| No.569 Mario Parrinello (Italy) No.569.1, 569.2 Mario Parrinello (Italy) & Nikola Predrag (Croatia) |
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (II): May – August →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2014(II) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
No.569 by Mario Parrinello – Fine Disparate problem! Thematic paralysing effects in 3 half-moves! Author writes that this problem was composed immediately right after reading the 1st part of P.Petkov’s article about Disparate. (JV)
No.569.1, 569.2 – Mario Parrinello & Nikola Predrag – Joint improved versions to the problem No.569, as a result of comments. (JV)
Definition:
Disparate: If one side makes a move with a piece of type “x” (black, white, neutral, half-neutral, etc., King included), the other side cannot answer immediately by moving a piece of the same type “x”. (For example: white Qc1, black Ka8,Qa7 – mate in 1 move. After 1.Qc8#, Black is mated because 1…Qb8? is illegal. The mate is possible also with the neutral nQc1 – after 1.nQc8#. Black cannot move the same neutral Queen.) Every Pawn’s promotion is a Pawn’s move, therefore after such promotion (into any possible piece) the other side cannot answer immediately with its Pawn. We can say that after the move of the figure of type “x” any enemy figure of type “x” falls under Half-moving paralysis. This paralysis disappears immediately on the next half-move, if the opponent plays with another piece of type “y”. (This way it is implemented in Popeye. Another implementation of Disparate you can find in WinChloe, but it is based on the different rules.)
|
No.569 Mario Parrinello |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
White Kg8 Re6 Bh6 Pf6 Pe5 Pg5
Black Ke3 Rg1 Ba1 Sh5 Sc4 Pf7 Pg7 Pd6
h#2 2 solutions (6+8) |
|
|
No.569.1 Mario Parrinello & |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
White Pf4 Rh4 Kh3 Pf2 Bg1
Black Bb8 Se6 Kd4 Ra2 Sd1
h#2 2 solutions (5+5) |
|
|
No.569.2 Mario Parrinello & |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
White Ka5 Ra4 Pc4 Pg6 Bh7
Black Ra1 Pa2 Bc1 Bd3 Ke4 Rg2
h#2 b) bPa2→b2 (5+6) |
|
Very nice O/D reciprocity.
One bSd3 would be enough to interfere on b2/f2, of course with moving bRg1 to f1 and wPg5 to f4. Then moving bPd6 to f6 (-wPf6) would give a Meredith 5+7.
It’s a pity that mates by wK’s moves are not purely paralyzing, the need to annihilate bPs which attack wR/wB is a brutal way to determine the wK’s arrival.
Anti-dual effects of the thematic play would perhaps look more subtle. For illustration:
White Kg8 Re6 Bh6 Pe5 Pf4
Black Qa7 Pd6 Sd3 Ke3 Ba1 Rf1
Stipulation H#2
Condition disparate
1.Sb2 exd6+ 2.Rxf4 Kh8#(Kf8?)
1.Sf2 f5+ 2.Bxe5 Kf8#(Kh8?)
or with 2 bSs
White Pf4 Rh4 Kh3 Pf2 Bg1
Black Bb8 Se6 Kd4 Ra2 Sd1
Stipulation H#2
Condition disparate
1.Sb2 f3+ 2.Bxf4 Kg2#(Kg3?)
1.Sc7 f5+ 2.Rxf2 Kg3#(Kg2?)
Nice versions Nikola.
Nikola, I’m glad you enjoyed my problem and first of all I must thank you for providing signnificant improvements. I highly appreciated your efforts in trying to differentiate wK’s mates less brutally in comparison to my rendering (the antiduals shown by the wK are very nice).
Among your three versions, I like most the third one, which by the way is the most economical of all. In the view of those significant improvements, I would like you do accept this last version as a joint composition.
I agree Mario.
I wished to draw attention to what is getting silently accepted as a standard for helpmates – the most trivial and brutal motivations for the play.
Even in direct problems, a capture of a mate-preventing black piece is considered as a brutal flaw, at least in principle.
The helpmate genre was invented and developed for showing the subtlety which is hard to achieve when Black is opposing.
In help-genres particularly, a thematic capture of a black piece requires some complex motivation, as for instance in Maslar theme.
In the 569.1, why not putting a single bSf3 in place of the two black Knights?
Solutions remain the same, except the first half moves which are now 1.Sd2 and 1.Se5 respectively.
No, dear Nicolas, your position has the following two solutions:
1.Sf3-d2 f2-f3 + 2.Bb8*f4 Kh3-g2 #
1.Sf3-e5 f4*e5 + 2.Ra2*f2 Kh3-g3 #.
Of course, the second solution is very bad and de facto not thematical.
