[Retros] Die Schwalbe 13071 problem, 6/2006

[raosorio at fibertel.com.ar]

Dear retrofriends,

I want to present here my overall view on the die Schwalbe 13071 problem published in the june 2006 issue under the Lois- Osorio- Orce- Verdejo’s authorship. I have interchanged opinions with some prestigious names very well known in this forum. This interchanging, together with the comments in the December issue, clearly indicates me that the problem (the joke?) is as controversial as it was expected to be. What I’m presenting here is my personal reading and could have some differences with my composition partners’ criteria.

The problem was published as,

8/8/2Rp4/4b2B/8/1p1p4/8/K1k2N2
#1 (RV?)  Both kings under check

Problem intention is to show an illegal position where the illegal move has to be  retracted, reaching then a legal position with an extravagant retrocontent (first touched piece during the capturing manouver?, article 4.3).

Please let me describe first of all the starting atmosphere. The Argentine Chess Club is a 100 years old club where the Capablanca - Alekhine match was played. This Institution, based in Buenos Aires, is the headquarter of the "Peña del mate de ayuda" (something like "helpmate's meeting"), a forum where chess problems composers and solutionists use to meet every saturday evening. This is a rutine from mid 60's, the time when some mithical names as Ellerman started it. 

There are still some founders there like Emiliano Ruth and Amil Meylan, strong names gained during 70's like Jorge Kapros and Jorge Lois and relatively new comers like me (I joined the group some 8 years ago), on top of other talented composers and solutionists. Due to the point this mail deals with, I want to mention Sergio Orce (a profound retrocomposer always worry about the rules and how they are written, i.e., the retrolist's LSD), and José Verdejo, a high profile chess arbiter.

Problem's idea was born in the following way: Sergio, Jorge and I were discussing the "sex of the angels", as usual, when the conversation went to the Proca problems that Jorge and I sent to Die Schwalbe (using the triple repetition rule combined with the rights to castle and to capture e.p.). We were joking with these “Kafka” type applying of the rules and, as a derivation, Sergio ironically pointed out that the Codex for composition states "..... articles 1 to 5 of the Chess Code are the relevant ones for composition", so article 4 is explicitly included!! (dealing with "touched pieces"). 

Jorge and I do like strange and even absurd (like this one) situations as composition themes We immediately started to work in this and got very soon our first version of a “touched piece problem”(we didn't know any antecedent. After the problem publishing, Mario Richter indicated to me that there were some near cousin in the form of "BG", beruehrt - gefuehrt, a Valery Liskovets' creature).

This first version had one solution (no RV), white mate, and a main black mate try (as Valery thinks it must be). We had many enjoyable situations torturing master level players with this version. ALL of them naturally retracted the e.p. capture (after playing it forward touching the black pawn first) and played Bxd4#!  I recommend this problem for practical jokes.

Some days after, we discussed the problem with José Verdejo and the arbiter appeared: he pointed out (worry) that the try would be a cooking if the first touched piece during the capturing maneuver had been the white pawn. Bingo! 

I would ask Tom Volet, what kind of lawyer (I’m engineer) would not take advantage of such a piece of cake?

Far away from being a cooking, we got that detail as an originality source if we were able to adapt the version to a quite extravagant RV one. The “touched piece problem” became a “FIRST touched piece problem”. All of this is included in the article 4 (4.3), and article 4 is explicitly included in the composition rules, so, why not?

This is the story. Now the solution,

1) THE POSITION IS ILLEGAL
But it’s possible. Curious point, during the game one has the “right” to make an illegal move under a cheap time penalty. And we have to do something foreseen by the Code.  

7.4 a. If during a game it is found by the arbiter or one of the players (in a chess problem, by the diagram) that an illegal move, ………, has been completed, the position immediately before the irregularity shall be reinstated. 

Otto Janko observed that article 7 is part of the “Competition Rules”, not of the “Game Rules”. I accept it but this part of the problem, say, “the illegal move has to be retracted”, has been so naturally taken by so many players, composers and solutionists that I think its utilization here should be in fact legalized.  Lawyers, your turn.  Mario Richter called this “the iron rule”.

The remaining point starts from an Otto’s question: how illegal could an illegal move be?
This was also remarked in the comments to the problem (Brand and Dittmann?). It’s clearly true from the technical viewpoint but again I ask for a waiver based on the natural reception of the e.p. retraction. Valery named this “the minimal deviation from the rules”.

2) THIS IS A KIND OF RETROANALYSIS PROBLEM
Simply because the facts in the past condition the future. This is essential to agree that all the rules apply automatically.  After this, the following can be concluded:

2.1) The diagram is the result of one and just one illegal move. Somebody suggested the possibility of a sequence of illegal moves, but after the first one art. 7.4 had been automatically applied (tries, wR c3-c6 or bB c3-e5 would be the 2nd consecutive illegal move)

2.2) There are a couple of tries of “the minimal deviation from the rules” type: wR from any 6th rank square to c6 or bB from any long diagonal square to e5, they would be an after checkmate move (art. 5.1.a “The game is won by the player who has checkmated his opponent's king. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the checkmate position was a legal move”, again, automatically applied).

Then, the black illegal move cxd3 e.p. has to be retracted to recover the legal preceding position,
8/8/2Rp4/4b2B/2pP4/1p6/8/K1k2N2

3) RV?
The question mark complementing RV is essential to open the door for interpretations, as it’s discussed in this point. We tried to say to the solutionist “you decide whether the RV exist or not”, as a way to squeeze all the surprising potential of the Code applied to the problem.

There are two different approaches to understand the retrocontents of the position,

a) The, say, romantic one: keeping the metaphorical figuration of a player and his consequent impulsive hand and using the following part of point 4.3: "if the player touches one piece of each colour he has to move or capture the first piece touched wich can be moved or captured". This results in RV,

a1. If the first touched piece was the d4 pawn, then 1. Black  Bxd4#
a2. If the first touched piece was the c4 pawn, then 1. Black c3, white Rxc3#

These RV would be variants on “how” the move was performed. An extravagant content that is foreseen by the Code, again, in an article explicitly included in the composition Codex. 

b) The, say, technical one: using the following part of 4.3: "if it is unclear whether the player's own piece or his opponent's was touched first, the player's own piece shall be considered to have been touched before the opponent's". On the comprehension that in all the chess problem world there are no players and, therefore ,no hands, one could say that it is indeed unclear the "first touched" question. If we adopt this line then there are not RV and just one solution (a2. of the precedent).

4) CONCLUSSIONS
Valery Liskovets set, “Almost a joke; but in fact, practically all problems in controversial genres are such, MORE or LESS”. 

I do like this description: a joke (almost), but a Code based one. The preceding alternatives a) and b) should cover all the tastes.

I want to thank Mario Richter, Valery Liskovets and Otto Janko, who kindly spent their valuable time discussing this problem with me (no matter their different evaluations of it)  These discussions have been essential to clarify my mind and prepare this presentation.

I’ve spent quite a lot of time with this. I’ll feel quite rewarded if the reader is just smiling at this stage.

Best,
Roberto Osorio