Mate in 5

Since helpmate29 implies that he is associated with the British magazine The Problemist, let's take an example from there.

Rolf Uppstrom, The Problemist 2001

#6

Solution:
1.Rg8 [threat 2.Rxg5#]

1...h6 and now both 2.Re8 and 2.Kc6 force mate.
1...Bg3 2.Rxg5+ Be5 and now White can play 3.Rxe5# right away, or have a little fun with 3.Rf5 c3 4.Rxe5+ Bd5 5.Rxd5#

I needn't continue. This problem has a bad key and is "riddled with duals", yet was good enough to be published in The Problemist (the main one, not the supplement!), and in the year 2001 no less!

Duals are when the attacking player can make different moves to mate the opponent in the same number of moves. If the opponent has many moves to make but any of them leads to a mate, preferably different mates, just makes the problem aesthetically pleasant. Take a look at the problem in my profile. After the first move, black has 15 (!) different moves but each of them leads to a mate next move. That doesn't mean that there are duals, that means that black is in zugzwang.

Now this problem (created by R.Reti) has a dual. White can win both after 1.Rd2! and 1.Rd1!

Originally posted by kbaumen
Duals are when the attacking player can make different moves to mate the opponent in the same number of moves. If the opponent has many moves to make but any of them leads to a mate, preferably different mates, just makes the problem aesthetically pleasant. Take a look at the problem in my profile. After the first move, black has 15 (!) different moves but e Reti) has a dual. White can win both after 1.Rd2! and 1.Rd1!
[fen]8/4K3/8/3pk3/3R4/8/8/8[/fen]

If there are two first moves that work, those are not merely duals. At least one is a cook (unless the author specifically states "Two solutions".)

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If there are two [b]first moves that work, those are not merely duals. At least one is a cook (unless the author specifically states "Two solutions".)[/b]

That's so if you assume that 100% of all problems ever made are correct. If a problem has a dual, it's simply said that the problem is incorrect because a problem should have one unique solution (if not specified that it has more than one solution) against which sometimes several different moves can be played but none of them gives any refutation.

P.s.(I hope I didn't misunderstand you. I assume that by the word 'cook' you mean a move that can be refuted. If I did, than sorry for my bad English as it isn't my native language)

Originally posted by kbaumen
That's so if you assume that 100% of all problems ever made are correct. If a problem has a dual, it's simply said that the problem is incorrect because a problem should have one unique solution (if not specified that it has more than one solution) against which sometimes several different moves can be played but none of them gives any refutation.

P.s.(I ...[text shortened]... at can be refuted. If I did, than sorry for my bad English as it isn't my native language)

It is not true that a problem is considered incorrect if it has a dual. Duals in the main lines are considered flaws; if the idea of the problem is good enough, it will be accepted despite its flaws.

A "cook" is a solution that the composer did not intend. It usually starts with a different first move, but it can include any means of defeating the composer's intention; for example, a solution that begins with the same first move but finds a variation that mates in 4 when the stipulation is Mate in 5.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
It is not true that a problem is considered incorrect if it has a dual. Duals in the main lines are considered flaws; if the idea of the problem is good enough, it will be accepted despite its flaws.

A "cook" is a solution that the composer did not intend. It usually starts with a different first move, but it can include any means of defeating the com ...[text shortened]... the same first move but finds a variation that mates in 4 when the stipulation is Mate in 5.

Don't flaws ruin problems?

Originally posted by kbaumen
Don't flaws ruin problems?

No, not necessarily.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, not necessarily.

Here's an example.

L. Yarosh, 1st Prize Shakhmatyi v SSSR 1983

#4

Does this problem have duals? Yes. Are they flaws? Yes. Compared to the brilliance of the theme of the problem, do they matter? Absolutely not.

You seem to be very convinced of your opinion. Perhaps you're right.

Originally posted by kbaumen
You seem to be very convinced of your opinion. Perhaps you're right.

I didn't just make this stuff up. This is more than just one person's opinion. This is how the chess problem community operates.

The problem was published in Shakhmatyi v SSSR, a respected Russian magazine. The judge gave it first prize. In doing so, he indicated that the flaws were unimportant, compared to the brilliance of the idea.

You should again review (and solve) the #6 example. The Brits (at least the editors of The Problemist) don't seem to have a problem with certain flaws (duals) either.

If you solve this problem, you'll understand why the flaws are not important.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I didn't just make this stuff up. This is more than just one person's opinion. This is how the chess problem community operates.

The problem was published in Shakhmatyi v SSSR, a respected Russian magazine. The judge gave it first prize. In doing so, he indicated that the flaws were unimportant, compared to the brilliance of the idea.

You sh ...[text shortened]... ls) either.

If you solve this problem, you'll understand why the flaws are not important.

I've seen the problem somewhere but I just remember the first move. I'll try to find the full solution.