A version with only one Knight is possible, but in other position, for example:
h#2 2 solutions
whte: kh4 rh3 bh7 pf3 pf5
black kd3 ra5 bb7 sd4
disparate
1.Sd4-c6 f3-f4 + 2.Ra5*f5 Kh4-g4 #
1.Sd4-b5 f5-f6 + 2.Bb7*f3 Kh4-g5 #
But….there is a small thematical minus – who can find it? 🙂
Oups, of course you’re right! I just verified that Popeye gives 2 solutions, without checking their thematicity…
I’ll publish a very detailed comments on this very interesting problem, but tomorrow! Thanks for dedication, dear Mario and Nicola!
Well, anyone could find this version, of course after some work. I just gave the rough examples of the possibilities with one or two bSs. I preferred to spent some limited time thinking about more complex and interesting possibilities.
And I actually don’t like that artificially “pasted” line-interference in B1.
All well known elements, simply copied from a million of published problems, I personally consider only as the necessary technical “bricks”, but non-thematic in principle.
Line-closing by bS is here completely non-original and can’t be thematic. A claim that it is thematic should be treated as plagiarism, at least in my view.
bR/bB are thematic each in one phase and in the other they must be prevented to interfere on a mating line. Since that prevention is not original in any way, it’s just a necessary technical tool.
I’m not happy with adding pieces to present some well known strategic element.
If there’s no original way to prevent that interference on a mating line, some “copied/pasted” well known tool should be at least as economical as possible. Active hideaway or sacrifice, for instance.
Rough examples:
White Ba8 Pc6 Ka5 Ra4 Pc4
Black Re6 Ke4 Bd3
Stipulation H#2
Condition disparate
——————
White Kh7 Pf6 Rh6 Pg3 Bh2
Black Bd8 Pc7 Kd6 Rh3
Stipulation H#2
Condition disparate
—
Here’s another rough example, which perhaps more purely presents the main idea, despite the half-employed black thematic pieces. The point is that there is no need to prevent any non-thematic harmful potential of bR/bB.
The whole play serves purely the thematic idea, without non-thematic additions.
White Kh7 Pf6 Rh6 Pg3 Bh2
Black Bc7 Rc6 Kd6
Stipulation H#2
Condition disparate
—–
We all must thank you, Petko, for your article.
In regard to your quiz, the small minus is the lack of “orthodox” pin of the bR (in the solution 1.Sc6 it is not possibile to play 3.Rf3??); but this is not very essential since the reason of this pin is fairy, based on disparate condition.
Nikola, your new versions are interesting and were made in order to avoid the ugly motivations of the B1 moves, as you have poited out. The most neat of all is, to my eyes, the version wKh7/bKd6; the one wKa5/bKe4 shows the same minus of Petko’s provocation problem while the third one with black sacrifices (wKh7/bKd6) shows in my opinion rather crude captures of black pieces. After all I don’t think that those blak line closings at B1 are so ugly, but of course this is also matter of taste and we must think that in any case there is the need to remove the control on the mating line and one of the very few possibilities in this context is a black line closing. Other possibilies are, as shown by Nikola’s versions, hideaways or black sacrifice, which are all orthodox alternatives.
I have found fairy motivations for the B1 moves.
White Pf5 Rh5 Kh4 Pf3 Bh1
Black Bd7 Pa6 Ra5 Kd5 Pa4 Rb3 Pd2 Bc1
1.Rb3-b2 f3-f4 + 2.Bd7*f5 Kh4-g3 #
1.Bd7-b5 f5-f6 + 2.Rb3*f3 Kh4-g4 #
Yes, here too extra material is added but I think it is worth its use.
Daer Mario,
I think that this version is better than the all before!
But here is possible also a position with 12 pieces only, for example:
h#2 2 solutions
White Ka4 Ra3 Ba7 Pc3 Pc5 (5)
Black Ke3 Rg5 Rh3 Be1 Bh1 Ph2 Ph4 (7)
Disparate, 2 solutions
1.Be1-g3 c3-c4 + 2.Rg5*c5 Ka4-b4 #
1.Rg5-g2 c5-c6 + 2.Be1*c3 Ka4-b5 #
Later I will probably write more. Your remark about the version with only one black S is correct, of course! 🙂
Yes Mario, this makes the original idea complete. Self-pin and self-block(incarceration) thematically prevent two black pieces to paralyze the white attacking piece.
I didn’t mean that orthodox line-closing in B1 is “ugly” but that it is not originally motivated and convincingly implemented in the main idea. It is just an artificially pasted (independent) strategic element.
If nevertheless, such a technical unoriginal element is needed to synchronize the play, I prefer to choose the simplest and most economic element.
If a hideaway doesn’t require additional blocking pieces, it’s better than a line-closing which requires a piece serving only that purpose.
In the published versions, bSs are added to close the lines but they themselves must hide away. This double purpose of their moves is well known and often utilized. It is a rather complex element (for a single move) and it draws attention.
