No.607 (PH)

Peter Harris
(South Africa)


Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (III): September – December

→Previous→Next ; →List 2014(III)

Please send your original fairy problems to:

No.607 by Peter Harris – “Difficulty overshadows Surprise”(P.H.). Enjoy solving and author’s comment! (JV)


Transmuted Kings: When they are threatened, the Kings move only like the threatening unit(s).

Anti-Super-Circe: After a capture, the side making the capture can place the capturing unit on any empty square. [Placement is compulsory]. A Pawn placed on its first rank is immovable.

Isardam: Any move, including capture of the King, is Isardam illegal if a Madrasi-type paralysis would result from it.

Madrasi: Units, other than Kings, are paralysed when they attack each other. Paralysed units cannot move, capture or give check, their only power being that of causing paralysis.

No.607 Peter Harris
South Africa

original – 25.09.2014

Hint by author: (click to show/hide)

white kf2 rh5h6 bh7 black ka8 rh8 pg6

h#3                                            (4+3)
Transmuted Kings

Solution: (click to show/hide)

18 Responses to No.607 (PH)

  1. Nikola Predrag says:

    Hm…, well, the author’s comment touches the essential question:
    What is the Chess composition?
    I’ll try to explain my view and in the end, there is a serious proposal.
    It seems necessary to start with exaggerating the differences between the two main concepts and then to find a way for keeping them both under the same roof of Chess composition.

    A chess PUZZLE asks from a solver to find a mate. A solver must imagine a potential final mate-position and examine whether there’s some legal play which leads to it. When a right mate-position is imagined and a way how the pieces will reach their final squares is found, the PUZZLE is solved.

    A chess PROBLEM will show more than the elements of a puzzle, it will add a new DIMENSION to a puzzle. A content/idea of a chess PROBLEM creates that additional dimension. That’s what is not understood by many people who believe that they “compose problems”.
    And an ORIGINAL will (quite surprisingly) present an original idea.

    The concept of an ADDITIONAL DIMENSION is so simple here that it’s hard to explain it. For those who are too lazy to think themselves, I’ll try to illustrate the concept.

    There are two PUZZLES, each one’s solution contains various elements.
    Some elements of one PUZZLE are clearly related to some elements of the other PUZZLE.
    Thus, there is a clear (original and desirably complex) RELATION between these two PUZZLES.
    This RELATION simply does not exist within a single PUZZLE (one or another).
    This RELATION can exist only if a new dimension is added, so the idea/content of a chess PROBLEM will create such a new dimension by unifying the two or more PUZZLES into a single PROBLEM.

    The unification will be achieved through several variations/phases, or through a single (longer) line compound of several parts, mutually clearly related.

    So a chess PROBLEM requires AT LEAST TWO chess PUZZLES . The composing starts with creating the clear ABSTRACT RELATION between these two PUZZLES. The realization of that ABSTRACT IDEA on the chessboard requires a creation of MECHANISM which will unify the two PUZZLES into one PROBLEM.
    Again, the ORIGINAL IDEA of a chess PROBLEM is an ORIGINAL relation BETWEEN the PUZZLES, not existing in a single puzzle.

    Even the trivial chess puzzles could be unified by some trivial relation into a decent chess problem.
    Simple echo mates might make a chess problem, however, something must be original to make an ORIGINAL.
    But even a very complex and surprising single chess puzzle doesn’t make a chess problem, in principle.

    Playing with the pieces and fairy conditions is certainly entertaining.
    Creating an idea for a chess problem could sometimes be rather “painful” but the “birth” of problem brings a profound satisfaction, because that means a “birth” of new dimension.

    That was generally about the differences between a PUZZLE and a PROBLEM.
    But it is far from being easy to decide: “that’s a puzzle” and “that’s a “problem”.
    Very likely, the mentioned “clear relation in an additional dimension” might be variously interpreted and argued about.
    And as crucially important, the very origin of Chess composition must not be forgotten, it started with a search for and a creation of surprising and paradoxical elements to compose a puzzle.

    The so called “artistic criteria” for chess PROBLEMS have been very developed in many subtle details but the “logic criteria” for chess PUZZLES have remained rather unclear and I wonder whether there was any significant development after the Loyd’s time.
    The PROBLEMS have overshadowed the PUZZLES in the judges’ eyes. No wonder, it’s hard to formulate some clearly consistent criteria for “surprising”, “paradoxical”, “difficult” etc..

