No.574 (JV)

jv-july2014No.574 
Julia Vysotska
(Latvia)

JF-LOGO-1

Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (II): May – August

  →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2014(II)

Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com


No.574 by Julia Vysotska – Chameleon-specific Disparate mates with two paralyzed black pieces! (JV)


Definitions:

Disparate: If one side makes a move with a piece of type “x” (black, white, neutral, half-neutral, etc., King included), the other side cannot answer immediately by moving a piece of the same type “x”. (For example: white Qc1, black Ka8,Qa7 – mate in 1 move. After 1.Qc8#, Black is mated because 1…Qb8? is illegal. The mate is possible also with the neutral nQc1 – after 1.nQc8#. Black cannot move the same neutral Queen.) Every Pawn’s promotion is a Pawn’s move, therefore after such promotion (into any possible piece) the other side cannot answer immediately with its Pawn. We can say that after the move of the figure of type “x” any enemy figure of type “x” falls under Half-moving paralysis. This paralysis disappears immediately on the next half-move, if the opponent plays with another piece of type “y”. (This way it is implemented in Popeye. Another implementation of Disparate you can find in WinChloe, but it is based on the different rules. )

Chameleon: On completing a move, a Chameleon (from classical standard type) changes into another piece, in the sequence Q-S-B-R-Q… Promotion may be to a chameleon at any stage in the cycle.


No.574 Julia Vysotska
Latvia

original – 20.07.2014

Solutions: (click to show/hide)

White Ka4 Black Kh8 Be4 Pg7 Pc6 Pc4 Black Chameleon Sf6 Neutral Chameleon Sb7

h#2,5         2 solutions     (1+6+1)
Disparate (Py)
Chameleons: nSb7, bSf6


9 Responses to No.574 (JV)

  1. Seetharamanseetharaman says:

    Lovely echoes with change of axis! I like the changed of function of the B/cS.

  2. Nikola Predrag says:

    Hm, neutral piece which in the solutions plays exactly as a white piece means a fairy element added to prevent the cooks.
    This is very expensive element in the economy and to be justified, it should make the main thematic content.
    Although not very complex, here it is quite thematic.

    In the end, the neutral chameleon Rook must be blocked by a black piece on d7/g2 which would be paralyzed because of the Disparate condition. That might be just not enough for the expensive economy of fairy elements.

    But there is another thematic feature, the anti-dual play by wK. It is uniquely determined because the neutral chameleon Bishop shows his “dark(black) side”.
    Is it anyhow connected with the main content and Disparate?

    The same position has no solution as h#2 because after 1.Bh7(g2) ncSa5(d6)=ncB, bcS is paralyzed. And after 1.bcSd7(g8)=bcB, ncSb7 is paralyzed.
    The additional white move is required by Disparate!

    However, that anti-dual play is achieved in a rather mechanical non-original way, by simple addition of 2 “horrible” bPs.
    These Pawns could be removed and wK place on a proper square.

  3. Nikola Predrag says:

    Yes, but the thematic essence is the paralysis of the blocking piece! bPg2 would not be a thematic blocker as it is bBg2. That’s nice.
    Thematic character of anti-dual play is interesting.

    • JuliaJulia says:

      Thanks, Nikola! You’re absolutely right about the “thematic essence”! A block of the neutral Chameleon is interesting by itself, but here Disparate adds the possibility to paralyse the blocking piece! Two phases of Chameleon piece play in the one move: Chameleon paralyses a piece of the same type being in the phase before its move, and mates changing its phase to the next one after move.
      Also, Chameleon piece can’t make a tempo-move because of change of phase, but Disparate requires additional white move, so together they make the white King to act! 🙂
      Nikola, about the pawns.. I needed a Pc6 to prevent a cook anyway (and I doubt it is horrible to have a pawn in such case), and I’ve added one more, Pc4 for the tempo-moves. But I’m curious if you really have found a better position for the white King without changing the scheme?

  4. Nikola Predrag says:

    Julia,
    “A block of the neutral Chameleon is interesting by itself…”

    When it was shown for the first time in history, it was probably interesting for a moment. But after that first time, such block by itself is not only uninteresting, it’s plagiarized!

    Even the complex manoeuvres like Indian (4-move) are not interesting if they don’t show something new.
    And a neutral condition added only to show such a simple unoriginal element, would not be justified.

    But you’ve made an original presentation of such block in combination with Disparate.
    I don’t have time now to discuss about a thematic significance of the anti-dual play, but think about wKc8.

