My Participation in WCCC2014 Tournaments
It’s my 4th participation in WCCC’s tournaments, and the most active for now. I like thematic competitions, fast judging, limited time.. and the whole dynamics and special emotions around the Congress.
I was really awaiting so much for the announcements of these competitions! And have started to compose right after the first one, 12th Romanian Tzuica Tourney, was announced on the 19th of July.
In total I’ve composed 4 problems for 14th Japanese Sake Tourney (two are in the Award, of which one is joint with Petko A. Petkov), 2 problems for the 12th Romanian Tzuica Tourney (one is in the Award), 1 problem for 5th Bulgarian Wine Tourney (in the Award), 2 problems for 17th Sabra Tourney (only one was accepted by a limitation mentioned in the announcement, joint with Petko Petkov, and it is in the Award).
Happy to have 5 problems in the Awards and some more ideas for the future composing! With a gratitude to all organizers of these competitions! – Julia.
My awarded problems:
|
No.1 Julia Vysotska & Petko Petkov |
Solutions: |
|
White Kb3 Ra6 Bd8 Sg4
Black Kf8 Qg3 Rh3 Bh6 Bf1
h#2 b) -Bd8 (4+5) |
a)
1.Bh6-e3 Sg4-g6 + 2.Qg3-g5 Ra6-f6 # {
(3.Qg5-f7? - impossible because the black Qg5 is pinned!)
Thematical try: 1.Bd3? Sg6+ 2.Qg5 Rf6+? but 3.Bf5+!! }
b) -wBd8
1.Bf1-d3 Sg4-d7 + 2.Qg3-d6 Ra6-a8 # {
(3.Qd6-c8(e8)? - impossible because the black Qd6 is pinned!)
Thematical try: 1.Be3? Sd7+ 2.Qd6 Ra8+? but 3.Ba7+!!
(C+ by Popeye 4.69 and WinChloe 3.26)}
Thematical complex: 1. Reciprocal Back-to-Back pin effects in each solution: in the initial setting wS is pinned by the bQ; in the mating position the bQ is pinned by the wS!! |
|
No.2 Julia Vysotska |
Solutions: |
|
White Kb3 Bf4 Sc4
Black Ke6 Bf8 Bc6 Sg7 Sb4 Pd7 Pe7 Pf6 Pb5 Pf5
h#2 b) +bPf7 (3+10) |
a)
1.Sg7-h5 Bf4-h6 2.Bf8-g7 Bh6-g8 #
b) +bPf7
1.Bc6-e4 Sc4-e5 2.Sb4-c6 Se5-c7 # {(C+ by Popeye 4.69 and WinChloe 3.26)}
Black side has to preliminary block the square under the white mating piece to prevent possible defense. Reciprocal play of white and black S/B pairs in two solutions. |
|
No.3 Julia Vysotska |
Solutions: |
|
White Kh3 Rc2 Bf1 Pg5 Pg4
Black Kb6 Pa7 Pa5 Pe5
Neutral NC1 Qe1 Rh7 Ph6 Pf2
hs#2.5 b) Pa5→b7 (5+4+5) |
a)
1...nNc1-b3 2.Kh3-h2 nNb3*h6 3.nQe1*f2 + nNh6-d4 #
b) bPa5-->b7
1...nNc1-d3 2.Kh3-h4 nNd3*f2 3.nRh7*h6 + nNf2-d6 # {(C+ by Popeye 4.67)}
Mate with a triple check by neutral pieces in two solutions. Disparate-specific play of the neutral pieces. Reciprocal play and interchange of functions of two pairs of neutral pieces: nQ/nR and nPf2/nPh6 (here the interchange of functions has a passive character – in every solution both neutral Pawns are captured by White and Black!) |
|
No.4 Julia Vysotska |
Solutions: |
|
White Kh8 Rg2 Bd7 Sa2
Black Se6 Sc2 Pc7 Pb3 Pd3
Black Royal Qc4
h#2 b) Pb3→g7 (4+6) |
a)
1.c7-c6 Bd7*c6 [c4=K] 2.Sc2-d4 Rg2-c2# {
(3.Sxc2? - illegal selfcheck by Bc6=Rc6!)} b) bPb3-->g7 1.g7-g5 Rg2*g5 [c4=K] 2.Se6-d4 Bd7-e6# { (3.Sxe6? - illegal selfcheck by Sa2=Ba2!)} (С+ by WinChloe 3.28) 1. Umnov with specifical Snek-effects |
|
No.5 Julia Vysotska & Petko Petkov |
Solutions: |
|
White Ke2 Rc7 Rh4 Bh2 Se5
Black Kb6 Qa2 Rb5 Rg3 Bc2 Pa6 Pd5 Ph5 Pd4 Pa3
h#2 b) Pa6→a5 (5+10) |
a)
1.Rg3-b3 Rh4-e4 2.d5*e4 Se5-c4 #
b) bPa6-->a5
1.Rg3-d3 Se5-g4 2.h5*g4 Rh4-h6 # {(C+ by Popeye 4.69)}
Reciprocal sacrifices of the white Se5 / Rh4; |
I congratulate Julia with this small but wonderful collection!
About No.1. This problem has an interesting history! A few days before the deadline of the Japanese Sake tournament, I received from Julia e-mail with the first version of this problem. This initial version was almost ready problem – with great movements of the w. Queen and Knight, discovered by Julia, and with beautiful pin-mates by the w.Rook.
But Julia was looking for some beautiful first (key) black moves and asked me if I was willing to compose a collective problem, if I find something interesting like “introduction”?
Fortunately, I discovered thematic key-moves and even thematic tries but this work was not easy. As a result, the problem was realized with the following “mathematical formula” – 3 half-moves from Julia and 1 half-move from me!
I still think that my contribution here was not equivalent – I’ve only improved an almost finished problem, but Julia insisted that this problem may be published only as a co-work!
I’ve helped to many young composers, but I can say that Julia is a special case! She is extremely talented and ambitious, but she doesn’t wish to receive the advises or lessons as “ready positions”! She wants (not always!) to hear only a general assessments and general recommendations how it is needed to improve. It works much in connection with the construction of her problems – three years ago, when I gave her the first lessons in composition, I did not believe fully that she can fulfill my recommendations!
I was very surprised when I’ve learned that Julia wants to participate in many Congress’ tournaments with a lot of problems, invented only from her – in light positions, even miniatures! Unfortunately, another our co-work, No.5, made by the same “scenario” – for Sabra tournament, proved unsuccessful. By this I mean that not every collective work can be successful…
Of the remaining problems of Julia shown in this article, I particularly appreciate her 2nd Hon Men from Tzuika -2014 (No.3). Here we see a very curious moment – Black and White capture two neutral pawns in both phases with a reciprocal thematical motives!
Reading this comment I had a feeling as if my birthday has already came.. What can I say? THANK YOU, dear Petko! I’m happy to read your words! (although, the next day I’ll need some critics to come back to the Earth! 🙂 )
About joint problems. If I have some idea about mating final and a scheme of 1,5 moves – it is still far from being a real problem. And I believe that much of efforts are needed to make it to be a problem, especially a good problem! Plus, if I know exactly that I can’t do it in time (or at all?) myself.
Yes, I like to compose on my own, to improve myself.. just to know where I am! But what I need in different cases is to ask about the weaknesses of my problems, about originality of the schemes, about overall impression, about a general direction in learning new things… It is very important to know that it is always possible to ask and to get an answer! And I’m very grateful to Petko for this confidence!
Well, No.3 is a nice idea, but if neutral pieces are used as a tool to achieve the complexity, then the author should be aware about the complications which come with it.
It’s obvious that Nc1 is moved and used only by Black, so it is a black Nightrider, unnecessarily dressed in neutral clothes!
Checks to wK, by nQ in a) and by nR in b) are accidental results of the needed flights-guard.
A bit deeper analysis is required to see whether the other Neutrals are used for the essence of the idea or just as a constructional convenience.
“..although, the next day I’ll need some critics to come back to the Earth! ”
Please compose some direct mates too..! 🙂
I couldn’t sleep after that amount of critics! 🙂 Seriously, I have no idea how people compose direct mates.. same as selfmates and reflexmates! My imagination works for help-play only..
