Dual Solutions of Problems

[jimloy]

In W. J. Salot's problem composing contests, a few problems were disqualified because of dual solutions (two solutions). Generally, a dual solution is considered a serious flaw in a problem. But sometimes, a second solution is not considered a flaw, and is not really a dual. If two moves go to the same exact solution, then they are just two paths to the same solution, not a dual. And if a second winning move happens late in the solution, maybe even after the interesting fireworks are over, then that too is not a dual. In fact, the moves shown after the fireworks are very often just extra moves which show roughly how the ending may be tidied up. A second winning move that occurs on White's first move is a slightly more serious flaw than a second winning move that occurs on White's second move, or third move, and so on. Also, if the second solution is greatly inferior (maybe still a win, but a difficult win, actually putting the win in some doubt) then that too is not a dual. For example, there are many problems in which we are a piece ahead and could trade into an ending and probably win/draw (and we could prove the win/draw if we wanted to waste our time), but the clever winning/drawing shot is the only real solution. Finally, alternate wins or draws are not so serious in some endings, usually classical endings that teach us how to play that kind of ending. In such an ending, there may be many solutions, but we prefer the one that most clearly shows us a valuable technique. Ben Boland criticized some of the endings in his books because of dual solutions. But, his books are so full of duals that I quickly gave up listing them all; I think there are hundreds of them. In fact, I would guess that 80% of the asterisks (only moves) in his books are false. And Boland copied those asterisks from other sources, where they were equally false. And Boland's ending books are the best and most educational books in existence. Still, duals are usually serious, and can ruin a problem.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

CPI FMJD rules are not allow alternative solution and allow only one dual in main variation. Dual at the earlier stage of solution is more danger than dual at late stage.

Anyway, in Anglo-American checkers due to some specifics, it is really hard to avoid duals.

"Hard" alternative solution is still alternative solution and shall be prohibited and eliminated in contests. Rules are rules.

Boland books mainly have positions, not problems which can compete in compositional contests. I never consider asterisks seriously in his or other books.

And ... yes, his books so far are best about classic ednings.

Alex

[Bill Salot]

I think Jim was neither agreeing or disagreeing with the disqualifications of problems in last year's contests. The disqualifications were my call. Like a good umpire, I tried to call them on a consistent basis. That included two of my own problems (Contests #7 and #8).

My rule was: if the terms of the problem are White to Play and Win (or Draw), and if White can vary from the "Intended Solution" and, by doing so, can independently force a Win (or Draw) without ever transposing back into the "Intended Solution", then that variation is a "Dual Solution". If it is initiated before the climax of the "Intended Solution", then the "Dual Solution" disqualifies the problem. Jim Loy's winning "New 67th" in Contest #6 was an example of multiple "Dual Solutions" being initiated after the climax of the "Intended Solution". It was therefore not disqualified.

I think Jim was pointing out nuances that problemists face. An Interchangeable move or a transpositional move that temporarily deviates from the "Intended Solution" is not the beginning of a "Dual Solution", but it is a minor flaw serious enough to delete the star at that juncture.

I believe disqualifications via "Dual Solutions" are avoidable if the contest problems are reviewed in advance by knowledgeable volunteers using 8 or 10 piece database programs. Please let me know if you are one willing to give it a try. We need that kind of help.

It may not be obvious, but there are major differences between playing checker games and composing checker problems:

The object of games is to win (or draw). It is for competitors. When you win a game in a tournament, you are congratulated and awarded points, even if you could have won in an entirely different way. In this respect, the success of players bears no relation to "Dual Solutions".

The object of problems is to challenge and delight an audience. It is for artists. If there is a different way to satisfy the terms of your contest problem, your problem is criticized and disqualified. In this respect, the success of composers is at the mercy of "Dual Solutions".

You have to learn the game before you can compose problems. In that respect, I like to think problems reflect a higher level of technology, but I wouldn't say that in public.

The main thing is we can all enjoy both.