.de Mon Nov 16 06:45:04 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:45:04 +0100 Subject: [Retros] 9 white pawns, cont'd References: <20091115165751.3E49AF8CE@abel.math.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <008101ca66b2$3d6a50f0$0100a8c0@he2p306> > Noam wrote: > >> George Leathem >> The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 >> 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 >> #1 > On further thought, even after removing one of White's nine pawns > the position is illegal WTM unless it's the e5 or g5 pawn that's removed > (when Black could have just played 0...e5xf4 or g5xf4); perhaps that's > what Mario R. was hinting at. Exactly! > Removing Pe7 also results in an impossible pawn configuration As well as the removal of Pe5,Pd4 or Pd3. This may perhaps be neglected by the following argumentation: The position is illegal. So before trying to solve the problem, the illegality must be removed. Since there are 9 white pawns, one of them is guilty for the illegality. Since after removing the wPe7 the position is still illegal, it cannot have been this pawn. For the WTM illegalities: this might still be o.k., if "#1" is interpreted as a "Mate in one" problem, but it doesn't work here for e.g. -wPg7, since after 0. ... d7xe6! White has no mate. On the other hand, it would work for -wPh3, since after 0. ... ~ White can mate by 1.Qf3# > There's also a dual mate Qb1(d3) in the -Pd3 branch. It seems that > this is easily fixed by moving Re3,g3 to e1,g1, which also lets us > eliminate the retro-illegality issue by moving wPf3 and bPf4 down to > f2 and f3 -- again assuming that we can retract 0 e2xd3++ (or 0 g2xh3++) > Kf5 without introducing too many pawn captures on any of the seven > branches that keep Pd3 and Ph3 on the board. Positions after -Pe7, -Pe5 -Pd4 (and also after -Pd3) are still illegal ... Best, mario From mri_two at t-online.de Mon Nov 16 06:43:32 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 12:43:32 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again References: <1918766353@web.de> Message-ID: <008001ca66b2$067eb720$0100a8c0@he2p306> Hello Bernd, > Like Mario, I would be very interested in early sources which ascribe the problem to Loyd. > Of course it would be best if the original publication (by Loyd or Fischer) in a magazine > could be found. (Brownson's) Chess Journal, Third Series, No.142, Dec.1890, p.4 has the following problem: 2721. Curiosa w: Nd8 Rg8 Kd6 Pf3 Pd2 Qb1 Bg1 Rh1 b: Pa7 Pb7 Pf7 Pg6 Pc4 Kd4 Pd3 Pe3 Ph3 Pf2 (FEN: 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3ppP1p/3P1p2/1Q4BR) Remove a P, and mate in one move. If you look at it, you will see, that the only difference to the Fischer-or-Loyd-problem is, that instead of a white Bg2 a wPf3 is used, so I don't think that your explanation >... it is also possible that Fischer contributed originals to Weiss's book... works here ... Btw., on the same page, there is also 2722. By E.Barbe w: Ra7 Pf6 Pg6 Qb5 Rh5 Bc4 Bd4 Ke4 b: Kh8 Pb7 Ph7 Na6 Pc6 Ph6 Pe5 Pf4 Rg4 Pd3 Pf3 Bc2 Pe2 Qg2 Re1 (FEN: 7k/Rp5p/n1p2PPp/1Q2p2R/2BBKpr1/3p1p2/2b1p1q1/4r3) Remove a P, and mate in one move. The intended solution -b7: QRh7 (Ra7xh7#) -c6: Qe8# -e5: Pf7# -h6: KRh7 (Rh5xh7#) -h7: KRh6 (Rh5xh6#) -f6: Be5 shows, that neither the 9-pawn-illegality (s. -f6) nor illegalities by invalid capture balances (s. -b7) were the main focus of such problems at that time. Best regards, mario From retromode at web.de Mon Nov 16 07:29:19 2009 From: retromode at web.de (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Bernd_Gr=E4frath?=) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:29:19 +0100 Subject: [Retros] =?iso-8859-15?q?Sam_Loyd=27s_Cyclopedia_of_Puzzles=3B_Fa?= =?iso-8859-15?q?bel=27s_source_again?= Message-ID: <1918996892@web.de> Thanks, Mario! Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Mario Richter" > Gesendet: 16.11.09 12:48:09 > An: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" > Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again > Hello Bernd, > > > Like Mario, I would be very interested in early sources which ascribe the problem to Loyd. > > Of course it would be best if the original publication (by Loyd or Fischer) in a magazine > > could be found. > > (Brownson's) Chess Journal, Third Series, No.142, Dec.1890, p.4 has the following problem: > > 2721. Curiosa > > w: Nd8 Rg8 Kd6 Pf3 Pd2 Qb1 Bg1 Rh1 > b: Pa7 Pb7 Pf7 Pg6 Pc4 Kd4 Pd3 Pe3 Ph3 Pf2 > > (FEN: 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3ppP1p/3P1p2/1Q4BR) > > Remove a P, and mate in one move. > > If you look at it, you will see, that the only difference to the > Fischer-or-Loyd-problem is, that instead of a white Bg2 a wPf3 is used, > so I don't think that your explanation > > >... it is also possible that Fischer contributed originals to Weiss's book... > > works here ... > > > Btw., on the same page, there is also > > 2722. By E.Barbe > > w: Ra7 Pf6 Pg6 Qb5 Rh5 Bc4 Bd4 Ke4 > b: Kh8 Pb7 Ph7 Na6 Pc6 Ph6 Pe5 Pf4 Rg4 Pd3 Pf3 Bc2 Pe2 Qg2 Re1 > > (FEN: 7k/Rp5p/n1p2PPp/1Q2p2R/2BBKpr1/3p1p2/2b1p1q1/4r3) > > Remove a P, and mate in one move. > > The intended solution > -b7: QRh7 (Ra7xh7#) > -c6: Qe8# > -e5: Pf7# > -h6: KRh7 (Rh5xh7#) > -h7: KRh6 (Rh5xh6#) > -f6: Be5 > > shows, that neither the 9-pawn-illegality (s. -f6) nor illegalities by > invalid capture balances (s. -b7) were the main focus of such problems > at that time. > > Best regards, > > mario > > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > ______________________________________________________ GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de From elkies at math.harvard.edu Mon Nov 16 09:43:32 2009 From: elkies at math.