|
|
Original Problems (page 34)Original fairy problems published during 2012 will participate in the informal tourney JF-2012. The site is mostly about fairies, but h# and s# are also welcomed for publication! Please send your problems to my e-mail: julia@juliasfairies.com Go to →List of Problems; →Page 33 ; →Page 35 |
No.78 – h#2 by Gabriele Brunori – Author writes about himself that he’s a beginner and would like to get help, any ideas, suggestions about improving of his problem (JV)
You can сlick on “Solutions” to show or hide the solutions!
|
–
No.78 Gabriele Brunori
Italy
original-09.08.2012
–
 h#2 2 solutions (4+6)
Lion a4
Nightriders: b7, c7
–
Solutions: (click to show/hide)
–
There are: a diagonal/orthogonal play, 2 solutions and change of 2 nightriders functions in 11 pieces problem. (Author)
|
The diagrams are made on WinChloe and its Echecs font is used for Logo design
N.78. Very good problem. Was it influenced by No.71 of Mr.Agostini? The Anticipatory selfpin is common in orthodox helpmates. Here it is done very nicely.
Since the author wanted a suggestion, here is one!
Having a white pawn on f4 instead of the White bishop is an interesting possibility. The problem will be a twin. Having BPf4 is the twin. Probably the author considered this possibility and opted for Two solutions. But I sometimes I prefer twin if the change is very minimal and subtle (and, if as here, leads to white economy).
dear seetharaman,
me and my mate Valerio worked parallel in a similar matrix. the starting idea was from Valerio.
About your thing in twins: The bishop in h2 is a techincal piece that can be replaced by 2 white pawns, 1 in g3 and 1 in f4.manteining the two solution.
I prefeer (IMHO) the bishop because the resulting diagram is more board-clean than other.
I think also that the ortodox piece bishop is passable as a technical piece.
I tryed to obtain 2 model mates with twin but without success (only with much spending material to avoid the cooks).
When it is possible, I usually prefeer the two solution and in this case the gain is too low to justify the tweens.
this is only my opinion and it is confutable!
finally i founded a great position where:
1) the twins can be justified by model mates,
2) the technical piece WBe1 is justified by meredith position and it work in its full capacity (in both twins it ward 2 square)
BeginProblem
Pieces
White Kc8 nc7 Pc3 lib3 nd7 Be1
Black Pg4 Ke4 Qd6 Pe2 Pb6
Stipulation H#2
Option Try NoBoard Variations SetPlay
Twin Move e2 f4
EndProblem
a)
1.Qd6-e5 LIb3-b7 2.Ke4-f3 Nc7-d5 #
b) bPe2–>f4
1.Qd6-d5 LIb3-e6 2.Ke4-e3 Nd7-e5 #
i think it can be a version of n.78
what do you think about this?
Interesting problem indeed, economic and with a perfect twin.
No.78 A composer should search for the most economic and as well for the most clear/powerful realization of the idea. These two goals are not always achievable in one position/version.
Final choice of some version depends on the personal balance of many criteria.
I usually try to reduce the material to the minimum and then to weigh what could be gained by adding more material or more moves. I may not consider some accidental visual non-thematic effects as a justification for more material or longer play. But a clear enrichment of the thematic content may be worth some sacrifices in economy (tries in a help-genre are not generally accepted but in my opinion, the clear tries may greatly enrich and emphasize the thematic content).
The thematic content of No.78 is achievable in a miniature and more material could be well justified only if the thematic content could be enriched. What might be considered as “thematic“, that’s another question:)
Stipulation H#2
White Kb7 Ng2 Nh2 LIh1
Black Ke7 Pf7 Qe2
Twin Move b7 c6
a) 1.Qe6 LIh4 2.Kd8 Nf6#
b) wKb7–>c6 1.Qg4 LIe4 2.Ke8 Ne6#
before reading your comment i made this variation of my starting problem:
(thanks to GM Petkov)
BeginProblem
Pieces
White Kc1 ne7 lia1 nd7
Black Pa5 Pf2 Kg2 Qe6
Stipulation H#2
Twin Move a5 h2
EndProblem
but your is more economical position.
and i think it can be the end.
thanks to all!
