Оригинальные задачи (9)

Оригинальные задачи (страница 9)

Я буду публиковать здесь некоторые свои оригинальные задачи и буду рада поставить также Ваши! Диаграммы, комментарии, новые идеи, любые схемы для дискуссии – очень приветствуются!

Сайт в основном посвящен сказочному жанру, но h# и s# – тоже добро пожаловать! Пожалуйста, присылайте свои произведения на адрес: julia@juliasfairies.com

Перейти на >> Страницу 8 ;  >>Страницу 10 

А теперь открывает страницу моя задача – и я хочу посвятить ее всем вам!

№ 28 – hs#3* – Julia Vysotska – Тема Dentist, с веселыми парами фигур – белые S+S и черные R+R. 

(25.06.12) На этой странице получилось так много комментариев, что я решила новые задачи ставить уже на следующей. Надеюсь, всем так будет удобнее. А за комментарии очень благодарна – было очень интересно!!

№ 28 Julia Vysotska
Посвящается всем авторам, посетителям и комментаторам сайта!
hs#3*                                         (7+6)
Set-play: 1…Ra6-a5 + 2.Sf7-g5 Rf1-f7 3.Sg6-e7 + Rf7*e7 #
Real play: 1.Bh4-g5 Rf1-h1 + 2.Sg6-h4 Ra6-g6 3.Sf7-d6 + Rg6*d6 #
Dentist-theme with preliminary line openings by the both white S.
Umnov-theme: the black Rooks occupy the squares left by the white Ss.
Self-pins of white Ss.
Interchange of function between two duos of pieces: black Ra6/Rf1 and white Sf7/Sg6.
Key move, which de-blocks a square and blocks other square. (Author)

Все диаграммы сделаны на  WinChloe и ее фонт Echecs использован для дизайна Лого.

13 комментариев: Оригинальные задачи (9)

  1. Seetharamanseetharaman пишет:

    N.29. Very nice problem Julia. Pin unpin complex with white halfpin, neatly realised. Only weakness, the white bishop could not be used more efficiently to guard d8.

    • JuliaJulia пишет:

      Thanks, Ram! About the white bishop – it has its own thematic function. I’m not sure if it’s a big minus, that it doesn’t do anything also..
      Another option for this problem was hs#2.5 with black twins, where the squares around the white King (where S is pinned) are guarded by the black – one in a), and another one in b).
      But this hs#3* looks much better to my opinion with a thematic move of B and without twins!

      • Nikola Predrag пишет:

        Yes, wB nicely does the job. In a h# it would be a serious weasel, but in hs#, I’m not sure.
        Quickly made 0-position shows some possibilities with Kangaroo with active hurdles. wB and wKA reciprocate the guard. Perhaps it could be done acceptably(?).
        Stipulation Hs#3
        White Sd7 Se6 Kf5 Pe4 Bc1 KAg1
        Black Ka8 Bc8 Pb7 Pe7 Ph7 Ra6 Ph6 Pc3 Rd2
        Zero Move g1 f4
        Twin Move c1 f4
        a) wKAg1–>f4 1.Se5 Rd7 2.Be3 Ra5 3.Sc7+ Rxc7#
        b) wBc1–>f4 1.Be5 Rf2+ 2.Sf4 Re6 3.Sb6+ Rxb6#

        • Nikola Predrag пишет:

          I’ve forgot to say that I like the idea very much and if wB could not be treated as a weasel (in hs#), it’s a good composition. wR is perhaps not best used. wPb6&bPb7 and bRa6>c6 is one alternative. Also, additional (guarding) function of the black Rook which (respectively) plays the last move, would be a bit of improvement.

          • JuliaJulia пишет:

            Nikola, thank you very much for all the comments! I’ll start from the end:
            1) about the wR – in one version I had exactly same pawns as you advice instead of Rook. wR saves 1 piece, but it is stronger the same time. Maybe it’s a minus. On another hand, isn’t it visually better, than many pawns together?
            2) about the bR – agree, this is what I wanted to have as well, but… I doubt it’s possible to realize with the pieces I have here. But I believe, that the simultaneous guarding function could be achieved in some another sheme, using fairy pieces. Like, at least one bN instead of bR.
            3) I’m looking at your position… Yes, the both white pieces, B and KA have an additional function here.
            But twins again (I’d try to avoid twins if possible 🙂 )
            a) wKAg1–>f4
            1.Sd7-e5 Rd2-d7 2.Bc1-e3 Ra6-a5 3.Se6-c7 + Rd7*c7 #
            b) wBc1–>f4
            1.Bf4-e5 Rd2-f2 + 2.Se6-f4 Ra6-e6 3.Sd7-b6 + Re6*b6 #