    I believe we have a duty to respect the origin of chess composition. The wonders of original puzzles should be recognized and revitalized in chess composition.
    If a judge doesn’t find a convincingly clear “additional dimension” which would make a PROBLEM, he still might find a convincingly clear and complex content of a PUZZLE. And a good PUZZLE could be much more exciting and original than many PROBLEMS which just “recycle” the old ideas.

    An award could and should have a “special prize for a puzzle” or shorter “Puzzle-prize”.
    If some basic puzzle-criteria could be clarified, a “Puzzle section” should be added to WCCI, WCCT and Fide Album!

  2. Peter Harris says:

    Grandmasters of Composition compose and Grandmasters of Judging award prizes to, problems having only one solution – one solution with no variations, no tries, no set play and no anything else. Magazines are awash with such problems. The problems can be anything from 5 to 100 or more moves long. They include #, H#, S#, HS# and Ser-#.

  3. Kjell Widlert says:

    Thank you, Peter and Nikola!

    Not that I agree in every respect, but there are way too few people discussing artistic values in chess compositions, so I am happy you are there.

    I agree it is meaningful to distinguish between chess problems and puzzles. The point of a puzzle is finding the needle in the haystack = the line that happens to work, but one that does not otherwise stand out from all the possible tries. In contrast, a chess problem has some idea, a clear point that makes us remember the problem (more than the Sudoku puzzle we just solved). The most common method to make the idea stand out is to repeat it in different forms at different stages in the solution, but there’s more than one way to skin a cat (with apologies to all you cats out there – I didn’t invent the expression), meaning there are many ways to show a basic idea convincingly. I think that for example Loveday’s Indian, Loyd’s Steinitz gambit (the #3 with key Kf1-e2 allowing f2-f1Q with double check, but still allowing mate on move 3), and Paros´s single-line h#3 with the white tempo move Qh8-a1, are all chess problems as opposed to puzzles. As are countless other compositions with the idea occurring only once. It is impossible to give a formal definition of those ideas that raise a composition to the level of a chess problem, because this is an art, but usually I feel when a composition to me is more than a puzzle.

    I also think this 607 is a chess problem, because it shows a clear idea – as described by the composer! Being the current judge, I will not say more about the problem now.

    As you probably realize from the above, I don’t think it is a good idea to introduce separate sections in WCCT etc for puzzles, at least not for puzzles according to my understanding of the term.

  4. Nikola Predrag says:

    My post was long and no wonder that some point in it could be missed by a reader.
    First, I tried to give a kind of description/illustration and by no means a strict definition. I also wrote that the EXAGGERATION of the differences between the PUZZLES and PROBLEMS was necessary for having at least one referential point in the discussion.

    I think that the question of puzzles/problems is a pretty good referential point for a serious discussion, at least to start it. Where could it lead, depends on the participants and quality of discussion.

    Establishing a separate section of Chess composition for the Puzzles would certainly require a clearly convincing basis for the criteria. Without that, my proposal is indeed quite a nonsense.
    A bit more realistic proposal is to try it occasionally in some “less official” tourneys and see whether some rough shapes of criteria could occur.

    I’ve heard quite enough times, that some composition is interesting for solving but without a recognizable “thematic” value. This uses to be an explanation for dropping a composition from the award or giving a special commendation. And it could hardly reach Fide Album or earn any decent points in WCCI.

    I am rather irritated by the concept of judging based on personal “liking”. In the first place, the impression of beauty is completely arbitrary and personal, it serves mostly as an excuse for having no criteria at all.
    Anyone could act as a “serious judge” on the ground of personal impression of beauty. It might look very convenient to have as many “serious judges” as there are willing enthusiasts.
    But unfortunately, that is not serious and only downgrades the Chess composition. There are simply not many serious judges.
    The most obvious reason is that we recognize the beauty most quickly and easily in the most familiar features. The ORIGINAL beauty will very likely remain unnoticed. Once when a new beauty is widely recognized, it becomes a trend. The “popular” judges begin to like it only when it is NOT original any more.
    Judging by the “beauty” will most likely praise the kitsch and miss the original and deep beauty.
    It’s a bit like choosing a lifelong partner just on the basis of some beauty contest, without any deeper impressions.

    What makes a PUZZLE and what a PROBLEM is a matter for serious discussion.
    What was probably overlooked in my previous post is:
    “The unification will be achieved through several variations/phases, or through a single (longer) line compound of several parts, mutually clearly related.”
    This means that one variation can make a problem if there are two clearly related puzzles combined into a single sequence of moves. What might make a “clear relation”, is certainly a matter for discussion.

