Sorry not living up to your expectations. But there are different ways of solving SPG's. I always play them backward since it is easier for me to remember that way where I am going. Strange enough some SPGs are easier to find forward and others easier to find backward. It's not a symmetrical exercise!
A proof game
Sort:
Have you ever composed any SPG Cobra ? When one reads you one imagines they must be extraordinary, I'd like to see one...
I had an idea for correcting the Donati SPG. Possibly you already had this one as the rook tour is only 9 moves and you wanted 10. And of course, it needs rigorous testing.
The point is that I see no great harm in moving up the black a-pawn, but possibly this idea was already cooked in your trajectory.
On the other hand, if it is correct, there is still some scope for moving up to 10.
TY Ariskotle, but I already had this exact PG (well not with Ke2) and you're right, I don't care about a 9 moves circuit, I just want 10. So I did not think too much about whetther it's correct or not.
JoachimJo wrote:
Have you ever composed any SPG Cobra ? When one reads you one imagines they must be extraordinary, I'd like to see one...
That depends on your definition of a valid SPG composition. If you want to go by the most uselessly strict definition possible (that no transpositions whatsoever are allowed, as was the case in your most recent SPG), then no, I haven't composed any. This is because, being a solver first and foremost when it comes to SPGs, I really don't see the point, quite frankly. Solvers don't care at all whether minor transpositions are possible in an SPG; they care about the solution's entertainment value, difficulty, and soundness. So unless you're a seasoned professional, you can't score high marks with solvers while also staying within the confines of the most restrictive imaginable criteria.
That's why I prefer less restrictive composition criteria, such as requiring only that the move set be unique, and not necessarily the move order. I've composed a few under this condition. Below is one which I'd personally consider more interesting than your 16-mover, simply because all moves and captures can't be immediately tallied up.
not well
cobra91 wrote:
Solvers don't care at all whether minor transpositions are possible in an SPG;
I strongly doubt that is true. Much of the challenge and entertainment is provided by finding the unique solutions just as it is in solving endgame studies and checkmate problems. Your attitude is that of a game player who doesn't care how he wins, only if. Which is a bit surprising, given your obvious talents for both solving and composing.
I'm not surprised by your answer Cobra91 because, with all my respect, it seemed you did not know how difficult it is to create a dual free SPG. But of course I strongly disagree. Sam Lloyd used to compose PG with duals but since the XIXth century SPG has evolved especially in the 80's thanks to Michel Caillaud. There has to be only one answer to a problem in every composition genre there is no reason why it should be different in SPG. Especially since we now know it's possible to create amazing dual free SPG. Accepting duals just spoil the fun... and the difficult for the composer. If you want to try and see by yourself how uneasy (but fun !) it is to compose a dual free SPG, I created a composition exercise (back in 2005) Find the only dual free SPG at home with all the 16 pawns. An at home SPG means all the pieces and pawns on the diagram must be on their initials squares. (Knights and rooks can be exchanged). So another way to formulate the challenge is : starting from the initial position, remove pieces (no pawn) to create a dual free SPG. You might see it's not so easy...
Arisktotle wrote:
cobra91 wrote:
Solvers don't care at all whether minor transpositions are possible in an SPG;
I strongly doubt that is true. Much of the challenge and entertainment is provided by finding the unique solutions just as it is in solving endgame studies and checkmate problems. Your attitude is that of a game player who doesn't care how he wins, only if. Which is a bit surprising, given your obvious talents for both solving and composing.
I just think the stringency of the regulations being enforced should vary with the genre of composition. More importantly, such restrictions should not be intended to filter out longer and harder problems in favor of shorter and easier ones. There is much more that can be done, from a creative perspective, when only the entire move set must be unique (and not the exact move order as well). To simply say, "Any SPG whose solution leaves even the slightest room for minor move-order differences is automatically null and void, and can safely be discarded as trash", is effectively the same as, "If you don't make a living doing this, then get lost."
Any amateur attempt to adhere to your SPG standards is doomed to a fate of merely being cute/amusing, with no hope of being taken seriously by experienced solvers. That's why I'm not comfortable with the "no transpositions" rule - it's intended for the pros, not for mere mortals.
How does the above SPG compare with the one in post #46? Which is easier to solve? Which was likely easier to compose? Which is the better puzzle? 
@cobra91
Both problems are dualistic so no one is considered as a "real" SPG. In the second one it seems you tried to create a dual free SPG but it doesn't work.