            Maybe I’m wrong here, but I’d prefer to avoid using of fairy piece here(KA), just because it’s the only one, and doesn’t play the main thematic function. What would be the aesthetic point of view?
            Also, a check by bR is only in one solution now.. But I like it as a motivation for S-move.

            For now I’d still prefer my version. But I enjoy reading your comments and getting new ideas!! Thanks again!

            • Nikola Predrag пишет:

              Julia, my example is not a version. Twinning is bad enough and without some other fairy piece which would be thematic, wKA is a complete alien. I wonder is it worth to try to include more fairy elements to optimize the functions of all pieces. It is more a question than a suggestion.
              Apparently, you have good ideas and compose quickly. A really worthy idea deserves a best possible realization. It requires a lot of self-confidence to invest a lot of time to seek the perfection. So, many gifted composers prefere to compose plenty of ‘only’ good problems.

              • JuliaJulia пишет:

                Oh, good about “not a version”!
                About including of more fairy elements – I agree that it might give something. But most probably, it would be not a version, but absolutely independent problem then… Maybe I’ll try it as well.
                I don’t know if I compose quickly or not. A problem like this one takes me several days – well, mostly evenings-nights (not a few hours). I’m a bit impatient, this is true. The problem is that I can’t stop thinking about unfinished problem. So, have to finish it somehow, otherwise everything around will suffer… 🙂
                But you’re absolutely right! And you’re not the first one already who tells me about seeking of perfection. I believe that with a time I’ll learn how! Thanks for your comments!!

  2. JuliaJulia пишет:

    No.28. I’ve got several emails with advices, ideas, questions.. I’d like to add here a few of them to be discussed:
    1) an advice to add a logic tries:
    1… Rxf7? 2.Se7+ Rxe7+ 3.Kg5!
    1.Bg5 Rxg6? 2.Sd6+ Rxd6+ 3.Kh4!
    I believe, it can be done and adds some visual understanding.
    2) several different views at the guarding of bK: to use more pawns instead of wR, or on contrary – to use wQ somehow?
    I think that Q is too powerful piece to be used like a passive(technical) piece only. About the pawns instead of wR – I believe, it is very subjective.. or different from one problem to another. Personally, I’d tell that too many pawns together visually are not looking good. Same time, in some other cases maybe it’s still better to use one more pawn, than more powerful piece for the economy of 1 pawn. I’d like to hear your comments here!!
    3) About Bh3: if it is a minus, that it doesn’t have guarding function as well? Seems like most of us believes, that it plays its thematic function good enough and doesn’t need to do anything also in addition. Nikola Predrag has mentioned that it would be a serious minus in case of h#n. I’m thinking about these words.. Althought, it’s a bit complicated to compare it here, but if I had to give mate to the black King here – then probably – yes. All the white pieces should participate in a mating position in h#n. Is this something what can be called as one more difference between hs# and h# ?
    Haven’t I forgotten anything also? 🙂
    Thanks to all of you for commenting! I appreciate it a lot!

    • Seetharamanseetharaman пишет:

      Of course the White bishop is not an idle piece. It blocks a white king flight in each phase. I only meant that it would be ideal if it can guard a square for the black king also :). But the ideal is not possible everytime.