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:43:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Retros] 9 white pawns, cont'd Message-ID: <20091116144332.0C2F4F90E@abel.math.harvard.edu> I wrote: >>> George Leathem >>> The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 >>> 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 >>> #1 >> On further thought, even after removing one of White's nine pawns >> the position is illegal WTM unless it's the e5 or g5 pawn that's removed >> (when Black could have just played 0...e5xf4 or g5xf4); perhaps that's >> what Mario R. was hinting at. > Exactly! >> Removing Pe7 also results in an impossible pawn configuration > As well as the removal of Pe5,Pd4 or Pd3. [...] >> There's also a dual mate Qb1(d3) in the -Pd3 branch. It seems that >> this is easily fixed by moving Re3,g3 to e1,g1, which also lets us >> eliminate the retro-illegality issue by moving wPf3 and bPf4 down to >> f2 and f3 -- again assuming that we can retract 0 e2xd3++ (or 0 g2xh3++) >> Kf5 without introducing too many pawn captures on any of the seven >> branches that keep Pd3 and Ph3 on the board. > Positions after -Pe7, -Pe5 -Pd4 (and also after -Pd3) are still illegal ... And if we also shift everything one square left? That should eliminate at least a few captures. NDE From joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl Mon Nov 16 09:46:41 2009 From: joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl (Joost de Heer) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:46:41 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles In-Reply-To: <003f01ca65e9$91ddd4a0$0100a8c0@he2p306> References: <1917216753@web.de> <003f01ca65e9$91ddd4a0$0100a8c0@he2p306> Message-ID: <4B0165D1.1040303@sanguis.xs4all.nl> > With 9 white pawns, there is e.g. the followoing joke problem > (but only the removal of some pawns allows a #1): > George Leathem > The Problemist FCS 821 05/1933 > 8/3pPKPp/4N1N1/4PkP1/3P1p1P/3PRPRP/8/5Q2 > #1 Does anyone have the original publication? Perhaps there is some accompanying text which may clarify things. Joost From mri_two at t-online.de Mon Nov 16 10:24:15 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 16:24:15 +0100 Subject: [Retros] 9 white pawns, cont'd References: <20091116144332.0C2F4F90E@abel.math.harvard.edu> Message-ID: <009601ca66d0$dbb95f30$0100a8c0@he2p306> Noam wrote: > And if we also shift everything one square left? That should eliminate > at least a few captures. Then we get: George Leathem, Version by Noam Elkies FEN= 8/2pPKPp1/3N1N2/3PkP2/2P3P1/2P1p1P1/4P3/3RQR2/ w: Pd7 Ke7 Pf7 Nd6 Nf6 Pd5 Pf5 Pc4 Pg4 Pc3 Pg3 Pe2 Rd1 Qe1 Rf1 b: Pc7 Pg7 Ke5 Pe3 #1 and everything is fine: 1. No solution in the initial position (even if the 9-pawn illegality is ignored) 2. No trouble with WTM and pawn capture balance issues after removal of any of the white pawns. 3. -Pd7: 1. Nf6-d7+ -Pf7: 1. Nd6-f7+ -Pd5: 1. Rd1-d5+ -Pf5: 1. Rf1-f5+ -Pc4: 1. Nd6-c4+ -Pg4: 1. Nf6-g4+ -Pc3: 1. Qe1-c3+ -Pg3: 1. Qe1-g3+ -Pe2: 1. Qe1xe3+ 9 different mates. Best wishes, mario From elkies at math.harvard.edu Mon Nov 16 11:19:21 2009 From: elkies at math.harvard.edu (Noam Elkies) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:19:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Retros] 9 white pawns, cont'd Message-ID: <20091116161921.434C7F899@abel.math.harvard.edu> >> And if we also shift everything one square left? That should eliminate >> at least a few captures. > Then we get: > George Leathem, Version by Noam Elkies > FEN= 8/2pPKPp1/3N1N2/3PkP2/2P3P1/2P1p1P1/4P3/3RQR2/ > w: Pd7 Ke7 Pf7 Nd6 Nf6 Pd5 Pf5 Pc4 Pg4 Pc3 Pg3 Pe2 Rd1 Qe1 Rf1 > b: Pc7 Pg7 Ke5 Pe3 > #1 > and everything is fine: [...] Thanks. Still no need for those Black pawns on c7 and g7, right? NDE From mri_two at t-online.de Mon Nov 16 11:53:56 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:53:56 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again References: <1918766353@web.de> <008001ca66b2$067eb720$0100a8c0@he2p306> Message-ID: <00aa01ca66dd$62f290f0$0100a8c0@he2p306> > 2722. By E.Barbe > > w: Ra7 Pf6 Pg6 Qb5 Rh5 Bc4 Bd4 Ke4 > b: Kh8 Pb7 Ph7 Na6 Pc6 Ph6 Pe5 Pf4 Rg4 Pd3 Pf3 Bc2 Pe2 Qg2 Re1 > > (FEN: 7k/Rp5p/n1p2PPp/1Q2p2R/2BBKpr1/3p1p2/2b1p1q1/4r3) > > Remove a P, and mate in one move. Just a small addition - the latter position is already given in Max Lange's "Handbuch der Schachaufgaben", (1862!); as author and source are given: A.Barbe Illustrirtes Familien-Journal, Aufgabe 260 Matt in einem Zuge and the intended solution very well puts the focus on the superfluous black pawn: remove any of the upper-half black pawns to have a #1 for White. Best regards, mario From pastmaker at aol.com Wed Nov 18 10:45:33 2009 From: pastmaker at aol.com (pastmaker at aol.com) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:45:33 -0500 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again In-Reply-To: <1918766353@web.de> References: <1918766353@web.de> Message-ID: <8CC367D4C4010E5-23D0-3DC6@webmail-d013.sysops.aol.com> I would guess that "Antom Ph" is not a misprint, just a suggestion of something immaterial. Regards to all. Tom Volet -----Original Message----- From: Bernd Gr?frath To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 5:33 am Subject: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again