Nikola is right: black N also works for No.3. Actually, I was too much interested in how neutral peaces would work with Disparate, so have missed something also. Probably, with some more work and longer time the problem might be improved.
Actually it quite easy to compose direct mates (also self-mates). Reflexmate in two moves are actually similar to helpmates — only colors changed! (White just enables the black mate!). Since black defeds, cooks are lesser !
“..Seriously, I have no idea how people compose direct mates.. same as selfmates and reflexmates! ”
These days.. I wonder similarly.. In fact, I wonder how I managed to compose them earlier..! 😉
I suppose that means that you still remember how to compose helpmates ! 🙂 We are depending on you for 10WCCT.
Julia, occasional attempts in the direct and selfmate genres could make a great benefit for understanding the common essence of chess composition.
But this would require a lot of precious time spent in developing the basic techniques, specific for the antagonistic play. Time is certainly a great luxury, but one or two non-ambitious attempts might give a basic feeling of the other genres.
I don’t want to criticize you, I am surprised by non-critical approach of the experienced problemists. The beginners can’t know and understand all the essential principles instantly, and there’s the crucial task for the experts, to make clear what is good and true in the idea and what is bad and false.
Quite incredibly, the experts allow the beginners to dictate the distorted principles and even accept them in their own work.
It can be very tricky to find a sharp margin of what is true and essential or what is false and merely decorative.
I spent most of my time trying to find that margin because my pleasure is a hundred times greater when I see a truly original and complex idea.
I will post later the analysis of the rarely fascinating and exciting content of No.597.
But here, a bit more about No.3.
Combining the Neutrals with Disparate requires at least some simple but intrinsically needed element of the idea.
A merely decorative use of fairy elements is just a very expensive decoration, too expensive in my view.
The idea of No.3 requires 2 pieces which will reciprocally attack bK in one phase and wK in the other, that is the simple intrinsic element which might justify the two neutral pieces. The reciprocal attack on bK/wK is the crucial feature of these pieces, otherwise one could be white and the other black.
What is the intrinsic need of Disparate?
The transient paralysis to avoid a selfcheck to wK in W3 is merely decorative and not an intrisic part of the idea. It would be intrinsic only if the “unparalyzed” attacs on wK by nQf2/nRh6 would be needed in the end. But they are not needed!
Disparate here actually denies the need for nN, because the switchbacks 4.nNd4-h6/nNd6-f2 are illegal due to the paralysis. This makes the neutral character of N completely superfluous and therefore the final attacks on wK by nQ/nR are just the unnecessary accidental effects.
The true need of Disparate here, is preventing Black to parry the check by moving away the checking neutral piece in B3.
When the true intrinsic content of the idea is determined, it is clear which fairy elements are thematically needed. The principles of the economy consider the non-thematic fairy elements as a very expensive decoration. Only some very complex and original ideas or tasks could outweigh such heavy costs.
I made 2 examples of decorative and intrinsic elements of the idea. The captures of the same Pawns, reciprocally by White/Black are false in 1st example and absent in 2nd.
But everything else is essentially the same as in No.3.
I can’t find some truly convincing motivation for the reciprocity of these captures of the Pawns, so I can only consider them as accidental and not as intrinsic.
The nPf2 is clearly superfluous in the solution of a) and that shows that nPh6 is there just to make this particular scheme legal, but without a thematic function. The whole story about the reciprocal captures is just a decorative constructional accident.
1st example shows a constructional need for both Pawns and their captures but 2nd example even drops one of the captures.
As a conclusion, a true need for triple-check, in some improved scheme, would intrinsically require the reciprocal captures of the Pawns. That seems as a very hard task, but achieving it would result with a masterpiece.
Here are the examples:
1.
White Pg6 Pf4 Kg3 Rb2 Pf2
Black Pa7 Ka6 Pa5 Pd5 Rh5 Pe2 Nb1
Neutral Rg7 Bd1
Stipulation Hs#2.5
Condition disparate
Twin Exchange e2 g6
—
2.
White Ra8 Rc8 Ph7 Kg4 Pg3
Black Kb7 Pb6 Ne6 Pg5 Pf3
Neutral Qh8 Bd1
Stipulation Hs#2.5
Condition disparate
Twin Move g3 f3