  3. Petko A.PetkovPETKO PETKOV пишет:

    N 28 – Vysotska – A very interesting combination between Dentist, Umnov and change of functions of two pairs of thematic pieces! I think that here we can speak about “Masked Dentist – mechanism” , because there are two white pieces of thematic line – an idea that offers huge practical opportunities!
    In technical terms the problem is also very good. Here the w.Ra7 is not a thematic piece, but without such figures often it’s impossible to work. Probably, we can define here not so pleasant technical rule, but it has important practical value: if a w.Rook stands on the board with a goal to guard two or more fields around the black king, we can not consider this Rook as very bad figure, if there is no other way to compose this problem. Similarly, we can define an analogical rule for the white Queen – in a technical role it should keep not less than three fields around the opponent’s king. Of course, this is a subjective opinion. I repeat – I’m talking here about my experience.
    About the possible improvement of the problem using a fairy figure (for example – Каngaroо ) here: I do not think that this is a better idea.
    In such cases, I observe in my practice the following rule: if on the board stands only one fairy figure, and all other figures are orthodox, this fairy piece should play a major thematic role! In other words, a Kangaroo in № 28 can not play in sufficient degree a major role, when this piece keeps only fields around the black King or blocks square around the white King.
    Generally, the Kangaroo is a figure which works best as a back piece in an anti – battery. The highest aesthetic effect can be achieve when this anti – battery is direct , in other words – when on the same thematic line stands the enemy King. The indirect anti-batteries, created with Kangaroo, can be also interesting but only as a component of a much more complicated thematic complexes. In my practice, I do not use indirect anti – batteries with Kangaroo (s), because this figure is less mobile and in such cases is easy to find the solution.
    In conclusion, I once again commend Julia for her excellent new hs# problem!

  4. S.K.BalasubramanianS. K. Balasubramanian пишет:

    Dear Julia,
    Your No.28 (HS#3*) is really a high quality work with elegant setting. Halfpin, self pin, unpin, exchange of roles between the two black rooks and two white knights. Further, there is Umnov theme also. I don’t think that WB is a weakness. It has functions in both set play and solution. It is indeed difficult to compose problems with set play and in your problem set play is achieved with splendid unity with the solution and it appears very natural and not looking to be forced.

    Regarding the use of WRa7, it can be a mixed opinion. Usually I try to avoid the use of heavy pieces for pawns. If a rook can be replaced by two pawns, I usually prefer pawn setting. However, if it reseults in a clumsy position, I prefer a neat elegant setting. For example in your above problem, the following setting is also sound:

    Wh Kh5 Bh4 Sg6 Sf7 Pc7 Pg4 Pb6 Pc6
    Bl Kc8 Rd6 Rf1 Be8 Pg7

    However, I definitely would prefer WRa7 setting rather than the above clumsy setting.

    However, the following setting which is a MEREDITH one, is worth considering.

    Wh Kh5 Qb6 Bh4 Sg6 Sf7 Pc6 Pg4
    Bl Kc8 Rd6 Rf1 Be8 Pg7

    Here WQ replaces WRa7 and BPd7 and guards a minimum of 3 squares. (will it be possible to publish the diagram for this position?)

    I myself do not know what I would do in this case — would use WRa7, WPc7 & BPd7 with 13 units or a meredith setting with WQb6 & WPc6. I would like to hear others opinion, especially the view of Mr. Petko.

    —- Bala

    • JuliaJulia пишет:

      Dear Bala,
      The diagrams for the comment above:
      Wh Kh5 Bh4 Sg6 Sf7 Pc7 Pg4 Pb6 Pc6
      Bl Kc8 Rd6 Rf1 Be8 Pg7
      Wh Kh5 Qb6 Bh4 Sg6 Sf7 Pc6 Pg4
      Bl Kc8 Rd6 Rf1 Be8 Pg7
      Black Rook is not good on d6, as in real play we have Umnov here – the Rook leaves d6, but S comes to d6.
      The same doesn’t happen in set-play.
      About the pawns instead of bR: I had another version before, and Nikola Predrag has also mentioned it: “wPb6&bPb7 and bRa6>c6 is one alternative.”

