|
No.366 Valerio Agostini (Italy) |
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2013 (III): September- December Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
See two nice problems by Italian authors!
No.366 by Valerio Agostini & Antonio Garofalo – An interesting creation of anti-batteries after critical moves by Lion!
No.367 by Valerio Agostini – A nice dual-avoidance play! (JV)
Definitions:
Lion(Li): Moves along Q-lines over another unit of either color to any square beyond that unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdle is not affected.
Kangaroo (KA): Moves along Queen-lines over 2 another units (hurdles) of either color (which may or may not stand on adjacent squares) to the square immediately beyond the second unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdles are not affected.
|
No.366 Valerio Agostini & Antonio Garofalo
Italy
original-02.09.2013
 h#2,5 2 solutions (6+5)
Lion a1 Solution: (click to show/hide)
|
No.367 Valerio Agostini
Italy
original-02.09.2013
 h#2 2 solutions (8+8)
Lion f6; Kangaroo h2 Solution: (click to show/hide)
|
366.. Good long range critical of white lion. Dual avoidance is weak as in the second solution the black rook has to unguard.
367. Nice play of the black Lion. Wish it was possible to have a different selfblock in each solution. Pity that a4, a5 are needed.
No.367 but also No.369
The repeated black move and the poor use of wR/wB in one of the solutions are not nice. But the idea of a PURELY motivated anti-dual play is very nice. In No.369, the flights a2/a4 greatly diminish the importance of bLI’s hurdle effect.
A quick example with the uniquely motivated anti-dual:
White Sb5 Kc5 Sc4 KAg1
Black Pg7 Gb6 Pf6 Pa5 Ka4
Stipulation H#2; 2 sol.
1.Gd4 KAb6 2.Gb4 Sb2#(2…Sc3+? 3.Kb3!)
1.Gg6 KAg8 2.Ge6 Sc3#(2…Sb2+? 3.Kb3!)
Dear Nikola,
your example is very simple, it is a scheme; in a tourney it would not acquire any honor. Which purpose there is, to make a comment if an improvement is not proposed?
Antonio
Nikola’s example is only a scheme but demonstrates pure anti-dual. It is part of his comment.
Dear Antonio,
the purpose of a comment is to comment the various features of some issue.
I like the basic idea of this original, so I looked for an adequate realization. When I found a way, I quickly constructed the example.
I don’t intend to improve the example, for I want to leave a possibility to Valerio to do it himself.
You say that the example is a simple scheme (what do you say about the original?). Well, the example is not particularly complex but it is not a simple scheme as you think. I learned from it myself, can YOU learn something from it?
Thank you for your answer Nikola, to speak is always a good thing. About the original by Valerio I think that the only defect is the repetition of selfblock. Thanks also to seetharaman, of course.
In principle, I comment only the problems which have some detail that looks new and intriguing to me. If I learn something from my analysis, I post a comment – perhaps someone else could find it interesting.
There are many details about which we are not fully aware and I’m always glad when someone points them out.
I learn from the comments of the others and from my own as well.
Now, why do you think that my example is a simple scheme?
What is the presented content and how the pieces are used, especially the officers.
I really wonder what might be treated as a scheme and what as an improvement.
I would like to answer the comments that have been made to my problem 367 of Julia’s Fairies 2013- III .
I begin with the authoritative opinion of Nikola PREDRAG : I’m always honored when he talks about a problem of mine. As he says, he comments only when the work interests him and for me this is a source of great joy.
His version of the problem is absolutely correct and it works – to some extent – better than mine but … the work of Nikola is a different problem compared to mine! Perhaps Lorinc is more accurate when he says that he was “inspired” by n . 367 to compose 369. Even that one is a different problem anyway! Let me explain …
When I put hands on this idea I wanted not only to get a dual avoidance but also diagonal – orthogonal solutions.
Let’s see:
Solution 1: 1.LI-h4 (diagonal), KA-h7 (orthogonal) [control c2: diagonal]; 2.LIxa4, Rb6 (orthogonal)#
Solution 2: 1.LI-f4 (orthogonal), KA-c7 (diagonal) [control c2: orthogonal); 2.LIxa4, Bxe6 (diagonal)#
All this has disappeared both in Predrag’s version and in 369! You can not , in the name of absolute economy alter the idea of the author .
A second observation is the “weakness” of B1 (always self-blocking a4), noted both by Predrag and Garofalo. I believe that, in a dual avoidance problem, this move is very important! From the apparently same move two different solutions are created showing that the move is not the same and that the starting square is important. Moreover, the same continuation enhances the dual avoidance because White can not proceed either way but “must ” follow a different path to mate. Paradoxically, the same move requires two different paths!
A final observation on the comment of “poor use of Rook c6 and Bishop f5 .”
In a problem with two solutions, the activity of the pieces is measured by their use in both phases. The two parts in question have one specific function and one inverse: one is to mate and the other to allow the Kangaroo control of c2 with reversal of roles in the two phases. I don’t understand how can one speak of “poor use” in this case. And besides, that allows the dual avoidance and therefore there is a strong thematic content …
I conclude with big thanks to Julia for allowing us these fruitful discussion, Nikola and Antonio for their invaluable advice and all other friends who have commented. I hope I have clarified, at least in part, my ideas on 367!