Well that's the question, and it wasn't me, who did raise it to this importance, but it's one of thematic content, if you get near to 50 moves boundary and have to care for it as for regarding this rule tool.
Have a look:
[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2021.07.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hobacle"]
[Black "Juli"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Annotator "Martan,Peter"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "8/2p1r1P1/P1Pp1K2/b1pP4/1qBp2p1/3P1pPp/3N1P1B/k5BN b - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "215"]
1... Qxd2 2. Kxe7 Qg5+ 3. Kf7 Qf5+ 4. Ke7 Qg6 5. Kf8 Qf6+ 6. Kg8 Bb6 7. Kh7 Qf7
8. Kh8 Qh5+ 9. Kg8 Ba7 10. Kf8 Qf5+ 11. Ke7 Qg6 12. Kf8 Qf6+ 13. Kg8 Bb8 14.
Kh7 Qf7 15. Kh8 Qh5+ 16. Kg8 Kb2 17. Kf8 Qf5+ 18. Ke7 Qg6 19. Kf8 Qf6+ 20. Kg8
Kb1 21. Kh7 Qf7 22. Kh8 Qh5+ 23. Kg8 Kc1 24. Kf8 Qf5+ 25. Ke7 Qg6 26. Kf8 Qf6+
27. Kg8 Kd1 28. Kh7 Qf7 29. Kh8 Qh5+ 30. Kg8 Ke1 31. Kf8 Qf5+ 32. Ke7 Qg6 33.
Kf8 Qf6+ 34. Kg8 Kf1 35. Kh7 Qf7 36. Kh8 Qh5+ 37. Kg8 Kg2 38. Kf8 Qf5+ 39. Ke7
Qg6 40. Kf8 Qf6+ 41. Kg8 Kxh1 42. Kh7 Qf7 43. Kh8 Qh5+ 44. Kg8 Kg2 45. Kf8 Qf5+
46. Ke7 Qg6 47. Kf8 Qf6+ 48. Kg8 Kf1 49. Kh7 Qf7 50. Kh8 Qh5+ 51. Kg8 Ke1 52.
Kf8 Qf5+ 53. Ke7 Qg6 54. Kf8 Qf6+ 55. Kg8 Kd2 56. Kh7 Qf7 57. Kh8 Qh5+ 58. Kg8
Kc3 59. Kf8 Qf5+ 60. Ke7 Qg6 61. Kf8 Qf6+ 62. Kg8 Kb4 63. Kh7 Qf7 64. Kh8 Qh5+
65. Kg8 Ka5 66. Kf8 Qf5+ 67. Ke7 Qg6 68. Kf8 Qf6+ 69. Kg8 Kb6 70. Kh7 Qf7 71.
Kh8 Qh5+ 72. Kg8 Ka7 73. Bb3 (73. Kf8 Qf5+ 74. Ke7 Qg6 75. Kf8 Qf6+ 76. Kg8 Ka8
77. Kh7 Qf7 78. Kh8 Qh5+ 79. Kg8 Ba7 80. Kf8 Qf5+ 81. Ke7 Qg6 82. Kf8 Qf6+ 83.
Kg8 Bb6 {Spliffjiffer} (83... Kb8 $2 84. Kh7 (84. Bb3 Kc8 85. Kh7 Qf7 86. Kh6
Kd8 87. Bd1 Ke7 88. Kg5 Qxg7+ 89. Kf5 c4 90. Bxf3 gxf3 91. g4 cxd3 92. Bf4 Kf7
93. Ke4 Qxg4 94. Kxd3 Qxg1 95. Kc2 Qa1 96. Kd3 Qb1+ 97. Kc4 Qa2+ 98. Kb4 Bc5+
99. Kb5 Qb3+ 100. Ka5 Qb4#) 84... Qf7 85. Kh8 Qh5+ 86. Kg8 Kc8 87. Kf8 Qf5+ 88.
Ke7 Qg6 89. Kf8 (89. g8=Q+ $2 Qxg8 90. Kf6 Kd8 91. Bb3 Ke8 92. Bd1 Qxd5 93. Kg6
Ke7 94. Bc2 Qe5 95. Bb3 Qf6+ 96. Kh5 Qf5+ 97. Kh6 Kf6 98. Bf7 Qg5+ 99. Kh7 Qg7#
) 89... Qf6+ 90. Kg8 (90. Ke8 $2 Qxg7 91. Bb5 Qe5+ 92. Kf8 Kd8 93. Kf7 Qf5+ 94.
Kg7 Ke7 95. Bc4 Qf7+ 96. Kh6 Kf6 97. Bb3 Qg6#) 90... Qf5 91. Kh8 Kd8 {50}) 84.
Kh7 Qf7 85. Kh8 Qh5+ 86. Kg8 Ba5 87. Kf8 Qh6 88. Kf7 Qh7 89. Kf8 Bd2 90. g8=N
Bg5 91. Bb5 Ka7 92. Bc4 Kb6 93. a7 (93. Bb5 {Spliffjiffer} Kxb5 94. a7 Qf5+ 95.