Hello, Max Weiss and Hieronymus Fischer were quite well aware of each other (as I earned when I read the "Wiener Schachzeitung" from 1898-1949 completely!). o I guess that the latter would have corrected the former if he wrongly wanted o ascribe a problem to him. Jeremy Gaige (in his book "Chess Personalia") gives the following pseudonyms of ax Weiss: "Antom Ph" (perhaps a misprint for "Anton Ph"), "Ernest Bisani", Problematicus". Like Mario, I would be very interested in early sources which ascribe the roblem to Loyd. Of course it would be best if the original publication (by Loyd r Fischer) in a magazine could be found. n the other hand, it is also possible that Fischer contributed originals to eiss's book... Best wishes, Bernd -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: "Mario Richter" Gesendet: 16.11.09 11:15:34 An: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source Hello, >> 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > "H. Fischer" is certainly not a pseudonym. By now, I have found Fabel's ource > for the problem: > It is in: Problematicus, "150 Schachkuriosit?ten" (Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 910), > page 13, and the author of the problem is given as "Hieron. Fischer". I know Fabel's book, so I knew that the problem is there attributed to .Fischer. My guess was, that - since Fabel's book as well as the one by Problematicus are only collections of problems published elsewhere, the attribution to .Fischer might be only a misinterpretation of something like "H.F." - a pseudonym, that was used by Sam Loyd. I took the information, that the above problem was composed by S.Loyd, from the book "Schachmatnaja Mosaika" by V.M.Archakov (Kiev,1984), where it is given as problem no.388 and even is surrounded by a little story, that xplains, why Loyd composed this problem. So it would be good to know the original source of the above problem. Anybody outthere who can help? > By the way: "Problematicus" really is a pseudonym (of Max Weiss)! Another pseudonym of Max Weiss was "Traumulus". Are there any further "...us"-pseudonyms? Best wishes, mario _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros _____________________________________________________ RATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! etzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de _______________________________________________ etros mailing list etros at janko.at ttp://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From adrianstori at gmail.com Wed Nov 18 11:14:20 2009 From: adrianstori at gmail.com (Adrian) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:14:20 -0500 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again In-Reply-To: <8CC367D4C4010E5-23D0-3DC6@webmail-d013.sysops.aol.com> References: <1918766353@web.de> <8CC367D4C4010E5-23D0-3DC6@webmail-d013.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4cec0a6f0911180814k5f480b4foec0b7ae2995ca01a@mail.gmail.com> Right, PhAntom reversed (retro phantom)... On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:45 AM, wrote: > > I would guess that "Antom Ph" is not a misprint, just a suggestion of > something immaterial. > Regards to all. > Tom Volet > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernd Gr?frath > To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List > Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 5:33 am > Subject: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source > again > > Hello, > > Max Weiss and Hieronymus Fischer were quite well aware of each other (as I > learned when I read the "Wiener Schachzeitung" from 1898-1949 completely!). > So I guess that the latter would have corrected the former if he wrongly wanted > to ascribe a problem to him. > > Jeremy Gaige (in his book "Chess Personalia") gives the following pseudonyms of > Max Weiss: "Antom Ph" (perhaps a misprint for "Anton Ph"), "Ernest Bisani", > "Problematicus". > > Like Mario, I would be very interested in early sources which ascribe the > problem to Loyd. Of course it would be best if the original publication (by Loyd > or Fischer) in a magazine could be found. > On the other hand, it is also possible that Fischer contributed originals to > Weiss's book... > > Best wishes, > > Bernd > > > > > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: "Mario Richter" > > Gesendet: 16.11.09 11:15:34 > > An: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" > > Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source > > > > Hello, > > > > >> 3N2R1/pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > > > > > "H. Fischer" is certainly not a pseudonym. By now, I have found Fabel's > source > > > for the problem: > > > It is in: Problematicus, "150 Schachkuriosit?ten" (Leipzig: Veit & Comp., > 1910), > > > page 13, and the author of the problem is given as "Hieron. Fischer". > > > > I know Fabel's book, so I knew that the problem is there attributed to > H.Fischer. > > My guess was, that - since Fabel's book as well as the one by Problematicus > > are only collections of problems published elsewhere, the attribution to > H.Fischer > > might be only a misinterpretation of something like "H.F." - a pseudonym, that > > was used by Sam Loyd. > > > > I took the information, that the above problem was composed by S.Loyd, > > from the book "Schachmatnaja Mosaika" by V.M.Archakov (Kiev,1984), where it is > > given as problem no.388 and even is surrounded by a little story, that > explains, > > why Loyd