In some sources the problem is printed without the black knights. In other sources - with the knights. Which is the original version of the problem? And what are the black knights for?
In some sources the problem is printed without the black knights. In other sources - with the knights. Which is the original version of the problem? And what are the black knights for?
I may be wrong, but I believe this is only the first move of a (selfmate or helpmate) problem where the knights do play an essential role. It may even have been posted before here on RHP (biggdogproblem?)
I don't think so. This problem is a famous one, always with the stipulation "don't mate in 1". White has only one move which is not mate. But the black knights are not needed to prevent other moves from being mate, so that's why I asked what are they for.
OK, someone changed there the stipulation a little bit; but the original stipulation is "don't mate in 1", and with this stipulation I don't know who added the black knights and why (or, if Fabel himself added them and someone else omitted them, why did Fabel think they are neccesary).
Originally posted by David113 OK, someone changed there the stipulation a little bit; but the original stipulation is "don't mate in 1", and with this stipulation I don't know who added the black knights and why (or, if Fabel himself added them and someone else omitted them, why did Fabel think they are neccesary).
Well, if Sam Loyd can do it...
#2
...then I suppose Fabel can, as well. In the above problem, half the pieces on the board are not needed.
I once read about Lloyd that he liked to add as many pieces as possible to the board which actually have nothing to do with the main problem. Some liked it and other criticized him for that.
I have a question also now. On that first site, I found the bottom diagramm by T. R. Dawson, where the White player says he can lose the game. I only see forced White moves which end in Black being checkmated in 2. Don't know how White could possibly lose it. Any ideas?
About Loyd's and Fabel's problems:
I quote from the British Chess Problems Society site - "In the 19th Century it was common for composers to dress the board with useless pieces in an attempt to both confuse the solver and to ensure soundness. That practice has long since been seriously deprecated."
Originally posted by David113 About Loyd's and Fabel's problems:
I quote from the British Chess Problems Society site - "In the 19th Century it was common for composers to dress the board with useless pieces in an attempt to both confuse the solver and to ensure soundness. That practice has long since been seriously deprecated."
About Dawson's problem: White lost - the bet.
Nope. Just turn the board around!
But Loyd's mate in one that Bigdog posted is tough. What's the solution?
Edit: Unless it IS the same idea, maybe turn the board around and then Qd1#.
Originally posted by crazyblue I have a question also now. On that first site, I found the bottom diagramm by T. R. Dawson, where the White player says he can lose the game. I only see forced Whi te could possibly lose it. Any ideas?
A quetion on a problem by Fabel
27 Aug '06 10:04
Back to Top