I am not sure that A.Kaciuska did foresee such discussion, which appeared in this topic after he did place his unpublished in the DP article. I also am not sure he read all posts of this discussion with pleasure.
But this discussion, suddenly appeared, is enough important, because, as my memory tells me, it’s the first direct contact between, from one side - West problemists and amateurs of problemism, and, from the other side, the mentality of the part of the former USSR problemists, who were represented in this discussion by A.Kaciuska and A.Moiseyev.
The mentality, which is not known enough well in West, but the mentality, which is too good known for me. Therefore I did translate all this discussion in Russian to place it at MiF (the Russian-language Forum under leading of International Grand master M.Lepsic).
S.Yushkevitch
DP, unpublished article
Re: DP, unpublished article
A.Moiseev wrote 24.12.2013 (I quote in Italic):
“I would like to share with you couple compositions. Here there are 4(!) "illegal" finals combined into one problem.
Should we eliminate these positions from Concourses ?”
What after A.Moiseyev did show two problems, which, according to his intention, had to be as important illustration for main idea of A.Moiseyev: to permit problems with Second solution in endgame-phase of problems. And after his show, A.Moiseyev asked:
“Why we should eliminate all these and many, many other beautiful problems with these finals ???”
I remind problems, which A.Moiseyev showed, to understand better: what means "those finals".
#1
А. Моiseyev, MIF, 10-11-2013
30.38.20.27(34)21 and we have motive:
#1-A
black to move
This problem really contains finals, which do not correspond to present Rules International (RI), they are seen at diagrams 1-A: there is no exact variant.
But next problem, which A.Moiseyev did show, does fully correspond to the RI, and it’s pity A.Moiseyev did not show its solution to the final position, having limited only by two first moves “23, 21”, what after he put “etc.+” (what means “Win”).
#2
А. Моiseyev, MIF, 10-11-2013
“23, 21 etc.+” – that’s A.Moiseyev author’s notice.
However, it’s not complete notice, because after “23, 21” there is no winning position, and we have to de-code that “etc.+”.
Let us do it.
23, 21 (27, A) 3(34) 18 and this endgame’ position fully corresponds to the RI: (31, 40) 22 (45), 50.
A (17) 3(34) 12 and again the endgame position appeared (different from the first one), which is fully corresponded to the RI: (21, 40) 22(45) 50.
Thus:
It’s easy to trust the pathos of A.Moisetev text, if only to read it, but example, which he did show to confirm his intention, on the contrary, does refuse everything written before! The second problem, showed by A.Moiseyev, is perfect example in favor of the present RI. After unsuccessful problem at the first diagram, A.Moiseyev gave the example: how should compose a problem, if to use all possibilities to arrange an idea and not to stop in the middle of the way (as he did it in his first example) – see the problem at the second diagram.
As regards to the originality of this combinational idea, when black has fourth directions to capture: A.Moiseyev should not worry in this respect. This idea already was arranged twice in the middle of 1990-s by S.Ustianov (Ukraine), see problems at diagrams 3 and 4 (only thematic variants are indicated).
#3
S.Ustianov, International contest “Lietuva-95”.
11, 21, 30 (34, А) 3(27) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
A (17) 3(34) 12 (21, 40) 22(45) 50.
This problem was scored by low score because two judges (from three) gave 0 points for the reason of Second solution after the first move 0803.
#4
S.Ustianov, International contest “FFJD-1998”.
20(35, A) 30, 8(34, B C) 3(27) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
A (12) 8, 30(27) 3(34) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
B (17) 3(34) 12 (21, 40) 22(45) 50.
C (27) 3(34) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
This problem was scored by positive score, but not too high score, because the resemblance was indicated – the problem of S.Ustianov, placed at the diagram 3.
Well, it's really impressed, when A.Moiseyev does appeal to “full freedom”, not having learned the history of the problemism in all aspects!
“I would like to share with you couple compositions. Here there are 4(!) "illegal" finals combined into one problem.
Should we eliminate these positions from Concourses ?”
What after A.Moiseyev did show two problems, which, according to his intention, had to be as important illustration for main idea of A.Moiseyev: to permit problems with Second solution in endgame-phase of problems. And after his show, A.Moiseyev asked:
“Why we should eliminate all these and many, many other beautiful problems with these finals ???”
I remind problems, which A.Moiseyev showed, to understand better: what means "those finals".
#1
А. Моiseyev, MIF, 10-11-2013
30.38.20.27(34)21 and we have motive:
#1-A
black to move
This problem really contains finals, which do not correspond to present Rules International (RI), they are seen at diagrams 1-A: there is no exact variant.
But next problem, which A.Moiseyev did show, does fully correspond to the RI, and it’s pity A.Moiseyev did not show its solution to the final position, having limited only by two first moves “23, 21”, what after he put “etc.+” (what means “Win”).
#2
А. Моiseyev, MIF, 10-11-2013
“23, 21 etc.+” – that’s A.Moiseyev author’s notice.
However, it’s not complete notice, because after “23, 21” there is no winning position, and we have to de-code that “etc.+”.
Let us do it.
23, 21 (27, A) 3(34) 18 and this endgame’ position fully corresponds to the RI: (31, 40) 22 (45), 50.
A (17) 3(34) 12 and again the endgame position appeared (different from the first one), which is fully corresponded to the RI: (21, 40) 22(45) 50.
Thus:
It’s easy to trust the pathos of A.Moisetev text, if only to read it, but example, which he did show to confirm his intention, on the contrary, does refuse everything written before! The second problem, showed by A.Moiseyev, is perfect example in favor of the present RI. After unsuccessful problem at the first diagram, A.Moiseyev gave the example: how should compose a problem, if to use all possibilities to arrange an idea and not to stop in the middle of the way (as he did it in his first example) – see the problem at the second diagram.
As regards to the originality of this combinational idea, when black has fourth directions to capture: A.Moiseyev should not worry in this respect. This idea already was arranged twice in the middle of 1990-s by S.Ustianov (Ukraine), see problems at diagrams 3 and 4 (only thematic variants are indicated).
#3
S.Ustianov, International contest “Lietuva-95”.
11, 21, 30 (34, А) 3(27) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
A (17) 3(34) 12 (21, 40) 22(45) 50.
This problem was scored by low score because two judges (from three) gave 0 points for the reason of Second solution after the first move 0803.
#4
S.Ustianov, International contest “FFJD-1998”.
20(35, A) 30, 8(34, B C) 3(27) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
A (12) 8, 30(27) 3(34) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
B (17) 3(34) 12 (21, 40) 22(45) 50.
C (27) 3(34) 18 (31, 40) 22(45) 50.
This problem was scored by positive score, but not too high score, because the resemblance was indicated – the problem of S.Ustianov, placed at the diagram 3.
Well, it's really impressed, when A.Moiseyev does appeal to “full freedom”, not having learned the history of the problemism in all aspects!
