No.1713
Aleksey Oganesjan
(Russia)
(v) 1713.1 Aleksey Oganesjan (Russia)
Original Fairy problems
JF-2022-I:
01.01.2022 - 30.06.2022
No. 1713 Aleksey Oganesjan
Russia
original - 28.05.2022
black Rh1f8 Ke1 Bd1f2 Qa1 Sd2 Pe3h4
white Pg3b3a5b7a7 Ba6d8 Kb8
h#2 2 solutions 8+9
Circe
Circe
Solution: (click to show/hide)
No. 1713.1 Aleksey Oganesjan
Russia
version of No.1713 - 02.06.2022
black Rh1f8 Ke1 Qa1 Bf2a6 Sd2 Pe3h4
white Be2d8 Pg3b3a5a7 Kb8
h#2 2 solutions 7+9
Circe
Circe
Solution: (click to show/hide)
Nice unpinning part but bRh1 is hired for an expensive NON-existing job. Instead of such a bluff, bRd7 & -wPa7&b7 would make thematic 6+9.
Without bRh1 a Circe-reborning of wPh2 would be non-used. And I tnink it’s bad because it’s inadequate using of the set fairy condition (Circe).
It’s upside-down reasoning, ‘justifying’ a superfluous element by adding a completely superfluous piece. I wouldn’t ‘pay’ for such a fake ‘addition’ to a product.
Actually, the motivation for black sacrifices on a5/h4 is banal, wBd8 can’t otherwise reach these squares. Sacrifice on an empty square would emphasize the unpinning maneuver.
Just an illustration:
White Kb8 Bd8 Pc4 Ph4 Be2
Black Rf8 Qh7 Pe3 Sd2 Bf2 Rc1 Ke1
1Sxc4 [+wPc2] (Sb3?) Ka8 2.Sa5 Bxa5 [+bSb8] #
1.Rh8 (Bxh4?) h5 2.Bh4 Bxh4 [+bBf8] #
> I wouldn’t ‘pay’ for such a fake ‘addition’ to a product.
I understand your point of view. But I think it’s subjectively and every composer can prefer differently. I reason like this: in your illustration there is only one USED Circe-reborning in each solution, but in my version – three. And I consider this pay is good for additional justifying of Circe-condition.
But your idea with wBe2 was good – it is slightly improvement of my version: Ba6->e2, Bd1->a6, -Pb7. Thank you for this passing tip.
Compare to
Frantisek SABOL, harmonie 1996 (WinChloe 756228)
White : Kg8 Qf8
Black : Ka1 Rd8d7 Pd6b2
h‡2 Circe (2+5) C+
1.Ta8 Db8 2.b1=F Dxb1(Fc8)‡
1.b1=C Rh8 2.Txf8(Dd1)+ Dxb1(Cg8)‡
Not an anticipation, but the play along the 8th rank is very similar.
I agree with Nikola, the line closures for Qa1 and Rh1 by the a/h are artificial. Only the line closure of Pb2 to prevent Qa1-c3 has a function. Remove these two pieces and change Pb3 to black and you have the same solutions.
Fool’s gold may look like gold, but it isn’t gold.
In our chess art many things are artificial in a varying degree. The weight of the question is how each particular artificiality fits into the canvas (plot) of a particular composition. In this h#2, to my taste, a- and h-closings fits not bad in Circe-motifs.
But in this case that the rebirth is a line closure is a coincidence. It would be worthwhile if it was e.g. SuperCirce where you deliberately have to choose h2 as a rebirth square to close the line.
Author artificially puts the pieces on the board and creates a new world with specific relations & features, to present an original principle which governs that particular world.
But within itself, this world is real and true. Lies within it ruin the appearance of it’s reality.
wP’s rebirth on h2 is just an accidental consequence of Circe, so what?
I don’t care too much, but +bPh2 might prevent that ‘accident’ as a much smaller lie than the feigned ‘function’ of bRh1.
All elements of this problem are well known and used before, so the ORIGINAL content should be emphasized and abstracted.
wPa5 and bRh1 do the opposite, by polluting the thematic unpin-motivation.
I tend to agree with this opinion, but this is a well known (at least for me) aesthetic paradox. B2 moves has three functions (in both solutions): square vacation for white bishop, unpin effect and closing the file for black linear piece. While any one of them would have been enough to motivate this move (purity of purpose?), as these motifs are repeated in both solutions they are often considered as an improvement and not an overload.