composed this problem. > > > > So it would be good to know the original source of the above problem. > > Anybody outthere who can help? > > > > > > > By the way: "Problematicus" really is a pseudonym (of Max Weiss)! > > > > Another pseudonym of Max Weiss was "Traumulus". > > Are there any further "...us"-pseudonyms? > > > > Best wishes, > > > > mario > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Retros mailing list > > Retros at janko.at > > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > > > > > ______________________________________________________ > GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! > Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing listRetros at janko.athttp://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at anselan.com Wed Nov 18 11:35:48 2009 From: andrew at anselan.com (andrew at anselan.com) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:35:48 +0000 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again In-Reply-To: <4cec0a6f0911180814k5f480b4foec0b7ae2995ca01a@mail.gmail.com> References: <1918766353@web.de><8CC367D4C4010E5-23D0-3DC6@webmail-d013.sysops.aol.com><4cec0a6f0911180814k5f480b4foec0b7ae2995ca01a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1862180578-1258561648-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1494433861-@bda127.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> That's silly but cute. Well spotted Tom. There are a number of other pseudonyms similarly derivable from the ranks of the undead, from Ich, L to Keleton, S. Sent from my BlackBerry? wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:14:20 To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Subject: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros From retromode at web.de Wed Nov 18 13:21:06 2009 From: retromode at web.de (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Bernd_Gr=E4frath?=) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:21:06 +0100 Subject: [Retros] =?iso-8859-15?q?Sam_Loyd=27s_Cyclopedia_of_Puzzles=3B_Fa?= =?iso-8859-15?q?bel=27s_source_again?= Message-ID: <1923769422@web.de> Of course! I should have noticed... Best, Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: > Gesendet: 18.11.09 16:51:28 > An: retros at janko.at > Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again > I would guess that "Antom Ph" is not a misprint, just a suggestion of > something immaterial. > Regards to all. > Tom Volet > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernd Gr?frath > To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List > Sent: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 5:33 am > Subject: Re: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's > source again > > Hello, Max Weiss and Hieronymus Fischer were quite well aware of each > other (as I learned when I read the "Wiener Schachzeitung" from 1898- > 1949 completely!). So I guess that the latter would have corrected > the former if he wrongly wanted to ascribe a problem to him. Jeremy > Gaige (in his book "Chess Personalia") gives the following pseudonyms > of Max Weiss: "Antom Ph" (perhaps a misprint for "Anton Ph"), "Ernest > Bisani", "Problematicus". Like Mario, I would be very interested in > early sources which ascribe the problem to Loyd. Of course it would > be best if the original publication (by Loyd or Fischer) in a > magazine could be found. On the other hand, it is also possible that > Fischer contributed originals to Weiss's book... Best wishes, Bernd > > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Mario Richter" online.de> > Gesendet: 16.11.09 11:15:34 > An: "The Retrograde > Analysis Mailing List" > Betreff: Re: [Retros] Sam > Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source > Hello, > > >> 3N2R1/ > pp3p2/3K2p1/8/2pk4/3pp2p/3P1pB1/1Q4BR > > > "H. Fischer" is certainly > not a pseudonym. By now, I have found Fabel's source > > for the > problem: > > It is in: Problematicus, "150 Schachkuriosit?ten" ( > Leipzig: Veit & Comp., 1910), > > page 13, and the author of the > problem is given as "Hieron. Fischer". > > I know Fabel's book, so I > knew that the problem is there attributed to H.Fischer. > My guess > was, that - since Fabel's book as well as the one by Problematicus > > are only collections of problems published elsewhere, the attribution > to H.Fischer > might be only a misinterpretation of something like "H. > F." - a pseudonym, that > was used by Sam Loyd. > > I took the > information, that the above problem was composed by S.Loyd, > from > the book "Schachmatnaja Mosaika" by V.M.Archakov (Kiev,1984), where > it is > given as problem no.388 and even is surrounded by a little > story, that explains, > why Loyd composed this problem. > > So it > would be good to know the original source of the above problem. > > Anybody outthere who can help? > > > > By the way: "Problematicus" > really is a pseudonym (of Max Weiss)! > > Another pseudonym of Max > Weiss was "Traumulus". > Are there any further "...us"-pseudonyms? > > > Best wishes, > > mario > > > _________________________________________ > ______ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at> http://www.pairlist. > net/mailman/listinfo/retros> _________________________________________ > _____________ GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! > Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de______________________ > _________________________ Retros mailing listRetros at