    Loveday’s Indian, mentioned by Kjell, was quite a problem in its time. There was an original and complex idea compound of two main puzzles – how to give the flight(s) to avoid a stalemate and how to regain a control of the flight(s) in a precise moment, without giving Black too much freedom. And there’s a clear relation between these two puzzles.
    Later Indian manoeuvres were expected to show some original additional feature or at least a more economical mechanism. After many Indians, it has become expected to see two reciprocal variations.

    Loyd’s Steinitz gambit relies on a paradox, which is compound of two or more puzzles as the very essence of a paradox, in principle. It is not A problem but THE problem. The sound realization of that idea has required an ingenious construction, compound of many little puzzles. I will not analyze it now. I can’t recall exactly the Paros’s problem now but I remember it as a kind of miracle.

    So, there are many possible interpretations of the “additional dimension” which makes a problem.
    I just tried to offer and illustrate a basic hypothetical point of distinction.

    I have commented No.602. Each twin alone makes a problem.
    In a), the white play is one puzzle and the black play is the other. There’s a perfectly clear and rich relation between these puzzles.
    In b), such relation between the white and black play is reduced to the same effect of occurrence of the checking Pawns (wPe2 and bPd3), combined with the opposite Isardam effect – bK can parry the check by capturing wPe2 while wK can’t capture bPd3. 5.Kc2xd3(+wPc2) would not result with the attack by bPc4, due to wPc2 but with the attack by bK. 5.K~(+wPc2) is illegal due to the Isardam-pin. All other bPs, except bPd3, fake a completely superfluous flightguard.

    Function of bPc4 is perhaps the most surprising element of a puzzle but not an element of a problem.
    (This should be taken more as an illustrative hypothetical distinction between the elements of a puzzle or of a problem and certainly not as my definite opinion.)

    Still, the whole content of b) makes a problem.
    However, the unification of a) and b) creates no convincing relation 🙂

    The apparent benefit of hs# genre is a potential creation of a problem in each single solution, if the white and black play are clearly related.

    I don’t see No.607 as a problem. The only news is one tactical effect, doubling-up the bRs, and it’s a very direct result of the rules. The novelty is actually mostly in the combination of fairy conditions.
    The new effects are always interesting but the true challenge is “what an original and complex idea can be created with these effects”.
    The original idea here is equal to the single original effect, directly required for probably most of the possible mates in case of this particular combination of conditions. It would be really surprising if the mate was achieved in some other, more hidden way, if there is another way at all.
    And the fully combined effect of all these conditions is present only in the mate.

    A rather expensive composition!
    And this points at another distinction, the essence of a puzzle is in the powerful effects at all costs.
    The essence of a problem is in a highly efficient economical mechanism, including the used fairy elements.

  5. Peter Harris says:

    The implications and consequences of what I said in my previous post must be faced – not ignored.
    It is not a matter of problems and puzzles.
    Quite simply: there are two types of problems: one type has one solution.

  6. Nikola Predrag says:

    Yes, there are chess problems with one solution.
    And a solution of chess problem reveals the work of a thematic mechanism.
    Thematic mechanism is compound of the relations among thematic pieces (technical pieces are irrelevant for the idea).

    An original idea requires an original mechanism compound of the original relations among the pieces.

    The merely Isardam effect is well known, wR and bR on the same line and some piece in between can’t be captured by one of these Rooks.
    SuperAntiCirce effects allow such a capture, therefore the doubling-up of the bRs is required.

    The thematic mechanism is built up only when all the play is over. So, the chess PUZZLE here is how to build the thematic mechanism and the chess PROBLEM is actually zero moves long.
    Does it sound absurd?

    I’ll try another way to illustrate the concept of a chess problem as “at least two clearly related puzzles”.

    Chess problems are compound of little chess puzzles. To see what makes the original chess problem, we must perceive and abstract the thematic effects of thematic mechanism from the whole play.

    There’s no thematic mechanism on the diagram of No.607. Pieces are simply on the “wrong” squares and there’s a puzzle, how to move them to the proper squares where they will BEGIN to function as one mechanism. That is the moment when the chess problem actually begins.
    I see nothing of a thematic mechanism before the very end.
    There is something of the puzzle-mechanism but showing nothing original, it only determines the order of moves due to the entirely orthodox opening/closing of lines.