    • JuliaJulia says:

      Nikola, there’re too few things which are shown just once in the history if we look as you do! Ok, about my phrase, let’s say that a block of a neutral Chameleon is still a feature specific for Chameleon, although not interesting for you anymore 🙂
      I still believe that one and the same feature can be demonstrated in a different way, and the originality I’d determine not by the list of themes used, but looking at the whole play, as even the well-known things can be presented again and again in some original way!
      Haven’t you had a feeling, looking at some problems, that you just like how they are done? I had. Without thinking about the themes and features. Just enjoying the play! Naturally, you can’t tell you don’t need to see a sunrise or the sea one more time as you’ve already seen it! I want to feel chess problems, fairy chess, as something close to the nature.. Author expresses himself in his problems, the problem can create a mood, exercise a mind… well, as an art it can just give a pleasure! Of course, it’s just my subjective view.
      Coming back to just chess themes, do you think your composed problem can’t be original if it shows the theory already written in the article?? In such case only the authors of the new elements can have anything original in their example problems.
      Well, I believe this is an end-less topic to discuss, and everybody will keep his own (original!) view. 🙂

      Coming back to the practical things: your idea about wKc8. I haven’t considered putting wK on any of the mating lines. Yes, no cooks without 2 black pawns, but what happens with the thematic? The 2nd solution is ok, but to allow mate 3… ncBd8=ncR# in the 1st solution, the wK must leave the 8th rank. And can you call such a move as tempo-move?! I understand the tempo-move differently. In my version wKa4 could stay there during all the play, and makes a move only because the white tempo-move is needed by Disparate! In your case in sol.1 wK has another motivation for its move. And there’s a question what is more important: economy or thematic in the both solutions? Myself I prefer the second (of course, I don’t mind ANI-problems, but this is not that case).

      • Nikola Predrag says:

        There are general principles. In a creative work, we can obey them or slightly change/improve them or even completely turn them upside down.
        But we should be aware of the degree and precize character of these changes. There are discussions about details of some arbitrary esthetic principles without noticing that some basic principle was violated.

        The most fundamental principle for the Originals is the originality.
        I simply try to REMIND us all about that PRINCIPLE. And I try to do it by formulating the critical point of the principle, where any reasoning/discussion only begins.
        So it’s not about MY possible conclusions, but about the critical points.

        You can formulate a better and more precise point of distinction of what is original and what is not.
        I said (shortly) that:
        “some already seen element is not original if it does not show something new”

        You said:
        “…even the well-known things can be presented again and again in some original way”

        Yes, that is the point of what I say, and that’s exactly what you have done in your problem. It seems that we agree and that it’s not an “end-less topic to discuss”, after all.

        Remove bB in your original and put bPg3, there will be one solution showing block (and line-opening) 2.g3-g2.
        That would NOT be an original way for presenting the block of a neutral piece. The neutral element would not be added to present an original block, it would be the opposite, the blocking element would be added just as an “excuse” for adding the neutral element. And the main purpose would be avoiding many cooks in case of white cSb7.

        In a position wKf2, wQb6, wSf3, wPh6; bKh1,bRb7 there’s no #1. Adding Circe would enable 1.Qb1#. But this would not justify the presence of Circe if there’s is nothing else original in the content. With WPh7 instead of Ph6, there would be twins showing the change of play and logic:
        #1, a)orthodox 1.Qh6#; b)Circe 1.Qb1#
        In a), the capture of wQ is relevant and a capture of wP is irrelevant. In b) it is reciprocally changed.

        But that’s all well known, justifying Circe would require much more of complexity and novelty.

        Concerning the possibility with wKc8, I certainly agree in principle, about a realization of a thematic idea showing tempo-moves.
        But I think that there’s no thematic idea of tempo-moves in your problem. The duals avoided “non-thematically” by the thematic play, would be more naturally and economically presented. Adding material just to reduce wK’s moves is a very banal and known non-creative technical tool.

        My reasoning requires a lot of explanations, because there are many inconsistent interpretations of the basic principles which should be analyzed and discussed in the first place. Perhaps I’ll write more if I manage to do it considerably clear and short.

        Julia, please don’t get me wrong. Your idea is original and the thematic realization is excellent, with a surprising change of functions between the black pieces of very different nature. I like that content very much. Although the wK’s moves irritate me, they look as a necessary tool.
        Since I don’t consider this as thematic (but annoying), I would put wK on c8. But the idea is too good to make me satisfied with such an artificial and hollow wK’s move. I would try hard to use the extra move for something creative, at least in the construction. A good additional content might require the additional thematic pieces as Mario has convincingly made to round up the fairy content.
        🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.