janko.athttp:// > www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros______________________________ > _________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www. > > pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros ______________________________________________________ GRATIS f?r alle WEB.DE-Nutzer: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://movieflat.web.de From hannu.lehto at pp.inet.fi Wed Nov 18 16:48:27 2009 From: hannu.lehto at pp.inet.fi (mrmip) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:48:27 +0200 Subject: [Retros] Sam Loyd's Cyclopedia of Puzzles; Fabel's source again References: <1918766353@web.de><8CC367D4C4010E5-23D0-3DC6@webmail-d013.sysops.aol.com><4cec0a6f0911180814k5f480b4foec0b7ae2995ca01a@mail.gmail.com> <1862180578-1258561648-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1494433861-@bda127.bisx.produk.on.blackberry> Message-ID: <74740AB0AFAC428793B4B9A2347AB2B0@MIPCMP> >>That's silly but cute. Well spotted Tom. Well Comerade Telov is good in picking those retro names ;). I also have a habit in collecting those silly 1-move retros. Even made an interactive applet to present them. Should any of you like to visit, you'll find them here: http://www.mrmip.net/mipsofacto/whackies.htm regards mrmip From olli.heimo at luukku.com Thu Nov 19 11:00:15 2009 From: olli.heimo at luukku.com (Olli Heimo) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:00:15 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] =?iso-8859-1?q?Original_in_Suomen_Teht=E4v=E4niekat_Nov?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2C_2009?= Message-ID: <1258646415471.olli.heimo.80515.mjhhXcySVbbW-rjPqD6uRg@luukku.com> Once again there was a beautiful proof game by Unto Heinonen in the latest issue of Suomen Teht?v?niekat. I spent almost two hours in solving it. The only help was that assuming the problem is correct, then wQ must have a unique route to get away from herself. 1k3bn1/2rpp1r1/6p1/4B3/2PPPR2/2NKP3/2PPPp2/1N5R 13+9 Proof game in 31.0 moves. Best Olli. From Gianchess at aol.com Thu Nov 19 14:58:41 2009 From: Gianchess at aol.com (Gianchess at aol.com) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:58:41 EST Subject: [Retros] =?iso-8859-1?q?Original_in_Suomen_Teht=E4v=E4niekat_Nov?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=2C_2009?= Message-ID: Hi Olli - Thanks for posting this pg. After half an hour I don't have the slightest idea what is going on here! If I end up in a mental institution I will blame Unto!!! Best, Gianni -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrew at anselan.com Thu Nov 19 19:22:10 2009 From: andrew at anselan.com (andrew buchanan) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:22:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Retros] extending the idea Message-ID: <460129.5968.qm@web302.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> R5B1/P5P1/4R1B1/2P2RN1/8/2QN2K1/1PNBPB2/7k Mate in 1. All the best, Andy. From rbosch at roadrunner.com Thu Nov 19 21:46:53 2009 From: rbosch at roadrunner.com (Renny Bosch) Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:46:53 -0800 Subject: [Retros] A question on stipulations Message-ID: <135BE5EE0EAC4D12B5E2248A260F49E6@YOURF78BF48CE2> If the stipulation is "Mate?" (in a position that clearly looks like mate), may one assume that the answer must be "Yes", accompanied by proof that the position is legal? The alternative would require proof that the position is illegal, i.e. there does not exist a game that produces the given position. In the first place a non-existence proof is much more difficult than an existence demonstration (typically requiring computer assistance to be certain), and in the second place such a proof is much less satisfying than a game with some ingenious twists and turns. May we therefore assume that such a problem would not have been published unless the answer were "Yes"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From retromode at web.de Fri Nov 20 05:28:05 2009 From: retromode at web.de (=?iso-8859-15?Q?Bernd_Gr=E4frath?=) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:28:05 +0100 Subject: [Retros] A question on stipulations Message-ID: <1927215270@web.de> Hello, the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could have a right to capture en passant. Best, Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Renny Bosch" > Gesendet: 20.11.09 05:14:27 > An: > Betreff: [Retros] A question on stipulations If the stipulation is "Mate?" (in a position that clearly looks like > mate), may one assume that the answer must be "Yes", accompanied by > proof that the position is legal? The alternative would require proof > that the position is illegal, i.e. there does not exist a game that > produces the given position. In the first place a non-existence proof > is much more difficult than an existence demonstration (typically > requiring computer assistance to be certain), and in the second place > such a proof is much less satisfying than a game with some ingenious > twists and turns. May we therefore assume that such a problem would > not have been published unless the answer were "Yes"? > > _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list > > Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros ___________________________________________________________ Preisknaller: WEB.DE DSL Flatrate f?r nur 16,99 Euro/mtl.! http://produkte.web.de/go/02/ From juha_saukkola at hotmail.com Fri Nov 20 05:37:05 2009 From: juha_saukkola at hotmail.com (Juha Saukkola) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:37:05 +0200 Subject: [Retros] Challenge In-Reply-To: <1927215270@web.de> References: <1927215270@web.de> Message-ID: Hello, this is not really a retro, but this is a best way to get most people informed. Challenge: Find a such kind of position that there is mate in 1 with only one move, mate in 2 with only one starting move, ... mate in n with only one starting move. maximize n! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nbeluhov at abv.bg Fri Nov 20 13:18:25 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:18:25 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] extending the idea Message-ID: <425138519.118846.1258741105499.JavaMail.apache@mail72.abv.bg> > R5B1/P5P1/4R1B1/2P2RN1/8/2QN2K1/1PNBPB2/7k > Mate in 1. Thank you, Andy! That's a great problem, I had a hard day today and it really made me smile when I got the joke :) Here's a diagram for the others: http://www.janko.at/Retros/d.php?ff=R5B1/P5P1/4R1B1/2P2RN1/8/2QN2K1/1PNBPB2/7k%20.htm > the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could have a right to capture en passant. I had this idea some time ago (I solved a lot of problems by Alexander Kisljak and he seemed to use this stipulation a lot). But it turned out that Andrey Frolkin had already done this, CPDB Problem number P0005420. Andrey Frolkin, Schachmaty w SSSR, 1986 http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/diagrams/P0005420.png Mate? I discovered this literally the day after I had completed my own humble attempt at this theme, and it was a bit of a letdown, but then again, this only shows how important it is for a composer to know the classics. Do you know other problems exploring the same joke? Best wishes, Nikolai ----------------------------------------------------------------- ????? ???????? ?????? ?? Vesti.bg! http://www.vesti.bg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rbosch at roadrunner.com Fri Nov 20 21:24:55 2009 From: rbosch at roadrunner.com (Renny Bosch) Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:24:55 -0800 Subject: [Retros] A question on stipulations References: <1927215270@web.de> Message-ID: <280F17D492A24BF3B2FFD9CC0CCFDB28@YOURF78BF48CE2> Hi Bernd, Thanks for your answer, I hadn't thought of that possibility. But that still is a demonstration of a legal game. What I am wondering is: If the answer is NO and the proof is an elaborate explanation of why every possible attempt at resolving the position leads to a dead end, would they publish such a problem? My strong assumption is "Obviously not", but I've been warned not to assume. Renny ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bernd Gr?frath" To: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 2:28 AM Subject: Re: [Retros] A question on stipulations Hello, the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could have a right to capture en passant. Best, Bernd > -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Renny Bosch" > Gesendet: 20.11.09 05:14:27 > An: > Betreff: [Retros] A question on stipulations If the stipulation is "Mate?" (in a position that clearly looks like > mate), may one assume that the answer must be "Yes", accompanied by > proof that the position is legal? The alternative would require proof > that the position is illegal, i.e. there does not exist a game that > produces the given position. In the first place a non-existence proof > is much more difficult than an existence demonstration (typically > requiring computer assistance to be certain), and in the second place > such a proof is much less satisfying than a game with some ingenious > twists and turns. May we therefore assume that such a problem would > not have been published unless the answer were "Yes"? > > _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list > > Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros ___________________________________________________________ Preisknaller: WEB.DE DSL Flatrate f?r nur 16,99 Euro/mtl.! http://produkte.web.de/go/02/ _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros From mri_two at t-online.de Sat Nov 21 03:35:03 2009 From: mri_two at t-online.de (Mario Richter) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:35:03 +0100 Subject: [Retros] A question on stipulations References: <1927215270@web.de> <280F17D492A24BF3B2FFD9CC0CCFDB28@YOURF78BF48CE2> Message-ID: <025b01ca6a85$85af4010$0100a8c0@he2p306> Hello, Bernd wrote: > the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could > have a right to capture en passant. Other possibilities are: 50-moves-rule, parity, retro-opposition, ... Reduced to their logical kernel, those problems simply ask the question: "Is this position legal with a specified side to move?" so they are in good company with similiar types like "Mate in one?", "Who can mate in n?" a.s.o. Renny> if ... the proof is an elaborate explanation of why every possible Renny> attempt at resolving the position leads to a dead end, Renny> would they publish such a problem? Why not? (Just a thought experiment: Replace "Is Black mated?" by "Can White castle?". Would you still argue, that if an elaborate proof shows, that all attempts to resolve the position with preservation of White's castling right leads to a dead end, then the problem is not worth publishing?) Best wishes, mario From andrew at anselan.com Sat Nov 21 08:57:43 2009 From: andrew at anselan.com (andrew buchanan) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:57:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Retros] A question on stipulations In-Reply-To: <025b01ca6a85$85af4010$0100a8c0@he2p306> References: <1927215270@web.de> <280F17D492A24BF3B2FFD9CC0CCFDB28@YOURF78BF48CE2> <025b01ca6a85$85af4010$0100a8c0@he2p306> Message-ID: <224680.57058.qm@web305.