04-02-2013, 11:53 AM
Basically, this is an example of retrograde analysis. Usually in chess problems, the composer strives to restrict choice. If the WB were on e3, then W would have had a choice of three captures on his last turn. That would normally be regarded as a constructional flaw. So, to conform with the stipulation, I'd say the WB must be on e4.
BUT, that seems rather pointless. Surely, it would be more convincing if the WB were to find itself on e6? There would then be a correlation (symmetry) between e3 and e6 - incidentally reflecting the struggle/campaign conducted on W/B squares. More to the point, with a WB on e6, the BK would be stalemated. That seems more aesthetic and therefore fitting.
So, my question is: did Keith make a typo? Did he mean e6 rather than e4? Bit of a giveaway, though, to actually specify e6 and e3.
BUT, that seems rather pointless. Surely, it would be more convincing if the WB were to find itself on e6? There would then be a correlation (symmetry) between e3 and e6 - incidentally reflecting the struggle/campaign conducted on W/B squares. More to the point, with a WB on e6, the BK would be stalemated. That seems more aesthetic and therefore fitting.
So, my question is: did Keith make a typo? Did he mean e6 rather than e4? Bit of a giveaway, though, to actually specify e6 and e3.