  5. Petko A.PetkovPETKO PETKOV пишет:

    I think the discussion about the problem № 28 of Julia is very interesting and useful!
    I also share my opinion that is of course subjective. Therefore, I do not want to have a theoretical war with my colleagues; on the contrary – I share my experience, which can be probably useful for some composers.
    So far I’ve written several articles about the problems (orthodox or fairies) with set-play. Now I will share only some common formulations of this topic, which are reflected in my Personal system for analysis and composition PAPGS.
    1. What is a problem with set-play?
    In any problem genre, this is a problem in “N” half-moves, which has at least two phases, for example: I. Phase: Set play in N – 1 half – moves; II Phase – real play in N half-moves. Of course, one h#2* for example, in set-play has 3 half-moves – two from White and one from Black, but real solution here contains 4 half-moves – 2 black and 2 white.
    In the other words, set-play alwas has 1 half-move less than real play. If Black is to move in a H#N* set-play in N-1 moves begins with a white move , but to realize this play in real solution (with first black move) is impossible, because Black is in zugzwang – it has no waiting move! It is well known.
    2.Whether the set-play may be adequate in thematic aspect to the real play?
    Formally, such adequacy is impossible, because the set-play has 1 half-move less. In fact, in many problems not all half – moves from the both sides are thematic. For example, in N 28 from Vysotska, we have a HS#3* with 5 thematic half-moves: 3 from Black: check with the Rook, creation of Dentist – mechanism , mate through forward battery-piece. White has here only 2 thematic half – moves: 2 from White: open of line plus self-pin by the S, check with other white S which is unpined from Black.
    These 5 half-moves create the main content of the problem. In both phases we should realize full thematicadequacy between them!
    This requirement is fulfilled in N 28. On the contrary – this requirement is not realized in both new versions from Mr. Bala. Here the “additional Umnov” after Rd6 – g6 is not a plus, but a serious thematic minus of this versions, as notes also the author Vysotska.
    This “additional Umnov” is a typic unpleasant “motive plus” in real play , which violates the thematic unity of the problem!
    Therefore, better is to eliminate such “additional thematic components” which are interesting at first sight but de facto they lower value of the set-play!
    A lot of interesting other questions exists here:
    a) How to evaluate the first move of problem N 28 (1. Bg5!) , which formally belongs to real play?
    b) Is it an unpleasant thematic “motive plus” in this problem?
    c) Probably is better to work with 2 solutions here?
    My answer, probably rather subjective is following:
    a) The white key-move 1.Bg5! here belongs not to the main content of the problem (which , we know already, has 5 half-moves)! This move has also its thematic importance in strategical and aesthetical aspect but it has no directly related to the main thematic!
    Such key – moves are only a special “instumentarium” for the realization of the formula: set-play + real play. This instrumentarium is always good, if the key-move has its authonome (through not big!) thematic importance!
    In N 28 1.Bg5! demonstrates de-blockade and block of new square – which is an excellent motive! But unfortunately here the Bishopopens the vertical, but closes horizontal without thematic thematic purity – after 1.Bg5 the unpleasant motive is fact that here exists also a secondary, “parasitic” block of square g5 – for the white S.
    Therefore we cannot say that here is realized also Bivalve – theme… No any defect is fact that w. Bishop cannot control effectivesquare d8 because wB has a completely different function in the problem!
    b) As key – move which belongs to the real solution, 1.Bg5! cannot be an unpleasant thematic “motive plus” in this problem? We already know that it doesn’t belong to the main thematic. But exists an other, very important argument – this key-move is a potential result from the set-play! It justifies its necessity, because of zugzwang.
    Therefore, we can accept, that this key – move (through executed from White) has approximately equal belonging to the both sides!
    I speak here about general conclusions which apply not only to № 28, and even not only to the HS# genre!

    In my opinion if we can work with 2 solutions or with set-play + solution, better is to choice set-play version which have more finese (through this criteria is rather general, of course).
    Of course, in practice there are many cases where the situation is not so clear-theoretical and practical, and the composers take other decisions. Therefore – do not forget the subjective character of this material!
    (By the by, in N 28 is possible to add two black Pawns on b7/d7 but in this case the black Bishop e8 is obviously promoted piece! Many composers (and judges!) afraid of such figures! In my opinion it is a delusion but in practice often such problems are underrated because such anachronism….)
    In conclusion, I offer one of my favorite problems which demonstrates the principles which I have discussed in this comment:

    Set-play: 1…MOe5 2.Kf3! LEe7! 3.Sh4+ MOh3#;
    Real play: 1.Ke4!! MOe2 2.Kf4 LEe1! 3.Sh3+ MOh4#.

    Here the reciprocal black battery-creation MOA-MOA is realized in combination with Umnov – theme, executed by the white King (!) Other motives of the main thematic here are also: creation of white anti-batteries (with double Bivalve – play of white Ss and black Ss!) , Ambush moves by the black Leo. Therefore – as in N 28 – main contents also with 5 half-moves!
    The key-move here – 1.Ke4!! demonstrates a new Bivalve which belongs not to the main thematic complexe, but which is rather interesting – Bivalve realized by the w.King – closes line of MOf3, but opens line of MOf4!

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.