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A few more thoughts on this... (1) Most commonly when the stipulation is "Mate?" we are talking about a conventional RA problem where the interest is in figuring out the history of the game. It is an additional stylistic flourish if the game ends dramatically with a mate, and the composer calls attention to this in the stipulation. (It seems to me that a mere check in the final position is regarded as a slight defect, but a mate paradoxically is not, because of its finality.) (2) Unless there is an hint of "funny business" (e.g. e.p.) it does make sense for the solver to explore first the more promising avenue that the position is legal, and therefore hunt for a proof game or perhaps just a way to untangle the position. I am not sure I like the word "assumption", because it's a bit ambiguous - if I *assume* the position is legal, why would I then have to *prove* it with a proof game? If I want to prove that the position is legal, I just resort to my assumption! (3) Renny wrote: > In the first place a non-existence proof > is much more difficult than an existence demonstration (typically > requiring computer assistance to be certain), and in the second place > such a proof is much less satisfying than a game with some ingenious > twists and turns. A non-existence proof could be very short. E.g. 2 White kings. Or a parity argument. Or an unpromoted piece having escaped from a pawn cage etc etc. And such an argument could be quite satisfying. However the thing is that (except for the specialist topic of Illegal clusters) retro enthusiasts don't really like *totally* illegal diagrams. We would like there to be some escape clause, some unlikely scenario which we are forced to conclude is actually what happened. The famous quote from Sherlock Holmes applies: "How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" Regards, Andy. ----- Original Message ---- From: Mario Richter To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 8:35:03 AM Subject: Re: [Retros] A question on stipulations Hello, Bernd wrote: > the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could > have a right to capture en passant. Other possibilities are: 50-moves-rule, parity, retro-opposition, ... Reduced to their logical kernel, those problems simply ask the question: "Is this position legal with a specified side to move?" so they are in good company with similiar types like "Mate in one?", "Who can mate in n?" a.s.o. Renny> if ... the proof is an elaborate explanation of why every possible Renny> attempt at resolving the position leads to a dead end, Renny> would they publish such a problem? Why not? (Just a thought experiment: Replace "Is Black mated?" by "Can White castle?". Would you still argue, that if an elaborate proof shows, that all attempts to resolve the position with preservation of White's castling right leads to a dead end, then the problem is not worth publishing?) Best wishes, mario _______________________________________________ Retros mailing list Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros From nbeluhov at abv.bg Sat Nov 21 13:27:27 2009 From: nbeluhov at abv.bg (=?UTF-8?B?0J3QuNC60L7Qu9Cw0Lkg0JHQtdC70YPRhdC+0LI=?=) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:27:27 +0200 (EET) Subject: [Retros] Challenge Message-ID: <631186847.131784.1258828047498.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> > Find a such kind of position that there is > mate in 1 with only one move, > mate in 2 with only one starting move, > ... > mate in n with only one starting move. There was one beautiful problem of this type by K. Hannemann, CPDB problem number P1082699: Knud Hannemann , Dagens Nyheter, 1933 http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/diagrams/P1082699.png Mate exactly in 1, 2, 3 and 4 moves. The four solution present one very nice theme. I suggest that the first moves be stipulated to be different from each other - otherwise, it doesn't seem difficult to take n to about 50 (this boundary only exists because of the 50-move rule) by restricting severely White and Black's moves, so that White can only play a mating move or a waiting move on every step, and Black can only play waiting moves. Best wishes, Nikolai ----------------------------------------------------------------- ????? ???????? ?????? ?? Vesti.bg! http://www.vesti.bg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl Sat Nov 21 13:53:14 2009 From: joost at sanguis.xs4all.nl (Joost de Heer) Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:53:14 +0100 Subject: [Retros] Challenge In-Reply-To: <631186847.131784.1258828047498.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> References: <631186847.131784.1258828047498.JavaMail.apache@mail73.abv.bg> Message-ID: <4B08371A.2050900@sanguis.xs4all.nl> > *Knud Hannemann*, Dagens Nyheter, 1933 > http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/diagrams/P1082699.png > Mate exactly in 1, 2, 3 and 4 moves. Variation on a theme: Horst B?cker Problemkiste 12/1992 1S6/1spP4/2pk1K2/p1p3p/P1P3P1/5p2/5P2/8 #1 Circe b) exact #2 c) exact #3 d) exact #4 Joost From rbosch at roadrunner.com Sun Nov 22 21:11:53 2009 From: rbosch at roadrunner.com (Renny Bosch) Date: Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:11:53 -0800 Subject: [Retros] A question on stipulations References: <1927215270@web.de><280F17D492A24BF3B2FFD9CC0CCFDB28@YOURF78BF48CE2><025b01ca6a85$85af4010$0100a8c0@he2p306> <224680.57058.qm@web305.biz.