Problem Composing Contest 28 is Underway

[Bill Salot]

Don't miss the new beauty contest now on display.
Grandmaster challenge: I bet you can't submit an original problem good enough to win a future contest!

[tgf]

I am dazed big deal!

[Bill Salot]

Reminder . . . this is the last weekend before the polls close on Contest 28. The problems are extraordinary and deserve the honor of your vote.

[chipschap]

It's hard to imagine better problems than the ones in the current contest.

[Bill Salot]

RESULTS OF CONTEST 28:

The two problems with the shortest solutions and fewest star moves ran away with this contest. Their similarities split more than 70% of the votes. Both were 5x5s and both received 5 votes. Using a term borrowed from chess, both put Red in Zugzwang, which means they reached a point where Red had to move reluctantly into an immediate coup. In both cases, the coup involved a delayed 2-piece pitch into a decisive single-corner finish. Both composers have won past Problemist of the Year honors, and between them they have won every contest this year. CAN ANYONE BEAT THEM?

The winners were Rainy Daze, by Roy Little, and Line Dance, by Ed Atkinson.

The remaining two problems trailed in a tie for 3rd place with 2 votes each. One was AM&SPHR, by Jim Loy. The title is an acronym for the "Ankh-Morpork & Sto Plains Hygienic Railway" in the Terry Pratchett novel "Raising Steam" (Don't ask!). The 2-for-2 shot, colors reversed, was missed by L. Ginsberg versus S. Levine, Checker Classics, P. 156.

The other trailer was Slide Rule, by Bill Salot, the only problem with significant afterplay.

The contest had 309 visitors, about average over the past several contests.

[tgf]

Once again I marveled at the Rainy Daze, it cleanly delivered a powerful idea.
Yet I liked the Slide Rule, and the Line Dance. Jim Loy's position was very different - it was from the actual game and it showed, so mature, so many workable lines to count, for example a 3x3 shot (24-19).
I wish the result was based on a much greater base, like 50 + people, as is the result might be skewed.

[Bill Salot]

Jake,

On Jim Loy's problem, "AM&SPHR ", thanks for pointing out the surprising 24 19 at the first move. I and probably others overlooked it. If it could draw, the problem would have been dualed and disqualified.

The colors reversed game that inspired the problem went like this:

1.11-15 23-19 2.08-11 22-18 3.15x22 25x18 4.04-08 26-22 5.11-16 19-15 6.10x19 24x15 7.09-14 18x09 8.05x14 29-25 9.16-20 28-24 10.12-16 24-19 11.16x23 27x09 12.06x13 22-18 13.01-06 25-22 14.08-12 30-26 15.12-16 32-28 16.16-19 21-17 17.07-10 15-11, now 20-24 would have drawn by intersecting "AM&SPHR", colors reversed, at its third move (24-20), but Ginsberg played 6-9, which should have also drawn. Since that meant there were dual solutions to draw at that point, the game position would not qualify for a contest. It had to be modified to eliminate the dual. "AM&SPHR" was the result.

That shows', as is often the case, a composition can be made more appealing and instructional than a comparable position that arises in a game. In fact, the practice of composing in itself can be eye-opening to the composer.

Here is where Ginsberg missed a draw after he played 6-9 instead of 20-24 (above): 18.06-09 31-27, now Ginsberg played the losing 19.02-06A, but Kings’ Row corrects with *10-15 27 23, *20-24, 23-16, *24-27, 17 14, *27-32, 14 5, *13-17, to a man down Draw

A. 19.02-06 27-23 20.20-24 23x16 21.24-27 16-12 22.27-32 11-08 23.32-27 08-04 24.10-15 18x11 25.06-10 11-07 26.09-14 07-02 27.14x21 02-07 28.10-15 07-10? (7-11* WW) 29.21-25* 10x19 30.25-30* 19-15 31.30x23 15-10 32.23-19 {27-31 10-14 31-26? (23-19* draw) 14-17 WW, E. Smith} 22-18 (4-8 draws) 33.27-23? (19-16 draw!, threatening a shot) 18-14 34.23-18 14-09 35.18-14 10x17 36.13x22 04-08 37.19-15 09-06 38.22-26 06-01 39.26-31 28-24 40.31-26 01-06 41.26-23 24-20 42.23-18 20-16 43.18-14 16-11 44.14-10 06-01 45.15-18 11-07 46.18-14 07-02 47.14-09 08-11 48.10-14 01-06 49.09-05 11-07 50.03x10 06x15 WW, L. Ginsberg - S. Levine, Checker Classics p.156.

Jim's analysis of this game will be published, probably in the August 2016 ACFB.

I really don't understand why there are so few voters among the 300 or so regular visitors to the contests. Any explanation would be helpful.

[tgf]

The game analysis is wrong, in this position white can go for the second checker and win with a man up.

1612 (instead of 1714) 2732 1108 1519 1714. Red can take back one checker with checker 2 going to 16 but that is not enough.

My 2419 for a 3x3 shot might lose after 1524

[chipschap]

Well, if you believe the computer, after 24-19 then 15-24 loses while a quickly taken 16-32 only draws.

[tgf]

loses for who?

[Bill Salot]

Jake,

At the first move of "AM&SPHR", I think Chipschap meant 24 19 loses by 15-24. If we agree on that, then "AM&SPHR" is still a dual-free problem.

The other issue is at your diagram, where you claim a WW. If correct, it knocks out what I claimed was a dual draw at 18. in the Ginsberg-Levine game. One draw was by 20-24 into "AM&SPHR" at 3, colors reversed. The other was via Ginsberg's 6-9, 31 27, and then Kings' Row's 10-15 (instead of Ginsberg’s losing 2-6), 27 23, *20-24, 23-16, *24-27, which forms your diagram. If your diagram is a WW, then Jim Loy's unusual 20-24 at 18. becomes a star move , and the game position at 18. or earlier, becomes an outstanding, dual-free problem.

So your claimed WW takes on the significance of establishing Jim Loy's correction as the one and only way to draw the Ginsberg-Levine game at Red's 18th move.

My question is how do you win with White from your diagram against this Kings' Row defense? . . . 16 12, 27-32, 11 8, 15-19, 17 14, 32-27, 14 5, 27 23, 28-24, 23-14, 24 15, 14-18, 15 10, 18-25, 5 1, 25-30, 8 4, 30-23, 1 5, 23-19, 4 8, 19-16, 10 6, 2-9, 5 14, 16-19, 8 11, 19-24, etc., Draw?

[tgf]

Nice playing Bill, I now do not think the 16-12 is as good as the original 17-14.
Still an expert's review is in order.

[chipschap]

Jake,

At the first move of "AM&SPHR", I think Chipschap meant 24 19 loses by 15-24. If we agree on that, then "AM&SPHR" is still a dual-free problem.

Yes, thank you, I phrased that quite poorly.

[Bill Salot]

Bad news!

Jim Loy correctly pointed out today that his "AM&SPHR" in Contest 28 should be disqualified.

He inadvertently published the Ginsberg - Levine game and his key play on P. 17, Note D, of the same ACFB issue as the contest.

His honesty is appreciated.