Nice and neat. Would the author manage another white switchback instead of c2-c4-c5, it could be even better.

Position was hard, but the game is now flawless! I offered Yulia to publish it in collaboration Anatoly Stepochkin + Jacques Rotenberg. Jacques you don’t mind?

Adding 8 pieces to the 15 initial ones just for a second white switchback is highly questionable. From my point of view, this position is not only “heavier”, it appears particularly heavy.
Suggestion in no more than 15 pieces, featuring bQbR after 2 white (and 1 black) switchbacks.
White Ka8 Rd4 Bh6 Pc2 Pg2
Black Kg4 Qg3 Rh3 Rh5 Sa5 Sc6 Pb2 Pf4 Pf5 Ph7
1.Rxf4+? Qxf4!
1.c3 Qxc3 2.Rd8 Qh8 3.Bg7 Ra3 4.Bh6 switchback Qc3 switchback 5.Rd4 switchback Qh3 6.g2 Rxg2 7.Rxf4#.

Anatoly, thanks for adding my name but your message forces me to be clear.
Apart from your nice initial matrix, the proposal by JR and my own proposal have nothing in common. From my previous message you can deduce I totally disapprove the heavy position in 23 pieces. Therefore, I will never accept a common version featuring 3 authors.
My proposal: presenting in Julia’s Fairies the 3 successive versions.
1) AS 15 pieces 2) AS+JR 23 pieces 3) AS+RJM 15 pieces. The judge will judge.
This presentation according to the 3 steps that occurred is simply NATURAL

Rene, how Do you like the version of Rotenberga with the right Mat?

“…What is sure, I have reasons for that, I will never sign anything with JR…”

This is a personal attack, so, I think, it requires explanations.

By the way, in the meantime, I can only agree with Rene-Jean, that better is not to put my name besides his.

And also, it fits well, because there is no necessity.

“…Adding 8 pieces to the 15 initial ones just for a second white switchback is highly questionable….” has been written. I think it is a little exaggerated.

– Obviously, the theme shown requires switchbacks, so till the switchbacks are not shown, the idea is not complete, and it is pointless to start counting the pieces.

moreover, to compare No.1337.2 with No.1337.1 may be interesting :
1337.2 is (much) lighter, of course, this is a great advantage and it has to be seen as a clear improvement.

It should be noted, however, that some of the positive aspects of 1337.1 are lost :

-In 1337.1 the mate involves 3 officers, it is model and more complex
-The switchback of the bishop is along its own line so that the return is made only for opening the line of the queen -thematic content.
-The heavier white forces means that the absence of cooks is more a miracle than in 1337.2
-The black lines are longer

Another “detail” :
in 1337.1 the knight from d8 has a choice : it can play to f7 or to c6 to get to e5, and so the closing of the black line is active.
In 1337.2 it is mechanical, the return to d4 by the rook d8 is the only way to f4.
In a problem showing switchbacks, the quality of the switchbacks is an important feature.

In only one sending I would like to answer assertions given in various messages.

1). (November 4th, at 16:26) “This is a personal attack, so, I think, it requires explanations”: reasons and explanations previously given on November 4th, at 11.52.

2). Anatoly expressed his idea under his solution, simply: bQ and bR exchange their positions. “Obviously, the theme shown requires switchbacks…”: not “requires”, only allows, but not at any price. Intuitively, adding 8 units to the provided 15 ones for a simple switchback is shocking. This is +53%. Improvement is not everywhere the name given to that. By far, I prefer Anatoly’s position. “till the switchbacks are not shown… it is pointless to start counting the pieces”: when two versions show the switchbacks, counting the pieces simply confirms the intuition and shows the difference… this time +0%!

3). Is “more complex” a quality? Involving more pieces, a “more complex” mate is not for me a better mate. What is sure, the use of 3 officers is not the best option here (see below).

4). Is “The switchback of the bishop along its own line…” a quality? Isn’t the solution more unexpected, more paradoxical, when the pieces have to abandon the guard of the royal field before having to take it back? Isn’t it very interesting that both main white pieces must abandon f4 for the R, f4 and g5 for the B, and then take control again of these squares? A mate is prepared, all the mating means are first dismantled to be again reconstituted using switchbacks. This form of purity of aim is everywhere recognized as spectacular [example: RJMillour, Springaren 2000, 1st Prize, White Ka2 Qc6 Rg8 Bb1,f8 Sb7 Pb2,b3,e2,e6 Black Ke8 Rd1 Ba1, Anticirce S#12, Plan 1.Qc8? Rd8 2.Sc6 Rxc8(Ra8)+ but 3.Kxa1(Ke1)! Foreplan 1.Qb5! Rd7 2.Qh5+ Rf7/Rd1 3.Bg6 Rf1 4.e3! Rf7 5.Qd1 Rf1 6.Qxa1(Qd1) Rf7 7.Qh5 Rf1 8.Bb1+ Rd1/Rf7 9.Qb5 Rd7 10.Qc6 Rd1 Now the plan works 11.Qc8 Rd8 12.Sc6 Rxc8(Ra8)#].

5). Especially when the difference with the initial version is only one square, the shorter length of Qg3-c3/Qc3-h3 is unimportant… and, in such comparisons, the scriptor should also consider the respective lengths of the wS and wR switchbacks!

6). Two main white units are initially present, one of them used for a first switchback. For a second switchback it is natural to use the second unit. Adding a third one is artificial and full of drawbacks: the author is forced to add a lot of pieces to counter the numerous cooks resulting from a mechanism using 3 officers, the “miracle” being that there are just enough black pieces for that! I personally act for economy without notion of “miracle”!

7). Apart from a commentator, who pretends that a problem could only be “appreciated by the number of pieces”? Everyone knows that a work is a whole, judged neither on this sole criterion, nor only on this or that, and not either exclusively on a model mate [one can read (November 4th, at 15:14) that I let Anatoly decide and he did not opt for this possibility]. Here we are talking mainly about number of pieces because the difference between +53% and +0% is particularly striking.

Bringing simply technical precisions, this long message is not a “personal attack” and, in my view, a new salvo in return would be unjustified. Better wait. As already said, the judge will judge.