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7DCB9FCDA5024E6E92747B2115F59A25@YOURF78BF48CE2> Thank you Bernd, Mario, and Andy, for your thoughtful replies to my question. But now let me make it more specific. I have been working on a problem in Joost's Probleemblad post of 27 October, that goes like this: R356 - Harry Goldsteen 8/8/7p/PP1P4/kr1rP3/BbKpRP2/S2PppP1/qSqRbB2 (14+11) +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | . | | . | | . | | . | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | . | | . | | . | | . | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | | . | | . | | . | |*P | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | P | P | . | P | . | | . | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |*K |*R | |*R | P | . | | . | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | B |*B | K |*P | R | P | . | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | S | . | | P |*P |*P | P | . | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |*Q | S |*Q | R |*B | B | . | | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ Mate? After much analysis, I have "proved" that the answer must be No, because I can't resolve the position (I could if the black pawn at h6 were at h5, but it isn't). But here's my problem: I don't feel secure that I have really found the solution. I probably overlooked something and if I kept on working I might have a wonderful surprise -- and then I'd KNOW that I had the solution. This way it's very frustrating (like sex without orgasm). Wouldn't you agree that in this case it is very unlikely that the answer is "No"? Renny ----- Original Message ----- From: "andrew buchanan" To: "The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List" Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 5:57 AM Subject: Re: [Retros] A question on stipulations >A few more thoughts on this... > > (1) Most commonly when the stipulation is "Mate?" we are talking about a > conventional RA problem where the interest is in figuring out the history > of the game. It is an additional stylistic flourish if the game ends > dramatically with a mate, and the composer calls attention to this in the > stipulation. (It seems to me that a mere check in the final position is > regarded as a slight defect, but a mate paradoxically is not, because of > its finality.) > > (2) Unless there is an hint of "funny business" (e.g. e.p.) it does make > sense for the solver to explore first the more promising avenue that the > position is legal, and therefore hunt for a proof game or perhaps just a > way to untangle the position. I am not sure I like the word "assumption", > because it's a bit ambiguous - if I *assume* the position is legal, why > would I then have to *prove* it with a proof game? If I want to prove that > the position is legal, I just resort to my assumption! > > (3) Renny wrote: >> In the first place a non-existence proof >> is much more difficult than an existence demonstration (typically >> requiring computer assistance to be certain), and in the second place >> such a proof is much less satisfying than a game with some ingenious >> twists and turns. > > A non-existence proof could be very short. E.g. 2 White kings. Or a parity > argument. Or an unpromoted piece having escaped from a pawn cage etc etc. > And such an argument could be quite satisfying. However the thing is that > (except for the specialist topic of Illegal clusters) retro enthusiasts > don't really like *totally* illegal diagrams. We would like there to be > some escape clause, some unlikely scenario which we are forced to conclude > is actually what happened. > > The famous quote from Sherlock Holmes applies: "How often have I said to > you that when you have eliminated the > impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?" > > Regards, > Andy. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Mario Richter > To: The Retrograde Analysis Mailing List > Sent: Sat, November 21, 2009 8:35:03 AM > Subject: Re: [Retros] A question on stipulations > > Hello, > > Bernd wrote: >> the answer might be "No", because the side which seems to be mated could >> have a right to capture en passant. > > Other possibilities are: 50-moves-rule, parity, retro-opposition, ... > > Reduced to their logical kernel, those problems simply ask > the question: "Is this position legal with a specified side to move?" > so they are in good company with similiar types like "Mate in one?", > "Who can mate in n?" a.s.o. > > Renny> if ... the proof is an elaborate explanation of why every possible > Renny> attempt at resolving the position leads to a dead end, > Renny> would they publish such a problem? > > Why not? > (Just a thought experiment: Replace "Is Black mated?" by "Can White > castle?". > Would you still argue, that if an elaborate proof shows, that all attempts > to resolve the position with preservation of White's castling right leads > to a dead end, then the problem is not worth publishing?) > > Best wishes, > > mario > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros > > _______________________________________________ > Retros mailing list > Retros at janko.at > http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros