| No.582 Hubert Gockel (Germany) |
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.582 by Hubert Gockel – A miniature with Back-To-Back condition and tempo-moves! Just a half move longer than required by 14th Japanese Sake Tourney. (JV)
Definitions:
Back-To-Back: When pieces of opposite colors stand back-to-back with each other on the same file (white piece is on the top of black!), they exchange their roles. A pawn on the first rank cannot move. Any piece can make an en passant capture when it has got a role of Pawn by Back-To-Back.
|
No.582 Hubert Gockel |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
White Kc8 Ba1 Sc4 Pe6
Black Kh3 Re3
h#2,5 b) wKc8→b4 (4+2) |
The stipulation should be h#2.5, not hs#2.5
Yes, I’m sorry, my mistake, stipulation corrected to h#2,5!
Nice Back-To-Back specific mates here!
About the definition: at first, I’ve decided it is not clear and have added “white piece is on the top of black!” as Back-To-Back condition works only in such case. I’ve missed the fact (pointed to me by the author), that on the real chessboard there’s only one option, when two figures stay back to back on the one file (otherwise it would be face to face)! It is not so clear if we use computer diagrams or magnetic boards, so I’ll leave my comment to the definition to avoid confusions 🙂
It is also worth to notice the nice interchange of wS/wB in the mating positions.
Concerning the BtB definition, I don’t remember the precise definition of “roles” (if any!). As an example is royalty part of the role? It seems it is not the case for Popeye – in the position wSa3 bKc1 bBd3, 1.Sc2+ is considered legal (i.e. not a self-check), although Sc2 now has the role of a wK and is observed by the bBd3.
Is there some difference between “role” and “moving possibilities” ?
I think by ‘role’ the definition refers to moving possibilities only.
Very nice effects, though the play is motivated differently in both solutions !
Julia, thanks for your addition to the definition.
I didn’t think that pieces have faces turned to any particular fixed direction.
And still I don’t think so, not even about the Pawns!
Moving the position one rank down would allow a presentation with 2 solutions, without twinning:
White Kb8 Bb1 Sc3 Pe5
Black Kh2 Re2
h#2.5 Back-To-Back 2 solutions
1…Bb1-f5 2.Re2-e3 (Re2-e4?) Sc3-e2 3.Re3*e5 Bf5-h3 #
1…Bb1-d3 2.Re2-a2 (Re2-d2?) Bd3-e2 3.Ra2-c2 Sc3-h3 #
Maybe the author had some reason for preferring twins.
While many composers nowadays prefer multi solution form, twins can be interesting if twinning is subtle making one wonder why the other solution will not work.
Dear Eric,
I had your position, too. The reason why I prefer my twin setting is that in either solution the other is uniquely prevented by pin of wSc4.
on the original, with the king on a8 we can obtain the same two solutions than with the twins presentation
white Pe6 Sc4 Ba1 Ka8
black Kh3 Re3
1…Bf6 2.Re4 Se3 3.Rxe6 Bh4#
1…Bd4 2.Rb3 Be3 3.Rc3 Sh4#
Sorry, I have just understood for the spin of the rook in each twin solution.
This idea disappears in my proposal which thus brings nothing new .