JoachimJo wrote:
I'm not surprised by your answer Cobra91 because, with all my respect, it seemed you did not know how difficult it is to create a dual free SPG. But of course I strongly disagree. Sam Lloyd used to compose PG with duals but since the SIXth century SPG has evolved especially in the 80's thanks to Michel Caillaud. There has to be only one answer to a problem in every composition genre there is no reason why it should be different in SPG. Especially since we now know it's possible to create amazing dual free SPG. Accepting duals just spoil the fun... and the difficult for the composer. If you want to try and see by yourself how uneasy (but fun !) it is to compose a dual free SPG, I created a composition exercise (back in 2005) Find the only dual free SPG at home with all the 16 pawns. An at home SPG means all the pieces and pawns on the diagram must be on their initials squares. (Knights and room can be exchanged). So another way to formulate the challenge is : starting from the initial position, remove piece (no pawn) to create a dual free SPG. You might see it's not so easy...
It's basically just a question of solvers' content vs. composers' content - I care much more about the former (composing puzzles), while you obviously care only about the latter (composing for its own sake). In other words, we have different tastes when it comes to SPGs.
However, please don't try to be condescending. It looks really bad, given the previous events of this thread. Despite your condescension (which I don't like), I have taken a quick shot at your composition exercise, and believe the following position works:
Sorry if I appeared condescending, it just really seemed to me that you did not know how difficult it was to compose a dual free SPG. It's just a lack of experience,not a lack of talent or intelligence or whatever, I did not mean it as an insult.
Your at home try is multi cooked :
Sigh... if I'd taken 5 minutes instead of 2, that wouldn't have happened. Not that I particularly care, as it's not a "real" SPG even without the knights (which removes the dual). Just a lame joke.
Hmm actually without the knights, in 9 moves, it could have been a very good SPG with two distincts solutions (which is rare but autorized).
The 1st one being the obvious one and the second one being the beautiful :
1. Nf3 a5 2. Ne5 Ra6 3. Nc4 Rh6 4. Nxa5 Nc6 5. Nxc6 Rxh2 6. Na7 Rxh1 7. Nxc8
Rxf1+ 8. Kxf1 Qxc8 9. Kg1 Kd8
Unfortunatly there is a dual in the second one as the N can go to a5 via d4 and b3...
So it's worthless, but there might be an idea.
cobra91 wrote:
I just think the stringency of the regulations being enforced should vary with the genre of composition. ..... There is much more that can be done, from a creative perspective, when only the entire move set must be unique (and not the exact move order as well). To simply say, "Any SPG whose solution leaves even the slightest room for minor move-order differences is automatically null and void, and can safely be discarded as trash", is effectively the same as, "If you don't make a living doing this, then get lost." ....
Your wish has already been fulfilled. In the purely retro-analytical genre it is quite acceptable to have non-unique phases besides unique phases. For instance one of your earlier sets of problems (with varying rook and pawn positions) is quite allright in that respect.
The approach the composing world has in general to your issues is the development of new genres where solutions remain unique but which do provide extra space for new ideas. Like I mentioned the Reflex-retro. Did you know that the (1- or 2-) Reflex-retro makes it much easier to demonstrate spectacular ideas than the traditional types (both SPG and pure Retro-Analysis)?
The disapproval of duals is part of the Problem/Solution metaconcepts and has nothing to do with chess. When somebody confronts you with a problem with matchsticks and building a structure with them and you find the solution after an hour, you will be disappointed to hear "Not bad, Cobra, but did you know there are 12 different solutions to this problem and you just found the most boring one?". This is not what humans expect when challenged with a problem. It's part of the archetype; we all want to find the solution and not just a solution. Which means that our composers do have the solver in mind, much to their own frustration at times.
As an amateur solver, I do like unique solutions (unless the duals add value, like an allumwandlung SPG). It's not so much to add/reduce the difficulty of the problem so much as to have a sense of tidyness about things, like a mathematician cleaning up a proof. And once you try your hand at making unique PGs you realise how magical it is that we have so many of them today, with all kinds of themes to boot. And once you succeed in making one, well, that feeling is gooood - I've made a couple cute ones, but they can be cute in an interesting way.
I propose the following solution for the challenge in as nonspoilery a form I can: [rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R1BQKBNR b KQkq - 0 6] Am I close?
Wait, nope. Swap colours and take away a half move.
Remellion wrote:
As an amateur solver, I do like unique solutions (unless the duals add value, like an allumwandlung SPG).
I presume that composers and solvers agree with that. "Variations" correspond with "partial solutions". They are not picked by the "leader" to whom the stipulation applies but by his "opponent". The "leader" is held to uniqueness unless the stipulation expressly permits multiple solutions. In "cooperative stipulations" (helpmates, SPGs ...) both sides are nominated in the "leader" role.
Multiple solutions to a problem should never be random but have a thematic or schematic connection (like AUW).
Got it! Very good SPG. Required endless attempts to correct parity.
You're joking, right?
No move count ambiguity (Black's 16 moves can be counted routinely) and no capture ambiguity (16 pieces for White), so... well, it took me 2 attempts. First I tried moving Black's queen to a3, and when that failed, the only other option was for it to go to c3. And the tempo loss was obvious, since bxc3 can't happen until the end, and White's only "useful" 6th move is Rg1 to prepare Rf1 and Rh1.