This is the version of n.78 by me:
[img]http://www.accademiadelproblema.org/generatediagram.aspx?diagcode=8/3N:4N:43/4q3/p7/8/8/5pk1/Q:21K5[/img]
a)
1.Qe6-f5 LIa1-a8 2.Kg2-h1 Nd7-f3 #
b) bPa5–>h2
1.Qe6-e5 LIa1-g7 2.Kg2-g1 Ne7-g3 #
This is the version of n.78 by Nikola Predrag:
[img]http://www.accademiadelproblema.org/generatediagram.aspx?diagcode=8/1K2kp2/8/8/8/8/4q1N:4N:4/7Q:2[/img]
a)
1.Qe2-e6 LIh1-h4 2.Ke7-d8 Nh2-f6 #
b) wKb7–>c6
1.Qe2-g4 LIh1-e4 2.Ke7-e8 Ng2-e6 #
About №78 Brunori:
I think that Predrag’s version cannot be an improvement of Brunori’s problem, although Predrag’s problem is a miniature which demonstrates a very good technique of this composer.
My arguments are as follows:
1. In solution a) 1.Qe2-e6 LIh1-h4 2.Ke7-d8 Nh2-f6 # we see not only creation of white anti-battery, but also a specific blockade of black Pf7 wich after Nf6 cannot close the battery line after f7-f6. But there is no such thematic element in position b).
2. Another, important moment in Predrag’s version is the location of white Lion. In Brunori’s position the white Lion stands better on a1 – it creates an indirect white anti-battery and keeps three squares around the black King: f1,g1,h1. A nice paradoxical moment in Brunori’s position is the fact that in the initial setting White controls twice squares g1 and h1 where later the black king receives mates. This is possible because moving, the white Lion destructs the initial indirect white anti-battery K/Lion. On the contrary – the w.Lion in Predrag’s version stands very far away (isolated) from the black king on h1 – it is obvious that it should be immediately included in play. Therefore this position is easier for solving, as version of Brunori.
Because of the different location of white Lion in both versions, a fully thematic relevance doesn’t exist between them, of course. In thematic attitude №78 from Brunori is better. Therefore, the factor “мinus figure” in the version (miniature) of Predrag doesn’t give an advantage of this position.
3. But №78 of Brunori is also not quite perfect problem – here we also see a “motive plus” (as by Predrag) in solution b) – because the black Queen after Qe5 realizes a “hurdle” for the white Lion, which moves on g7. There is no such motive in solution a).
Therefore, in my opinion, this problem needs a new analysis and tries for improvements.
To some extent, also the position of Predrag may be subject for searches.
No.78 The position that I have posted was related to the previous version (6+5) with wBe1 and bPb6. I tried to reduce static material, especially the one-phase-hurdle bPb6 and to give the functions to wK. This scheme turned out not only the most economical, it is even a miniature.
The difference between 8 and 7 pieces is a bit more than only 1 piece. Thematic content presented in a miniature may serve as a starting point for a comparison with the possible improvements of the scheme. I did not analize the possibility of improving that miniature, it was just the first correct position an I gave it as an elementary fact, not as “my version”.
wLIh1 obviously must jump over one wN but the whole artistic effect of the white play gives the counterbalance to that visual minus. bPa5 in the scheme 4+4 is annoying and obviously present only to be jumped over by wLI. The active guard of 1st rank by wLIa1 might seem interesting but without convincing tries which would utilize that fact, I see this mostly as a tool to determine the order of white moves. Well, it is certainly my personal view, most problemists consider such tools as a part of the theme. But that is a topic for itself.
Anyway, the scheme 4+3 shows probably the perfect potential of white pieces while the potential of black pieces in a miniature might be explored a bit more. But the use of the pieces and of the geometry of the board looks as close to the optimum. The great weakness is the absence of black/white interplay. Black could play a series of his moves and then White could play series of his moves with the same result.
Version 4+4 shows black/white interplay and this is what makes a true helpmate. Unfortunately, the most interesting interplay, shown in b), where bQ actively becomes a hurdle for wLI, is not achieved in a).
Now, it is not about the chronology of versions/schemes, we should start the analysis from the most elementary and to estimate the possible gain of more complex schemes.
The version 4+4 is a true helpmate but not completely convincing. That does not mean that the miniature is better but I think that the author perhaps should turn back to the most elementary schemes and to search for the potential of a good black/white interplay. This very probably requires the extended play (more moves).