(in Russian the word ‘hapless’ contains words ‘not problems’)
Can anyone’s mind be crossed by the opinion that a mate in problems and a mate in studies are two different ideas, and that’s why model and ideal mates should be called and defined in studies by other words? – Maybe. But only if this mind is sick.
When we read that “the blind mechanical transfer of definitions and theoretical notions from chess problems to the chess-study territory is absolutely unacceptable” (E.Eilazyan “Logic of Logical Studies” Problemist of Ukraine, no.3 2018), we have the right to assume that the author of these lines is either out of his mind or writing for those who are unable to think clearly.
The theory of Logical School in problems has a long history and, at least, deserves to be studied well by anyone who writes about logic. It is desirable to use original texts or well-done translations. Eilazyan went his own way – he decided to write a new theory for the logical studies from scratch. Without a “bad influence” of Didukh and chess problems. His errors in the article “Masterpieces and tricks” could be ignored. But I decided to respond. Not with the intention to humiliate the hapless theoretician, but in order to explain in detail important concepts, clarify definitions and correct common misunderstandings.
Part 1. The inventor of new terms
Different, small difference, core move.
These terms refer to the same thing – a change in the position eliminating the obstacle. This change is introduced by the safeguarding plan: foreplan in preparatory combinations or directing plan in option combinations.
The term different was invented by Eilazyan. It is identical to the term small difference that I use in my articles. But it’s not me who invented it. I saw it in some judges’ awards of study tourneys before my “career of a writer”. Those who wish to discover the name of the term’s author can go through papers and then pay him tribute or condemn him for a non-compact term. The main thing is that nowadays all study composers use this term. Foreign colleagues use its verbal translation – small difference. The term different is used only by Eilazyan. That’s all the difference.
Not all! The inventor of a different wrote a scientific article about its four types (material, displacement, tempo, type of a piece), recorded the exact date of his work (2003), and cares about respecting his copyrights with so much vigilance as if a Nobel Prize could be given him for this achievement. He even made a little investigation so as to find out if the term was used anywhere in English literature – he asked John Roycroft … Why not asking the Pope? Perhaps the holy words would direct the scientist onto the right path: “My son, don’t look for the answer where it cannot be found!”
There is no answer in the “Chasing the theme” by Valentin Rudenko. In the part “Logical School” of this book we can read only the grandmaster’s explanations of some typical themes with several mistaken terms. Rudenko mentions only one safeguarding plan – foreplan. His definitions of the Roman and other German themes with defence substitution contain a strange expression: “a foreplan by a black piece”!
“The Dresden theme is a logical combination, in which a refutation of the main plan in the try-play and a foreplan are carried out by the moves of one black piece, and a new defence against the main plan – by the move of another black piece.” (p.36)
How come a meticulous theoretician Eilazyan hasn’t seen such an obvious error in the definition?! In addition, it is related to his term – a different!
The definition of the Dresden given by Rudenko would look like this if presented with letters:
Black piece A – refutation (good defence).
Black piece A – foreplan (?)
Black piece B – new insufficient defence.
By the way, Rudenko forgot two other types of the Dresden: ABB and ABC. The Roman theme is AAA, the Hamburg is ABA.
Now let’s look for a “foreplan of a black piece” and Eilazyan’s different in the next Dresden problem.
B – Nc3 (decoy)
B – Nxb5 (new insufficient defence)
Both “Rudenko’s foreplan” and “Eilazyan’s different” is the move 1 … Nc3. The knight stands in his bishop’s way. This move in English is called a decoy. Friedrich Palitzsch defines the term as “a change in a black piece’s position, forced by White in order to carry out an indirect combination” (1917). A change in a white piece’s position (direct combination) is called a deploy. Translation of these terms into Russian is evident – a displacement of a black piece and a displacement of a white piece. But displacement is only one of the four types of a different (small difference). There are other differents: material, tempo and piece’s type. Does it mean that Eilazyan has analyzed the situation more globally, discovered something new and introduced the necessary new term?
Of course, composers made logical problems with loss or gain of a tempo, with sacrifices of superfluous pieces and substitution of one piece by another. In each case, special names were invented: keeping busy, annihilation and others. But theorists were so pleased with the established division of combinations into direct and indirect ones, that even when Josef Halumbirek introduced the general term core move (defining element of a safeguarding plan) in 1954 in the magazine «Die Schwalbe», it was seen only in two perspectives: defining element of direct combinations (deploy) and defining element of indirect combinations (decoy). The term core move did not become a different in the full sense of this word because among composers there wasn’t a daredevil who would indicate a core move in problems with zugzwang or annihilated pieces. Until my article “Theory of an impossible move” (2018) was published, where the term core move was translated into Russian as ‘popravka’ (addition, correction changing something). I hope this word will be used in studies instead of a non-compact term small difference and a too abstruse one different. After all, in the theory of the Logical school the names of some terms were corrected from time to time.
Next study with the Dresden (ABB) will puzzle you a little if you try to discern the type of the core move. Is it a displacement, a substitution of a piece or a tempo? What defining element makes the logical combination successful?