Original Problems (5)

Thank You, Juraj for your new, very interesting comments!
Further I’ll offer some more explanations. Certainly, this principle reflects my own creative views. This criteria which I apply for more than 50 years in my work as composer appeared successful and fruitful. For this reason I want to explain in more detail some questions which we discuss here. My main goal is eventually to help to some young composers which show interest to this matter. But it is necessary to mean that my criteria (as criteria of each person) have subjective character.

1.Why Nightrider?

Juraj`s opinion that “nightriders are not necessary in the scheme” deserves a special attention.
The first question here is: what means the term “scheme”?
Many answers are possible here, but I accept that: The scheme (mechanism) – it is a structure (of pieces), which author chooses freely and creates itself, with a goal to compose on this basis a chess problem on a concrete theme, according to his creative views and technical possibilities.
Without doubts, creating his own scheme, the author can apply freely any number of fairy pieces or (plus) fairy conditions. Therefore it is wrong to say abstractly – as general conclusion, that at the identical contents, a problem which has 2 kind of fairy pieces (for example Grasshoppers and Locusts) is better than a problem which has 3 kinds of pieces (for example – Grasshoppers, Locusts and Nightrieders).
The quality valuation of a problem is a result of a complex, aesthetic analysis of this work – in thematic and in technical attitude. This valuation cannot be a result from application of only one formal, quantitative criterion, which is the number and kind of fairy pieces on the board.
My scheme in №17 has a masced battery Queen /Nightrider, two neutral Locusts and a black Grasshopper. According to Juraj`s opinion, the same thematic is possible to demonstrate without Nightriders, using only neutral Locusts and Grasshoppers. This Lorinc`s idea leads to the other mechanism in which there is white orthodox battery Rook/ Bishop, and thematic blocks and creation of anti-batteries with rear piece G are realized with Grasshoppers (white and black) only.
More concretely, Juraj considers obviously ( in connection with concrete thematic here), that in every case a problem without w.Ns is better as a problem (for example №17) where exist Nightriders. With a goal to try to prove this concept, he gives an obviously experimental position which has a lot of technical and thematic defects and which considerably concedes on quality to the original №17 and even to the later position “A”.

The second question: why it is necessary to compare problems of identical contents, but with different number of fairy pieces? As I already noted, a very attentive complex assessment is necessary! Practically it means that it is necessary to pay attention to all, even the smallest, thematic and constructive nuances in both problems.
Also, it is clear: In LP – position and in a position A the economy of a material is bad, both settings have technical shortcomings (in this number – technical white figures and Pawns) through fact, that LP and A are composed with twins. Therefore, still it is not proved yet, that removal of NN would have positive еffect after the relation of a design of a problem. On the contrary – №17 has 14 pieces only, without white Pawns and without any white technical figures, which probably are inevitable in any other positions of type “LP” or “A”.

In my opinion we can formulate the following aesthetic criteria: If we have two problems (versions) – X and Y, on equal thematic but with different number of kinds of fairy pieces on the board: X = “n”, Y = n+1, the problem Y can be better, if its “kind of fairy piece plus” is used thematic, and if it follows to more economical, and more aesthetical setting as in a problem X! Doing these comparison always is necessary to remember that the problem with twins is almost always worse than problem with two or more thematic solutions.
Therefore, in my opinion №17 (without twins) is better as LP and A (both with twins), because №17 has a perfect and more economical constructions and in this problem the “fairy kind piece plus” – Nightrider plays a very important thematic role.

In LP position (also in A) the thematic blocks on b4/h7 are realized by the white Gh8. OK, but it is obvious that this figure stands bad on square “h8” – de facto – rather isolated and with limited mobility which is, by the by, often typical for this fairy-piece. The bad position of Gh8 hints the necessity of immediate inclusion of this piece in play. From other side, because of the twin, here is obviously the key-move in b) position – 1.Gh4.

In my opinion, in this strange theme, better is to block the thematic squares with powerful white or black pieces, instead of the weak pieces, as Pawns, Grasshoppers, etc. The block with a powerful piece strengthens the effect of “surprise” of the thematic block-move. On this reason, in №17 the blocks on a3/h3 with white Nightrider are in thematic and in aesthetical attitude better and more surprising as the blocks on b4/h7 in LP with the white Gh8. This aesthetic argument was very important in my practical work! More concretely: I aspired to show here thinking about my main theme, also a paradoxical idea – one very strong, centric white figure – Ne6, in process of play carries out blocks, being removed through long moves on endmost verticals of board!

2. About a duel

In my former comment I spoke about “anti-dual effect (duel) as a main thematic element in contents of my №17”. Why duel? Let’s look once again at No. 17. There is a thematic combined play with reciprocal effects between white Nightrider – e6 and black Grasshopper – d5. Concrete features here are: a) White to move: N should play on a3/h6,
b) Black to move: G should play also on a3/h6.
An important moment: each thematic figure should choose exact field (from two possible for it) on which it will step. If N plays on a3, G plays on h6 and in contrary. This reciprocal play with anti-dual effect can be full aesthetic and of full value, if both pieces have equal possibilities to play on a3/h6.
But! In LP position and in A -position there is no such situation! In LP , if Black to move: black Grasshopper can play on b4 and h7. OK. But when White to move – white Gh8 can play only on h7 in a) position and only in b4 in b) position. This small at first sight feature in reality is an important weakness in my opinion. It means, that because of different possibilities of this thematic pieces to occupy thematic squares b4,h7 (Ge4 has 2 possibilities, Gh8 – only one) the thematic duel is not adequate in thematic and in aesthetic attitude. This feature depreciates in some degree also anti-dual tries here.
It is possible to correct this weakness, creating also a setting without twin, which is obviously undesirable in this situation? My answer is: yes. It is possible in such position for example – position B which have character mainly as education example :

[img[/img]

I. 1.Gb8 Gh7 (1…Gb4?) 2.Gb4 Ge7 3.Rf5+ nLOxf5-e4#;
II.1.Gh5 Gb4 (1…Gh7) 2.Gh7 Ge7 3.Rd4+ nLOxd4-e4#.
This position, probably not optimal, shows, that 2 solutions and a perfect G-G duel are possible here. But this version in my opinion signals also, that using this mechanism it is practically impossible to create a position which is sufficient economic, in particular – more economical and more aesthetic as №17. Therefore, the application of Nightriders in №17 is not a causal phenomenon (or author`s error!), but a deeply considered concept which was repeatedly examined in work- experiments.
For this reason, I think, that future work over positions as LP, A or B, would be small effective and small fruitful.

3. About repetition of a move

Here my position is absolutely categorical – not thematic repetition of a move is always a weakness in every kind of chess problem. There is no importance, that one piece “X” comes on field “y” two times but during different ways. For example, if in an orthodox threemover our white Sh1 mates two times on е4 – via f2 and via g3, but this moment have no importance! The repetition 3.Se4# is a fact and it is weakness. In my opinion it is not needed to discuss seriously such elementary questions. For me of course the repetition 2…Ge7 in position B remains also an important minus.