Dilaram’s Mate and Pendulum Rooks
By on 11 Aug 25 00:03
433 views
Dilaram’s Mate
I spend a fair bit of my time repairing or improving problems, studies and unsound
combinations. In certain circles I’m known as ‘The Plumber’ because I fix leaks in
chess positions. (I’ve never done any real plumbing but I expect I’ll be very good at it.)
A 1984 Batsford; ‘From Beginner to Expert in 40 Lessons’ by Aleksander Kostyev
fell my way a few days ago and Lesson No.3 is all about Dilaram’s Mate.
The story is set a long time ago in the year dot. I’ve no idea who wrote it,
maybe it was one of those Danish brothers; Hams, Christian or Andersen.
I’ll have the drama taking place in this castle.
Dilaram’s husband has lost everything he owned gambling at Chess so he puts her
into the ante pot for the next game. (I like this idea, his wife is now a gambling chip )
The game reached this position with Dilaram’s husband (White) in trouble and to play.
Dilaram whispers to her husband that he can sacrifice both Rooks and deliver
checkmate. But before telling the story the narrator has to explain that the piece
on h3 is not a Bishop, it is an ‘Alfil’ which in the year dot could only move
two squares and jump over pieces. So Bh3-f5 in the year dot was a legal move.
The given solution is 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2. Bf5+ remember that Bishop/Alfil
can do that 2...Rh2 3. Rxh2+ Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. g7+ Kg8 6. Nh6 mate.
Enter the plumber. (that will be me)
This is not the way to win friends and boost your chess club credibility.
Having to explain how a piece moved centuries ago ruins the whole story.
Also the pedantic 2...Rh2, why is that there? That too will have to go.
Same story, though as you can see I’ve only moved a Rook
and swapped a Knight for that piece (what ever it was) on h3.
White to play and mate in 5 and both rooks are still sacrificed.
Now you can skip along to your local chess club and tell the tale of Dilaram’s dilemma
without having to confuse the issue by defining what was on h3. Set it in the year 984
(one thousand years before the Batsford publication or make up a date of your own).
No need to mention me and I’d prefer it if you didn’t because Dilaram cheated by
suggesting moves to her husband and I do want to get roped into any controversy.
The first puzzle is by an unknown author.
White to play and mate in two moves.
The last puzzle is from T. R. Dawson 1923, we have a picture clue
White to play and win.
Yes, look at the swinging Rooks in Hyde Park - ZorroTheFox RHP 2014
I was watching Tarun Kanyamarala going over his Round seven game against
Jude Shearsby in the current British Championship. In this position (white to play)
Tarun was explaining to Danny Gormally why here he refused to win a piece.
It is lesson on how good players always look one or two moves deeper when
analysing a position. White played 22.Kg1. We will look at the critical line.
And an RHP example of the same tactic only this time White never saw it.
horbi2 - fortom RHP .2013
The thread accompanying this blog is Thread 203320
I spend a fair bit of my time repairing or improving problems, studies and unsound
combinations. In certain circles I’m known as ‘The Plumber’ because I fix leaks in
chess positions. (I’ve never done any real plumbing but I expect I’ll be very good at it.)
A 1984 Batsford; ‘From Beginner to Expert in 40 Lessons’ by Aleksander Kostyev
fell my way a few days ago and Lesson No.3 is all about Dilaram’s Mate.
The story is set a long time ago in the year dot. I’ve no idea who wrote it,
maybe it was one of those Danish brothers; Hams, Christian or Andersen.
I’ll have the drama taking place in this castle.
Dilaram’s husband has lost everything he owned gambling at Chess so he puts her
into the ante pot for the next game. (I like this idea, his wife is now a gambling chip )
The game reached this position with Dilaram’s husband (White) in trouble and to play.
Dilaram whispers to her husband that he can sacrifice both Rooks and deliver
checkmate. But before telling the story the narrator has to explain that the piece
on h3 is not a Bishop, it is an ‘Alfil’ which in the year dot could only move
two squares and jump over pieces. So Bh3-f5 in the year dot was a legal move.
The given solution is 1. Rh8+ Kxh8 2. Bf5+ remember that Bishop/Alfil
can do that 2...Rh2 3. Rxh2+ Kg8 4. Rh8+ Kxh8 5. g7+ Kg8 6. Nh6 mate.
Enter the plumber. (that will be me)
This is not the way to win friends and boost your chess club credibility.
Having to explain how a piece moved centuries ago ruins the whole story.
Also the pedantic 2...Rh2, why is that there? That too will have to go.
Same story, though as you can see I’ve only moved a Rook
and swapped a Knight for that piece (what ever it was) on h3.
White to play and mate in 5 and both rooks are still sacrificed.
Now you can skip along to your local chess club and tell the tale of Dilaram’s dilemma
without having to confuse the issue by defining what was on h3. Set it in the year 984
(one thousand years before the Batsford publication or make up a date of your own).
No need to mention me and I’d prefer it if you didn’t because Dilaram cheated by
suggesting moves to her husband and I do want to get roped into any controversy.
The first puzzle is by an unknown author.
White to play and mate in two moves.
The last puzzle is from T. R. Dawson 1923, we have a picture clue
White to play and win.
Yes, look at the swinging Rooks in Hyde Park - ZorroTheFox RHP 2014
I was watching Tarun Kanyamarala going over his Round seven game against
Jude Shearsby in the current British Championship. In this position (white to play)
Tarun was explaining to Danny Gormally why here he refused to win a piece.
It is lesson on how good players always look one or two moves deeper when
analysing a position. White played 22.Kg1. We will look at the critical line.
And an RHP example of the same tactic only this time White never saw it.
horbi2 - fortom RHP .2013
The thread accompanying this blog is Thread 203320