    What I am talking about? Do I consider each problem as a puzzle for building up a thematic mechanism to become a problem only in the end?
    Certainly not!
    A problem begins when the thematic mechanism starts working. Can the building-up of an original thematic mechanism be considered as an intrinsic part of an original idea?

    Yes! A convincing chess problem will justify the apparently “wrong” position of the thematic pieces. That is why a chess problem needs two or more clearly related parts. The same pieces will function in one way in one part and in the other way in the other part!

    Such bi-functionality makes the efficiency of a mechanism. The relations among the pieces change and even if a single building-up of the final original mechanism is not original by itself, the changed functions might justify the initial, apparently “wrong” position of the pieces. These positions are justified by the need of bi-functional pieces in the mechanism!

    Anyone may seriously think about it. Of course, it takes a bit of passion to initiate such a heavy “work”.

    If anything could be considered as the art in the Chess composition, it is the creation/invention of original “tools for the expression”. To “express” some indeed original detail, we need a powerful tool which will present it convincingly – directly, clearly and purely pointing to that original detail.

    Such tool in chess composition is a particular complex set of relations among the pieces on the board. And the art of chess composition is the invention and creation of a most powerful tool, THE MECHANISM. A perfect mechanism will be compound of equally functional parts and an optimal efficiency means an optimal economy, at least in principle.
    The efficiency of a mechanism includes the ECONOMY of TIME, meaning the optimal length of a problem.
    Also, the optimal genre is required.
    A perfect mechanism is not always achievable.
    Particularly, the paradoxical or bizarre ideas will often be presented through a very unbalanced non-economical mechanism. But a full understanding of the logic complexity and depth of such an idea will reveal the main basic thematic points of power in the mechanism. And the art of composing that problem will be clear.

    There are many features that make a quality of a mechanism. This quality greatly makes the quality of a chess problem.
    A “beauty” of a chess problem is an important criterion. But, this means the beauty of original content if we speak about an Original. And the “visual” beauty belongs to the visual arts.
    Beauty is not rational, it comes out of an extremely delicate balance of various elements. Beauty is created by the specific personal abilities of perception, it only indirectly depends on the features of real object.
    A balance of the idea and the mechanism could be perceived as beautiful, even in the simplest problems.
    The question is “who’s perception is delicate enough to make him a serious judge?”
    If someone can’t hear a difference between the sound of an orchestra and the sound of a vacuum cleaner, is his perception delicate enough for a serious musical critique?

    Should a serious judge be able to perceive and fully comprehend the delicate features of chess composition?
    Or, is recognizing the difference between several frequencies in the sound of a vacuum cleaner quite enough?
    The latter is very convenient for popularization of chess composition and a pretty sure way to downgrade it.
    A delicate perception enables a creation of true masterpiece, occasionally.
    A poor perception may proclaim many “masterpieces” pretty often, so this surely must be a better way.

    Despite the obvious benefits of a poor perception, I’m foolish enough to try improving my own perception. Perhaps I’m too passionate about all wonders of the Chess composition.
    And it’s probably foolish even to read my speculations, not to speak about trying to improve yourself.

  7. shankar ram says:

    Nikola .. a very stimulating and thought provoking discussion.
    Judging the “puzzle ” nature or solving difficulty of a composition is usually hard for those who don’t bother to actually solve the position.
    In feenschach, the solvers grade a problem by its content (1.0, 2.0..) and also by its difficulty (I, II, III..). Perhaps this would help the judges to appreciate both aspects.
    Of course, what you seem to be suggesting is more than this.

  8. Peter Harris says:

    Given say twenty single solution ser-h#15 or h=8 or hs#10 problems to examine it is just plain absurd to try to divide them into problems and puzzles. The categorization would be altogether arbitrary.

    It is not only absurd it is without any purpose.

    What could be done is to judge the problems. I guess some people would call the lower ranked ones puzzles. But all of them would be problems – some good, some bad.

    [Incidentally many readers are very familiar with the various criteria used to judge problems].

    But beauty is supreme and the goal.

    And beauty cannot be measured using lists of criteria.

    Some composers strive to create beautiful compositions – and succeed – despite disregarding criteria as laid down by certain critics.

  9. Nikola Predrag says:

    My speculations present some PROVISIONAL and certainly TRANSIENT concepts. The purpose is to provoke some thinking. These concepts, and certainly the wording, serve only as an illustrative net of hypothetical relations among some features in chess composition.
    I will surely search for much deeper and clearer concepts to sharpen and widen my own perception.

