1. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    27 Aug '06 10:04
    Please see Fabel's famous "don't mate in 1" problem here:

    http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle11/puzz11-1a.htm

    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?
  2. Joined
    12 Mar '03
    Moves
    37177
    27 Aug '06 13:07
    Originally posted by David113
    Please see Fabel's famous "don't mate in 1" problem here:

    http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle11/puzz11-1a.htm

    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?)
  3. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    27 Aug '06 15:21
    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.
  4. Joined
    12 Mar '03
    Moves
    37177
    27 Aug '06 15:37
    THis is what I wasreferring to:

    http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=21883
  5. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    27 Aug '06 16:12
    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).
  6. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    116628
    27 Aug '06 17:09
    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.
  7. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    116628
    27 Aug '06 17:10
    BDP (after Loyd)

    #2

    Same idea, less deadwood.
  8. Joined
    29 Apr '05
    Moves
    827
    27 Aug '06 17:20
    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?

    http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle11/puzz11-1a.htm
  9. Joined
    25 Aug '06
    Moves
    0
    27 Aug '06 17:511 edit
    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.
  10. Standard memberabejnood
    Independant Thinker
    Young World
    Joined
    01 Jul '04
    Moves
    19393
    27 Aug '06 18:212 edits
    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#.
  11. Joined
    12 Mar '03
    Moves
    37177
    27 Aug '06 18:36
    Originally posted by abejnood
    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#.
    It's mate in 2, not in "one". And it has been posted before, no tricks needed.
  12. Joined
    21 Jul '06
    Moves
    0
    27 Aug '06 18:591 edit
    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?

    http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle11/puzz11-1a.htm
    http://www.chessbase.com/puzzle/puzzle11/puzz11-9b.htm
Back to Top