Kg7 Qc8 96. Nf6 Bxf6+ 97. Kxf6 c4 98. dxc4+ Kxc4 99. Kg5 d3 100. Kf4 d2 101.
a8=Q Qxa8 102. Kxg4 d1=Q 103. Kf5 Qxd5+ 104. Kf4 Qe8 105. Kg4 Qg6+ 106. Kxh3
Qgh5#) 93... Kxa7 94. Bb3 Qxd3 95. Ba4 Kb6 96. Kg7 Ka5 97. Bd1 Qxd1 98. Kg6 Qc1
99. Kf5 d3 100. Kxg4 d2 101. Kf5 d1=Q 102. Ke6 Qd4 103. g4 Qxg4+ 104. Kf7 Qf5+
105. Kg7 Qcb1 106. Be5 Qg6+ 107. Kf8 Qb8#) 73... Kxa6 74. Kf8 Qf5+ 75. Ke7 Qg6
76. Kf8 Qf6+ 77. Kg8 Qf5 78. Bc4+ Kb6 79. Kh8 Qh5+ 80. Kg8 Ba7 81. Kf8 Qf5+ 82.
Ke7 Qg6 83. Kf8 Qf6+ 84. Kg8 Qf5 85. Bb3 Kb5 86. Kh8 Qh5+ 87. Kg8 Kb4 88. Bd1
Qxd5+ 89. Kf8 Qf5+ 90. Ke7 Qg6 91. Kf8 Qf6+ 92. Kg8 Bb8 93. Kh7 Qf5+ 94. Kh6
Qf7 95. Bxf3 gxf3 96. g4 Qg8 97. g5 Kc3 98. Bf4 Kxd3 99. Bgh2 Ke2 100. Bhg3 d3
101. g6 c4 102. Bg5 Ba7 103. B3f4 Bxf2 104. Bf6 d2 105. Bxd2 h2 106. Kg5 Qd5+
107. Kh6 h1=Q+ 108. Bh4 Qxh4# 0-1
[/pgn]
Regard: those only finally splitting lines are only to be given at all at the end of the whole main variant, because you won't mangage to keep the mate scoring (with DTM given) in hash and output of engines much further backward then to move numbers of about 70 or 60. Before I did split up in this .pgn, I have many more lines stored at earlier deviations too, I'm just even much less sure about their DTM- endings at all, so I left them away here now.
Even if 106 of Spliffjiffer's and of your main line could be correct too, I'm simply not as sure about it as you seem to be and at least I wouldn't dare to "prove" it without engines's support.
Otto Blathy didn't compose mate in x problems, when it was about his cyclic zugzang ones, as for my personal point of view you do so, even if you don't want to call it such.
Don't get me wrong, dear Hobacle, most part of my objections is simple jealousy. I'm not able to compose pieces like this one, I don't understand, how you do it, I'm happy to understand it at all, even with help of engines and with yours and with that of other posters here.
Thanks a lot for this great one puzzle one more time, thanks for explaining it as for plans and principles verbally in detail, even if I think I had gotten that all in such or other words already on my own, that was why I tried to explain it in my own ones too, strategies, plans and principles yet are always only the one part of chess games and lines, the exact move-by-move-order is the other part and for most of positions it's the much bigger and more difficult part.
What I just wanted to point out is, the on its own great long- lined study is to me somewhat over the top, making it a move- counter too, a kind of distance to mate- problem, which you seem to make it with the burning ambition, to get it just as long as it needs to come closest to 50 moves boundary possible without crossing it.
But you managed to get it work, I don't doubt it (hardly
) anymore being correct as for 50 moves rule, I shouldn't make it a crucial question, if it's 106, 107 or 108 moves to mate long, yet I felt somewhat forced to, by the point of move- counting, that you made a crucial point of the piece with regarding 50 moves rule.My most honest appology, if you felt doubted and criticised as for the great beauty and ingenuity of your study, that wasn't my intention, it's just my over- sophisticated way of seeing chess- lines leading to mate and mate- search of engines as special points of threir own.
Nevermind my solitary dealing with chess and chess problems and distances to mate and choss. But wasn't it you, who brought up those solitary questions to an here ohterwise rather unknown level and extent?
Remember, this isn't a specialised chess problem forum, I'd really like to see one of the many great pieces you brought here in one of the big magazines like Schwalbe or Problemist and or in an chess problem contest.
There you'd get the feedback of an especially educated audience ("P.T.Publikum"
) too and I'm sure the evaluation of one of your pieces in such contests would be a better and for sure more professional one then that of my unwashed verdict. As for my little experience with chess studies, the one and only printed piece, I was undeservedly named as co-worker in a book of Gerhard Josten's "A Study A Piece", that's all. Glarean Magazine had this one and the one and another one with me as engine- supporter, period.I'm really not an approved judge for chess studies at all, maybe we could ask people like Mihai Neghina or Olaf Jenkner, you'll know both of them, both wrote at Talkchess some times too.
But as I said several times already again, evaluation of chess studies is thing of distinct and well known criteria too, yet all in all it's mainly a matter of personal point of view and taste.
I admire your piece(s)' beauty, complexity and singularity very much, they are just a little bit too difficult for me now and then. My fault regards