    It’s quite interesting how the word puzzle is automatically taken as a mark of low value.
    I would be very proud about getting a prize for an excellent chess puzzle!
    The word problem includes the meaning of a puzzle.
    I sincerely thought it was obvious that my use of these two words is an artificial wording to mark the difference between the two features of chess composition.

    I see that difference, and I tried to describe and illustrate what I see. The illustration was probably not very clear, however, my intention is not to explain perfectly my own view but to provoke the others to think seriously about their view.
    Actually, if I would be able to explain my view clearly, that would be less provoking to the others.

    “…Given say twenty single solution ser-h#15 or h=8 or hs#10 problems to examine it is just plain absurd to try to divide them into problems and puzzles. The categorization would be altogether arbitrary.It is not only absurd it is without any purpose…etc.”

    Usually, I don’t need any analysis to see how good, beautiful and original is a problem. For many problems everything is pretty obvious immediately.
    Sometimes I’m wrong, because I didn’t know the idea was anticipated.
    Sometimes I’m in a hurry and I miss some valuable features.
    But the really complex problems I do analyze carefully even when the content appears as clear! There still might be some hidden beautiful detail, particularly in the way of construction.
    And I don’t want to miss the beauty!

    I mentioned in the previous post that beauty is important. The beauty must be original in the original problems. Copying the beauty created by someone else is at least the Kitsch, or the plagiarism if I try to claim my authorship.
    (It’s a disgusting habit in popular “art” to copy and paste the beautiful features created long ago and to claim the authorship. But my stomach is my trouble.)

    Dear Mr.Harris, I’ve seen your beautiful compositions, both the great problems and puzzles (in the most distinguished meaning of the word).
    And some of the recently published are impressive.
    Therefore, I can’t guess why you have chosen this particular problem for claiming what “should play a significant role in a judgement”.

    I frankly don’t find No.607 worth much attention.
    One spark of beauty in the end is hardly sufficient for me to see the whole composition as beautiful, if “the beauty is supreme and the goal”.
    The waste of time and conditions during the introductory moves only diminishes that one spark of beauty.

    Yes, the beauty will be a serious criterion for a serious judge. But a serious judge will be able to perceive the fascinating and complex beauty of the excellent problems, and the lonely spark of one detail in some problem might get lost.

    Of course, if one of “many readers” who are “Incidentally very familiar with the various criteria used to judge problems” would act as a judge, various outcomes are possible.
    Why to bother about understanding the complex problems and “disregarding criteria as laid down by certain critics”?

    If someone is not curious about perceiving and understanding the richness of chess composition, why would he even think about the judging?
    Only to feel the power of ruling without a hard and passionate work?

  10. shankar ram says:

    >> “If someone is not curious about perceiving and understanding the richness of chess composition, why would he even think about the judging?”

    Life is short.. If one waited to perceive and understand things one wanted to try his/her hand at.. to a reasonable degree.. we may never try it at all.. something like “perfection paralysis”..

    Coming to the judging of chess problem tourneys, formal or informal.. there seems to be too many tourneys and too few judges.. Editors have to make do with whom they can get.. One editor took the option of appointing judges from among his solvers.. So, obviously some compositions are bound to suffer..

    “Only to feel the power of ruling without a hard and passionate work?”
    I don’t think there are many judges who consider their work as some kind of “power of ruling”.. 🙂 It’s a thankless and dreary business most of the time.. depending on the quality of the problems..

    • Nikola Predrag says:

      Shankar, you’re right in one way but that’s not the whole truth.
      I exaggerate things up to the extremes and there’s no point in taking it literally.
      Exaggeration serves only as a lens or magnifier, to help the perception of tiny details.
      When the very existence and effects of tiny details are comprehended, the things must turn back to their original size. However, we will remain aware of these details and most crucially, of their effects.

      I don’t claim for any “minimal level” of perception for a judge.
      But I do expect a true curiosity and a wish for INCREASING the perception, even in case of experienced GMs.
      Without a genuine curiosity, it’s not very likely that ANYONE would be able to perceive some deeply original feature.

      The now dominating criteria ask mostly for “complex” combinations of the most familiar ideas which could be easily spotted. And for rather trivially understood “harmony/analogy”.
      It is a very discouraging environment for the deeply original creative thinking.

