The Bristol Theme, by Frank Healey, 1861: mate in 3.
It is an interesting fact of sociobiology that all animal species are endowed with a certain degree of aggression and competitiveness. Indeed, how could they survive otherwise? The manner in which these natural tendencies find expression, however, varies considerably from species to species. In short, the unique instinctual , perceptual, and cognitive capacities of each particular type will channel this common drive in various directions.
The human, as a member of the animal kingdom, is fully subject to the situation outlined above. In regard to novel human propensities, amongst others, the allure of patterned, or repeating, shape is especially strong. The precise study of shape and space we call geometry.
Although human games (which, by definition, entail some kind of competition) are virtually infinite in variety, throughout history, those which have involved some type of geometrical reasoning have been among the most popular.
In the eastern part of the world, the quintessential game of geometry is weiqi. In the west, it is chess.
Now, if a particular individual's character is of a competitive type, he or she will play chess. If, on the other hand, the trait of perception is dominant, chess composition will be engaged in.
Chess composition is the art of arranging chess pieces in meaningful patterns on the chessboard such that, given exact play, a definite result is assured.
This art is nearly as old as the game itself. The earliest compositions, circa 1000 AD, were designed to strengthen the solver's practical ability to win games. In this initial stage we see that, in this art form at least, competition was valued over aesthetics. The typical stipulation was something akin to "X to move and checkmate in N-moves." Gradually, however, tremendous refinements have been incorporated into the art of chess composition.
Sometime around 900 AD, Persians and Arabians brought their form of chess to North Africa, Sicily, and Spain; there are compositions that date from this time. The rules of modern chess have been in existence since circa 1500. We have, therefore, approximately, 500 years of chess composition.
Modern chess compositions are divided into orthodox and heterodox groups. The former are so termed in that they conform in rules and rationale (i.e., the reasons for making moves) to standard chess; heterodox compositions, however, in some way differ therefrom.
The orthodox group is further subdivided into studies and problems. There are two essential similarities which hold between this pair: 1) both are concerned with efficiency (i.e., the maximum advantage in the minimum number of moves), and 2) a likeness of setting (i.e., the middle and endgame phases). There are, however, significant differences, also.
Customarily, a chess game is won in the following way: one side obtains a positional advantage, which, eventually, leads on to a material advantage, which, finally, permits mate (or causes the opponent to resign). Technically, the difference between the study and the problem is that the former focuses on obtaining material advantage, whereas the latter is concerned with mating combinations.
This being, apparently, the case, it might be assumed (for example, by the optimistic beginner) that chess mastery is simply a knowledge of openings, studies, and problems. Neatly tied, the head, body, and tail of this tricky creation are all in the bag. Or so it would seem.
As any experienced chess player knows, however, while studies do, indeed, closely resemble (in fact, are often derived from) actual games, problems are most usually set in formations or patterns which, to the player's mind, can only be termed bizarre. Further, the outré character of these formations is not merely skin-deep ~ the tactics which arise from them are just as eccentric!
The difference is this: while the study composer seeks to uncover the hidden relationships of the pieces within the setting of the game, the problemist takes as his province the all possible relationships within the confines of the chessboard.
As any other highly specialized activity, chess composition too has a great number of technical terms. While in its full Minotaurian glory the compositionist's vocabulary is daunting to all but the adept, it is well to remember that each term actually serves the function of conveying precisely detailed information as rapidly as possible. In any case, to begin only a handful of terms are needed.
Solution: the answer to a composition. It is divided into three parts: 1) the key, 2) the defensive moves, which branch off into main play and by-play, and, 3) the final move.
Key: the unique first move of a composition, where from the arranged combination flows. By strictest convention, all orthodox problems are permitted to have but one key ~ if the composition can be solved by any other initial move the work is deemed unsound, or cooked (this term most likely derives from the name of the celebrated American composer Eugene B. Cook, who was expert in dismissing such would-be compositions).
Keys, further, may be of two types. The first is the threat-key: here the danger is immediate - on the next move mate or insufferable material loss looms, so an appropriate defensive move must follow. The second type is the waiting or block key. When the opposition is in a zugzwang (i.e., any move on his part will weaken his position) only a minor, though exactly calculated, adjustment may be necessary to effect his downfall. If, however, the opponent has a decisive attack prepared, or you need a platform from which to launch your own, a block key is required.
So far, then, we see the composition opens with the key, where after follow defensive moves (other replies of a nonsensical nature are termed non-defensive moves). The last move of a study is simply the final capture, whereas in a problem it is the mating move.
Main play: when, after the key, the best defenses are made until conclusion.
By-play: when, after the key, less than optimal resources are used (i.e., non-defensive or nonsensical).
Dual: more or less restricted to problems, when by-play results in alternate forms of mate; the opposite is a non-dual solution, meaning all lines terminate in a single form of mate.
Since the late 1800's there has been a great deal of discussion regarding the acceptability of duals. Most contemporary composers feel duals in by-play are acceptable; when the main play, however, which is connected with the theme (see next entry) is split into divergent, unrelated mates as a result of by-play, it is called a serious dual and is unacceptable.
Theme: the central idea(s) displayed in the composition. Optimally, the composer will blend several tactical shots into a unified strategy (i.e., short-term steps all leading to the long-term goal). Today, the number of themes are legion, and some are highly specialized. Simple, well-worked themes include such ideas as pinning-unpinning, and opening and closing lines of attack and/or defense.
Size classification: according to the total number of pieces employed compositions are described as follows: seven or less a miniature, eight to twelve a Meredith (after the American composer), thirteen to eighteen light, and nineteen or more a heavy problem.
Robert T. Tuohey
jadedragon61@hotmail.com
http://jadedragon.250x.com/welcome.htm