Hapless theoretician-2

Russian page

Part 2. Refuter of misunderstood theories

Impossible (key) move, obstacle, motivation.

Terms are needed in order to explain ideas and principles of the Logical School. They are invented by people. Each person has his own vision, his approach, so misunderstandings are inevitable. There will always be some composers who attach to the term a different meaning, half of its meaning or, on the contrary, more than it has. Let’s take a small difference, for example. Some study composers understand it simple – logic is pure if there is only one difference in the positions of the logical try and the solution, and if there are two differences or more, then it’s not a pure logic. Don’t be so naive! The purity of aim is not determined by a single difference, but by a single eliminating effect/action of a difference on the obstacle, so the positions have to be compared at the time when this effect is noticeable.

There are two differences in the finale comparing to the logical try: the black queen is shifted to a7 and the white queen has disappeared. The absence of the white queen does not help to mate Black in two. The only relevant change is that the black queen no longer controls square c7. It may seem that it was also decoyed to a7 in order to block a7-square (additional eliminating effect), but in the logical try the king could not go on a7, the only obstacle was the queen’s control of c7. So, the purity of aim is respected.

A theoretician’s natural desire is to give a name to the position arising at a time when we test the effect of the core move on the obstacle. Problemists didn’t do it (at least I haven’t found such a term in their theory). Eilazyan called it a key position. It is a good term – we find the key, clue. When I decided to name the move in the key position because it shows the presence or absence of an obstacle (in the above problem it’s the move Qxc7), I had to choose between key move and impossible move (since it is not possible either in the logical try or in the solution). The fact that in problems the term key move already exists and means the first move of the solution, the choice was made in favour of the impossible one.

Understanding the term impossible move turned out to be mission impossible for Eilazyan. He couldn’t find it in the next study.

The move of b-pawn is possible in the solution and it is impossible in the logical try because there is no pawn. White wins if the move is available, but without the move it’s only a draw. So, the move harms Black. Is it too hard to see?

I suspect that Eilazyan’s moon-blindness has something to do with his vague understanding of the terms obstacle and motivation. So I’d better cite here the definitions known to every German composer who is interested in the Logical school.

“An obstacle is a circumstance acting as a basis for the success of the adversary in the logical try or verifying play. It is provided by the existence or absence of the mass or power of a piece.”
(H.Grasemann, H-P.Rehm, S.Eisert «A Cleric’s idea which made History» 2014 p.106; S.Eisert, H-P Rehm «Plans, Lines of Play and Moves» Die Schwalbe 1977)

“The safeguarding plan is thus the elimination or introduction of the mass (physical presence) or the power of a piece, in short: the elimination of the obstacle.” (same source)

It is not difficult to guess that the mass of a piece hinders the opponent’s plans by its physical presence or absence, and the power of a piece is perceptible through its movement, control of squares, or attack on enemy pieces. Safeguarding plan introduces a core move with its weakening or strengthening action/effect (i.e., with a tactical idea) aimed at eliminating an obstacle. The need of this weakening or strengthening action/effect (again, a tactical idea) is called motivation. That is, the motivation is a tactical idea whose introduction in the solution is justified.

So, Eilazyan is wrong that the motivation and tactical idea are “different concepts”. He may have noticed that when explaining motivations he often had to mention some tactical ideas (a line became clear, a piece doesn’t block the square any longer, etc.), but their diversity seemed too big to him, he saw no way to classify them. For example, what to do with such motivations as “stalemate” (in the previous study), or “driving the king away from the winning zone” (next study)? If the theorist were a little smarter, he would have realized that a stalemate is a consequence of the tactical idea of switching a piece off. Motivation is switching off, not a stalemate (although people say so to simplify things). The “winning zone” in the study by Vlasenko is not a motivation. It is in the reason of the absence of the move into this zone – a decoy away of the black king. Don’t you know how to write such an impossible move? Do it like this: K(a8-a4-d4-d5-e5-e8-a8). It is available in the logical try and impossible in the solution.

Remember that an impossible move can be made only in one of the key positions. If you can make it in both of them, then they are not key positions.