      A curious judge-beginner will most significantly increase his perception and understanding exactly during the judging process! And next time he will start judging with more delicate perception, and so on.
      I welcome a complete beginner as a judge if he is curious and passionate. And I will gladly accept various “misjudgements” in the award if some progress could be seen.
      (“gladly” is here a “poetic exaggeration” :-))

      Without the apparent curiosity, there’s no hope to see any major progress in the lifetime.

      Empowering the perception is the point of my posts. I certainly don’t expect everyone to read and then think about it. It requires quite a lot of “undisturbed” time.

      However, I’ll better not talk about my perception of a stubborn attitude “I don’t need that stuff, because I already know everything”!

      BTW, the meaning of puzzles&problems is probably confusing. I’m sorry, my English is surely not very delicate and anyway, the concepts behind the words have to be worked out much thoroughly.
      When time will allow, I’ll try to sketch a bigger picture, probably introducing the concepts of the quest and the enigma besides the two already mentioned.
      If my speculations were pretty illegible so far, just wait for the culmination 🙂

  11. Peter Harris says:

    The reason I made this problem was to confront myself and solvers with the combination Antisupercirce + TransmutingKings and the difficulty of effecting mate it poses.

    This interested me greatly.

    [I would like to see any other problems made with the combination].

    I considered what other condition could be used to make mate possible. I thought of Isardam and thence the idea of the doubling of bRs – which idea fascinated me.

    I set about making a problem illustrating these things in the starkest fashion.

    It is not only the doubling of bRs idea that has to be found, the final position has to be imagined and the sequence of moves to get from diagram to the final position worked out. I found the sequence required equally fascinating.

    I wonder how many solved the problem.

    I hope the problem gives enjoyment – particularly to those who enjoy solving.

    It is a small problem – nothing grand.

  12. Peter Harris says:

    Magical Paul.

    beg pie
    whi kf2 rh5h6 bh7
    bla ka8 rh8 pg7
    cond antisupercirce transmutedkings isardam
    stip h#3

    1.g7*h6[bPh6->g1=bR] Rh5-d5 2.Rg1-g4 Bh7-e4 3.Rh8-h4 Rd5-d4 #
    1.Rh8-e8 Rh5-d5 2.Re8-e3 Bh7-e4 3.g7*h6[bPh6->e1=bR] Rd5-e5 #

    I Cut and Paste from my last comment!


    If you wish Julia may show this as a version with PH & PR as joint authors.

  13. Nikola Predrag says:

    This version is quite a case of “personal perception” of beauty, used as an excuse for preposterous lack of criteria!
    I see the beautiful double-doubling of bRs, but also the double-ugly function of wRh6 and ugly-doubling of white moves.
    What’s so urgent to push the publication of this lie, before the serious composing has even begun?

    The essence is entirely of a series-helpmate. However ser-h# requres a bit of constructional imagination and skill to determine the order of black moves.
    But why to bother, if anything might be proclaimed as beautiful because “…beauty cannot be measured using lists of criteria…”.

    The composing begins with a simple scheme showing the main beauty, from where a possible additional beauty could be searched for. Adding uglynes is not quite exactly what I mean.

    One possible scheme:
    White Rd5 Be4 Kf2
    Black Ka8 Rh4 Re3
    Stipulation ser-H#2
    Condition antisupercirce transmutedkings isardam
    1.Rg3 2.Rg4 Rd4#
    1.Rh1 2.Re1 Re5#

    Whatever might be added, at least shouldn’t be ugly or utterly banal.

  14. Nikola Predrag says:

    According to my weird perception of beauty in chess composition, the following scheme is possible to work on:
    White Rd5 Kd4 Re4 Bg2
    Black Ka8 Pf6 Rg3
    Stipulation H#2.5
    Condition antisupercirce transmutedkings isardam
    1…Ree5 2.f6xe5[bPe5->e1=R] Be4 3.Rge3 Re5#
    1…Rde5 2.fxe5[bPe5->h1=R] Bf3 3.Rhh3 Re3#

    • Paul Rãican says:

      In my post, I want to show that two phases are possible. And you produced this little gem. Quod erat demonstrandum.

      • Nikola Predrag says:

        Paul, your post was perfectly clear as a kind of question and very precious as an encouragement!
        If the simple shift of bPg6 to g7 can create the echo mates just like that, then wonders might be expected with some work.

        I was just wondering why Mr. Harris has urged the publication, before at least giving a try.

Leave a Reply

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

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.