Presentation of “buddy mutual” problems | ChessBase

0

Recently, it occurred to me that some chess problems might be more interesting if the stipulation (eg “White to play and Mate in 3”) were also true for the opponent. This would mean that in a position where White had to play and checkmate in m moves, but if Black instead played from the same position, he would also be mat exactly m moves. A chess problem which could satisfy both conditions, that is, “White (or Black) to play and checkmate in NOT‘, would tend to be more difficult to compose and difficult to solve. A two-in-one problem, if you will. We can call this “mutual partner” issues or, in the case of one study, “mutual winner”.

I couldn’t find anything in the existing literature on chess problems that already described them. “Duplex” may be a generic term that covers them, but to my knowledge it is not specific to direct partners of equal length for both sides and seems to apply largely to companion helpers.

Therefore, I decided to do an experiment just to see how common such things were “in the wild”, so to speak. In all fairness, I have no doubts that if human composers really tried to compose direct aesthetic and thematic partner problems like this, they would be successful as well. Not really being a composer myself, I turned to my computer creation computer program, Chesthetica, and its 3,473 compositions from July 2010 to present (composed of companions in 2, 3, 4, 5 and studies) that I had selected for and compilation. Interested readers can find more information about Chesthetica (photo below) on the website official site.

These 3,473 stand-alone computer-generated compositions are the ones I have reviewed and found aesthetically pleasing, interesting, or educational over the years. There are currently over 110,000 compositions by Chesthetica; most of which I have never even seen due to the volume. Many more were simply lost because I had rejected those I had not seen or loved for a few years before. It wasn’t until later that it occurred to me that it might be prudent to keep them all anyway. The smaller composition set was nonetheless a reasonable sample to test the new kind of chess problem I describe in this article. Although Chesthetica was never explicitly programmed to deal with such problems, they could still occur. I programmed a subroutine in Chesthetica that would detect mutual partners; however, studies have been excluded for now as partners are critical and would better illustrate the concept.

Out of a total of 3,473 compositions, 294 were studies, so the remainder of forced mates (in 2, 3, 4 and 5 movements) was 3,179, or about 91.5%; still a sufficiently large sample, in my opinion. The number of mutual partners detected was only 29 or less than 1%. It’s hard to say if this is low, medium, or high, but I suspect that the frequency of mutual partners would likely be even lower in a sample drawn from traditional chess problems (i.e. typically composed of ‘humans) or a forced mat sample. the end of tournament matches. A random sample of 3,179 direct partner issues by human composers (from a collection of 29,453 out of 3 forced partners, which I had by chance) revealed only two mutual partners or less than 0.1 %. Keep in mind that neither Chesthetica nor the human composers “intentionally” composed them as mutual companions, but with the stipulation that White must perform and force companionship in. m moves. It turns out that in these 29 compositions, and two human compositions, if Black played instead, it would also be a mate in the same number of moves.

Also note that Chesthetica does not compose traditional chess problems but rather chess constructs (a type or class of chess problem), which means that they do not necessarily have to conform to the composition conventions of chess. traditional chess, for example, not having control on the first try. Simply put, chess builds cover a wider range of compositions and can fall anywhere between traditional chess problems and sequences typically found in real games. This casts the widest net in terms of aesthetics. Additionally, if there is anything that I have learned about human aesthetic perception in chess over the years, at least primarily through the many chess communities on Facebookis that people tend not to “like” compositions that they find too difficult to solve.

In any case, the positions below show four examples of “mutual partners” that I have chosen from the 29 detected, and both detected from human compositions. Incidentally, readers are also free to judge for themselves how aesthetic and thematic they are compared to computer-generated ones. Try to solve White first, then Black with the same number of moves, according to the amended stipulation. Solutions are provided at the end of the article.

White (or Black) to play and mate in 5
Computer generated chess problem 00726
Chesthetica v9.96 (Selangor, Malaysia)

White (or Black) to play and mate in 5
Computer generated chess problem 03224
Chesthetica v12.26 (Selangor, Malaysia)

White (or Black) to play and mate in 3
Computer generated chess problem 03302
Chesthetica v12.30 (Selangor, Malaysia)

White (or Black) to play and mate in 3
Computer generated chess problem 03312
Chesthetica v12.30 (Selangor, Malaysia)

Selection of occasional compositions ‘Mutual Mate’ by Chesthetica

White (or Black) to play and mate in 3
Sam Loyd, Philadelphia 1858

White (or Black) to Play and Mate in 3,
CSL, Chronicle of the Chess Player 1847

‘Mutual Mate’ Compositions of Human Composers

The concept of a mutual partner or victory should hopefully be clear at this point. While the examples shown above may not conform to many traditional composition conventions or lack aesthetic appeal for some, this type of chess problem does not exclude any other conditions that one may wish to apply. For example, it could be specified to the composer that the solutions White to play and Black to play should demonstrate the same theme and that neither should have (major) duels either. It can also be specified that the white and black armies have the same amount or the same type of material. At one point, I imagine that a particular type of mutual partner can even compete with the difficulty of creating a Babson task.

Mutual “wins” (regarding education), of course, would generally be more difficult to compose compared to the direct partner variety, especially since the wins would have to be decisive or clear about, if not exactly, of the same duration. . I didn’t program Chesthetica to explicitly target any of these, but if the idea caught on, I might at some point. Perhaps the reader, experienced composer or otherwise, would now like to try to compose a common companion of his own.

Here are the solutions to the above examples:

We would like our readers to try their hand at composing mutual companion positions. Please submit any positions you may suggest to the editors.

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.