 |
Julia’s Published Problems
Please see my problem you’ve chosen below Thank you for the interest! Your comments are very welcome! – Julia |
No.70 – finished 04-Nov-2012 – This is a problem I liked a lot while composing it, and still like! I was excited a lot myself when have found this interplay of Kangaroo-Lion and Lion (Kangaroo-Lion was implemented in Popeye 4.61) and also the play of white King. I was so much waiting for it to be published! Of course, I’m not sure if readers will like it same as I do. 🙂
|
No.70 Julia VysotskaPROBLEEMBLAD, Nr.1/2013 (jan-mar), #F951
h#3 2 solutions (1+5+2)
Kangaroo-lion h8
Lion h4 |
Solutions: I. 1.Rh7-b7 Kd2-c3 2.nKLh8-a1 Kc3-b4 3.nLIh4-a4 Kb4-a3 # (4.nKLa1-a5,a6,a7? – illegal self-check by nLIa4!) II. 1.nKLh8-h1 Kd2-e3 2.Rh7-a7 Ke3-f4 3.nLIh4-e4 Kf4-f3 # (4.nKLh1-b7,c6,d5? – illegal self-check by nLIe4!)
|
A super problem that deserves a publication in FIDE-Album! It is also a task – record – 6 different moves of the white King! Bravisimo, Julia!
The following position shows that the repelling effects for bS and bR are weaselish (not required for strategic content, not even for soundness) and the main content can be shown in the miniature form.
White : Kb5
Black : Kh8 Ph7g2 LIg1
Neutral : LId1 KLh1
Also solo plays by wK are not so special in fairy h#, there are tens of such fairy helpmates in existence, many of them by Petko himself. Among recent examples, the following one shows rather interesting effects in threes solutions, although I have to point technical camel:
Aleksandar Popovski
Sachova skladba 2010
White : Kd3
Black : Kc5 Qg8 Rg6 Ba1 Pd4 Camel d2
h#3, 3.1.1.1.1.1
Magic board
1.Rb6(w) K×d2 2.d3(w) Ke3 3.Qg1(w) Ke4#
1.Qa2(w) Kc2 2.Re6(w) Kb3 3.Kd5 Kb4#
1.Kd5 Ke2 2.Rc6(w) Kf3 3.Qg2(w) Kf4#
Finally, the strategic effects in JV 70 are not very rich besides the remaning repellings. On the positive side, corner-to-corner effects are visually attractive and single check with neutrals is also less usual (not rare though).
Anyway, I dare to diasagree with Petko – hardly 3 points on FIDE Album scale from my point of view, even hardly 2.
The white king moves are very nice. Rare problem where the neutral anti-battery mate is only a single check !
ABOUT SOME COMMENTS FROM J.LORINC
I am very surprised by the comments of Juraj Lorinc about the problem № 70 from Julia. Of course, he can write whatever he wants for this composition – negatively or positively. But at his comment I read also other assessments, for example: “Also solo plays by wK are not so special in fairy h#, there are tens of such fairy helpmates in existence, many of them by Petko himself”. Who is the author of this aesthetic principle? Probably the alone Lorinc? There are a lot of excellent problems with solo play. There are also many bad such compositions. Should not be generalized random!
I don’t think that Lorinc is informed enough about my creative principles, work and ideas (I’ve over 6000 published problems) and this is not a right place to demonstrate him what are my real achievements in this regard, although in my young years some my compositions weren’t quite good.
Lorinc believes that knows a lot and can do a lot in theory and practice of composition. OK! But when he criticized a grandmaster with 55 years experience in this art, he should be more attentive and precise.
Thus Juraj gives an indirect score (although partial) for my creativity in h# fairies genre, and he certainly has a subjective right to do so. My objection has another reason. Juraj shows me the following problem as a positive example, noting: “Among recent examples, the following one shows rather interesting effects in threes solutions, although I have to point technical camel”:
[img
[/img]
I.1.Rb6(w) K×d2 2.d3(w) Ke3 3.Qg1(w) Ke4#
II.1.Qa2(w) Kc2 2.Re6(w) Kb3 3.Kd5 Kb4#
III. 1.Kd5 Ke2 2.Rc6(w) Kf3 3.Qg2(w) Kf4#
Of course, Juraj shows that the technical Camel of the field d2 is not good, but he calmly underestimate this terrible weakness!?
Can you imagine: H# with orthodoxal material and with a fairy technical piece (Camel d2) in the poor role as a cook (dual) – stopper?? But that’s not all. Another technical black piece – Ba1 (also as a cook-stopper!!) prevens the move 1.CAa1(w) that follows to many other cooks!
And another, rather important question: What aesthetics can exist in the following solution, where the King captures terribly roughly the technical Camel: I. 1.Rb6(w) K×d2 2.d3(w) Ke3 3.Qg1(w) Ke4#??
