We have a tie! The ACF Website would like to congratulate
Jim Loy, the composer of Practically Practical and
Ed Atkinson, the composer of Breakthrough
who have tied with 7 votes.
Jim Loy, the composer of Practically Practical and
Ed Atkinson, the composer of Breakthrough
who have tied with 7 votes.
As requested, Contest #18 targeted problems that can arise in games. But this is not what composers normally do. Only three such problems were entered. So two compositions that looked like they might occur in games were added as fill-ins. The result turned out to be a contest of kingless triple jumpers with a secondary battle of composed settings versus game settings. Both competitions ended in ties.
___________________________________________________________________________
The winning "composition" with 7 votes, was the final fill-in, Breakthrough, by Ed Atkinson. It was a masterfully pleasing 3-for-1 into 2-for-1 compound stroke, triggered by two unnatural pitches, and followed by straightforward 2x2 afterplay.
The contest had been set to go with only four problems. Unfortunately for its competitors, Breakthrough broke in literally at the last minute to take a share of the championship from Jim Loy, winner of the last contest. Of passing note: Breakthrough was the least natural setting. It casnnot occur in a game.
___________________________________________________________________________
The winning "game problem", also with 7 votes was Practically Practical, by Jim Loy, retaining a piece of his title. The setting corrected Tescheleit's Master Play, but raised serious issues.
First, its inclusion in the contest was questioned because the winning tandem 2-for-1 and 3-for-1 shots were allegedly too easy.
Later there were questions as to whether the tandem shots really produced a forced win. Without a forced win, the problem would be disqualified.
Jim Loy and Liam Stephens both re-examined the afterplay, but did not reach any unequivocal conclusions. The problem that started out too easy became the most difficult of all. Finally, Sune Thrane saved the problem by demonstrating a 124-move win using his MFC Program.
If you hope to make "practical" use of all this, check out the expanded solution, including a full alphabet of notes. Sorry, it is not animated yet.
Salot's question: Would you ever play for this win when you have to knowingly play a losing move to get to it? Atkinson's answer: It depends on who the opponent is.
Here is the Practically Practical run-up:
9-14, 22 18, 5-9, 21 17, 14-21, 18 15, 11-18, 23 5, 8-11, 25 22, 4-8, 22 17 {This and 29 25 both lose; 27 23 draws, Sune Thrane}, 12-16, 24 20, 16-19, 29 25, 11-15 {This forms Practically Practical}; see the solution for the continuation.
___________________________________________________________________________
In third place with 5 votes was the other composed fill-in problem, The Dreamer, by Roy Little. It had the fewest pieces, and was the only deferred stroke. It employed two unnatural pitches into an in-and-out theme, without the out part, leading to a 3-for-1, followed by a clear-cut, 2x2 finish. Of passing note: it is not possible for The Dreamer setting to occur in a game.
___________________________________________________________________________
Trailing were strokes from unpublished computer games.
Bridge Too Far, with 2 votes, mercilessly victimized its author, Bill Salot, during a game in which Kings' Row removed 8 pieces, including a climactic 3-for-1, and concluding with a winning bridge thwarting Bill's subsequent escape efforts.
Here is the Bridge Too Far run-up:
9-13, 22 17, 13-22, 25 18, 10-15, 18 14, 15-19, 24 15, 11-18, 28 24, 6-9, 29 25, 8-11, 24 19, 9-13, 19 15, 4-8, 23 19, 11 -16, 26 23, 13-17, 30 26, 7-11, 15 10 forms Bridge Too Far, colors reversed
___________________________________________________________________________
It can now be divulged that the S-------- Swindle was really the Schwartz Swindle, discovered on his computer by first time contestant, Joe Schwartz. Joe showed it to some friends, including Brian Hinkle, who entered it for him with his permission. All had high hopes for it based on its multiple traps featuring four different triple jumps, requiring both sides to play perfectly to survive, and suggesting practical possibilities. Alas, contest policy did not allow Joe's friends to vote. His problem came in last with only one vote.
Here is the Schwartz Swindle run-up:
9-14, 22 18, 10-15, 18 9, 5-14, 25 22, 15-19, 24 15, 11-25, 29 22, 6-10, 22 18, 14-17, 21 14, 10-17, 28 24, 8-11, 24 20, 3-8, 1814, 1-6, 27 24, 11-15, 32 28, 15-18, 31 27, 18-22 forms the Schwartz Swindle
___________________________________________________________________________
Overall, the 2 compositions combined outpolled the 3 game problems combined, 12 to 10. The collective mindset of the judges remains difficult to discern. But this contest did nothing to discourage composers from creating problems unrelated to actual games.
___________________________________________________________________________
During Contest #18, 356 visited the site, breaking the old contest record of 315. The 22 vote total has not been exceeded since Contest #4 in May 2012. Those are good signs.
___________________________________________________________________________
Here is how Contest #18 was introduced on July 26, 2014:
Some of our past voters have expressed a preference for natural-looking problems. Behold these five practical teasers by competing authors. There are no kings, no numerical advantages, and their solutions will show they have something else in common. To our knowledge, all are previously unpublished. No clues are needed for above average players to solve them.
At least three of the five settings can arise in a game. One is a correction of published play.
We have very few kingless entries like these. Contests featuring them will not recur very often. The voting in this contest may be a measure of their popularity.
See them animated & vote for your favorite. Game run-ups and authors' names will be published after the polls close on August 31st.
| Current Votes: | |||||||||
 | |||||||||
| White to move. Draw | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Current Votes: | ||||||
 | ||||||
| White to move. White Wins | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Current Votes: | |||
 | |||
| White to move. White Wins | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Current Votes: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| White to move. White Wins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Current Votes: | ||||||
 | ||||||
| White to move. White Wins | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|