There are a lot of other thematical minuses in this “problem”, for example:
a) It is obvious, that the most interesting solution in this problem is II 1.Qa2(w) Kc2 2.Re6(w) Kb3 3.Kd5 Kb4# with White indian theme and an additional passing of the critical field e6 from the black Queen.
b) But it is obvious also, that in the first and in the third solutions we have not Indian, but only white battery creation!
c) Another essential minus of this problem is the repetition of black move Kd5 in II and III solutions!
d) And in conclusion: If the author Popovski wants to use a fairy piece as a technical cook-stopper figure only (and Lorinc accept this compromise) there is a better possibility in this attitude:
[img
[/img]
(the same solutions as in original)
Here the construction is better – minus Ba1 – but it is a small consolation…
Of course, there are a lot of possibilities to create a normal position using the twins…
Therefore, a problem by Popovski has a very bad construction with an obvious thematical imbalance between the solutions!
I do not advise young composers and less experienced authors to put fairy figures as technical cook-stoppers in their problems created with orthodoxal material. This is incorrigible and rude aesthetic defect!
In conclusion, only few words about the problem of Vysotska.
Here the Juraj’s improvement seems as an illusion only:
[img
[/img]
I.1. nKALa1 Kc4 2.LIg8 Kd3 3.nLInd4 Kc3#
II. 1.LIg7 Kc6 2.nKAna8 Kd7 3.nLInd8 Kc8#
A Miniature, but not better as JV N 70 because: though in 8 pieces, in N70 we have the virtual black defenses Ra7, Sa6, Rb7, Sc6 that is practical impossible because of the illegal self-checks. This motives are good because increases the role of the forward piece (nLI) of the anti-batteries! No such motives there is in Lorinc’s version where the Lion on g8, g7 is rather statical piece. Therefore, this version shows the principle: “Less material but with less contents”….
Seemingly my comments were not fully understandable, so that I’d like to further explain where I feel it is important.
I was not criticizing Petko as GM with 55 years of experience. (Or did I? Please, show me, if yes.) Rather, I was disagreeing with Petko’s evaluation of the Julia’s problem. It was short evaluation and from my point of view also wrong evaluation. Nothing personal, really. My meager 22 years of experience pale in comparison with Petko’s 55 years, not speaking about his high quality output, e.g. expressed by FIDE Album points and countless prizes received. I really respect Petko’s views and creations (problems, articles, judgments). Yet, I stand by my view.
Petko: “My objection has another reason. Juraj shows me the following problem as a positive example, noting: “Among recent examples, the following one shows rather interesting effects in threes solutions, although I have to point technical camel””
No, I was not showing the Aleksandar’s problem as positive example. I was explicitly showing it as problem with interesting effects, referring especially to magic board application resulting in the solo of wK. Interesting effects is not equal to positive example. Or should we cite only technically perfect problems? Isn’t there a possibility that rather technically imperfect problem may motivate someone to improve it or even to embark on the quest to construct much better problems with similar effects?
From this point on, Petko’s evaluation of Aleksandar’s problem is critical and right. But as regards his remarks directed to me, no, I do not underestimate the weakness of camel. For me this is the most important weakness of the problem and I had to point it in the first place in very brief comment. If my comment was longer, I would probably repeat most of Petko’s observations.
We may disagree about evaluation of Julia’s problem, and the version demonstrated by me as well. But I had not said anywhere that my version is an “improvement”. I have called it just “position”. The most delicate is the conflict in understanding the role of repelling effects for nLI. They are present in my version as well, thanks to the possibility of nKL to jump between nLI and bK. Then showing the same effect for bR and bS can be considered redundant, especially the repelling effect for bS is totally artificial. The solutions works without it, and so use of bS goes against principle of economy of force.
Note that 2 FIDE Album points form one person is relatively high mark as it means the view of judge “the problem could be in the FIDE Album”. Among thousands of published fairies only hundreds can get this mark. And 3 FIDE Album points means “the problem should be in the FIDE Album”, only tens or low hundreds of problems deserve this mark during three-year periods. This Julia’s problem is in my view rather in the category “the problem should not be in the FIDE Album”, what is 1 point – or 1.5 points in case of better problems.
Final disclaimer. Maybe I am completely wrong and I only understand that I understand nothing. Any other views?
I may not agree with the marks suggested, but removing the black knight b8 in Julia’s problem is definitely desirable as it is used only to block that square.
What does it mean, task-record -6 different moves by wK? Doesn’t seem very much for itself, so something else is probably specific here.
Dear friends, thanks for all comments! I always learn somethings from them! About the problem itself – I don’t think it is something exceptional in general, and I don’t care about the Album points etc.. What excites me – is composing something new for me, something I’ve never tried before. Well, these moves of the white King was a new experience for me, but still the primary theme I wanted to show was ODT with a play of 2 neutral pieces KL and LI, and the specifics of such anti-battery (as Mr.Seetharaman said “the neutral anti-battery mate is only a single check”) where all possible defenses turn into the illegal self-checks. I find this problem very light, just 8 pieces in h#3, with a clear theme. Two solutions in this problem are a bit different, as in the first one a move of wK creates a hurdle for nKL, but in the second it does the static nLI. It also determines the different order of moves. I believe this is a matter of taste. Myself I like such differences, while the main theme is still presented (another example of different moves order is also my No.271). I find it funny for myself and interesting for solvers. Trying to learn the aesthetic principles and to follow them, I still like to make such little playful things, just because I like them. 🙂
The primary things for me in composing are still creativeness and joy. If I can compose a problem which gives me this, and plus if it has a good enough content from the others point of view – then I’m quite happy!
http://pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=PROBID=%27P1308316%27