Drawing attention and giving significance to the features which are copied from the known sources (and simply pasted) is a typical Kitsch. Claiming that such copied elements are a part of original thematic content, is actually a plagiarism.
Therefore I don’t insist on the “harmony” of unoriginal elements, which would only give them an undeserved significance. Variety of such elements seems more appropriate for their unoriginal and non-thematic functions.
hm……. The moral of the story is perhaps that even masters need to have a second look at their finished versions!
And 3rd, 4th… look could hardly be too much 🙁
🙂 🙂
Yes, it is ALWAYS useful a second look every time as the present case proves; when I have composed (I must admit, too hurry…) this problem immediately after having read Petko‘s article I was very happy as a child to produce my first Disparate problem; I had not too much time to check the other possibilities of that matrix (I am a Medical Doctor, Cardiologist, and work in Hospital, so that I have not so much time).
And without Nikola’s suggestions probably the problem would have not been improved.
By the way, such an excellent webite as, Julia’s Fairies is, allow us to discuss and improve our compositions in real time (it is more difficult to do this in the paper magazine).
Back to the motivations, I can understand Nikola’s point of view and to some entent I totally agree, though the word plagiarism is a rather strong word, better is not very original, I think.
Petko, I thank you for composing a Meredith version; thus I would like you do accept this last version as a joint composition.
Thanks Mario for your very interesting problem and thanks to Nikola, Petkov and Others for the discussion it provoked. I can very well understand rushing to publish when a nice idea is completed. I had done it many times !
Sorry, I prefer this version
White Pf6 Rh6 Kh5 Pf4 Bh2
Black Ba8 Bd8 Pa7 Ra6 Kd6 Pa5 Rb4
H#2 2 sols.
Disparate
1.Rb4-b7 f4-f5 + 2.Bd8*f6 Kh5-g4 #
1.Bd8-b6 f6-f7 + 2.Rb4*f4 Kh5-g5 #
which shows “homogeneous” pins from both orthodox and fairy point of view.
Hi, good evening everyone,
I follow this discussion with interest
To try a compromise, perhaps this last version would be more economic!
Two black pawns less with the same pins!
pieces
white Rh6 Kh5 Bh2 Pf4f6
black Bd8a8 Rb4a7 Kd6
H#2 2 sols. (5+5)
Disparate
1.Rb4-b7 f4-f5 + 2.Bd8*f6 Kh5-g4 #
1.Ra7-e7 f6*e7 + 2.Rb4*f4 Kh5-g5 #
I am anxious to clarify
I don’t aspire to be joined to this composition, i just want to discuss for the fun.
I did not change the last diagram but just pruned a little (I think)
Friendly.
Dear Mario, I believe that your main co-author is Nikola Predrag, and I’d be happy if you both would publish the version you’ve chosen. My contribution was a very minor improvement of your position!
From my side, it was interesting for me to play with your problem, I had no intention to become a co-author, and I’m pretty happy about the dedication!
I’d like to add also, that the last your position (B) and the one published before (A) differs with only function of the white pawns. I’ve prefer position A) as after a move of the white pawn c5 there’s no guarding of square (without need), what is really a little thing.
A) PAP – position – White Ka4 Ra3 Ba7 Pc3 Pc5 (5)
Black Ke3 Rg5 Rh3 Be1 Bh1 Ph2 Ph4 (7)
Disparate, 2 solutions
1.Be1-g3 c3-c4 + 2.Rg5*c5 Ka4-b4 #
1.Rg5-g2 c5-c6 + 2.Be1*c3 Ka4-b5 #
In Your position after a move of Pf4 there is guarding of “e6”.
B) MP -position – White Pf6 Rh6 Kh5 Pf4 Bh2
Black Ba8 Bd8 Pa7 Ra6 Kd6 Pa5 Rb4
H#2 2 sols.
Disparate
1.Rb4-b7 f4-f5 + 2.Bd8*f6 Kh5-g4 #
1.Bd8-b6 f6-f7 + 2.Rb4*f4 Kh5-g5 #
which shows “homogeneous” pins from both orthodox and fairy point of view.
About Dominique’s version I think that such position has inadequate solutions in thematic attitude because of the the rough capture of the black Rook….
Plagiarism is indeed a strong word because it implies stealing. But it’s a question for every author:
“What is my ORIGINAL creation and what is BORROWED from the archive of million older problems?”
Any original idea is built up on many “borrowed” known elements. Plagiarism/stealing begins when I CLAIM that some borrowed element is originally MINE.
I don’t say that we are the thieves, it’s certainly tricky to decide where is a sharp distinctive point between the original and the borrowed.
I apologize if anyone has taken the “plagiarism” personally. I hope it’s clear that my writing is about the general principles and not about the particular cases.
We should pay a full attention to the originality, but (too) often it seems that most of the attention is given to the most familiar borrowed elements.
In Mario’s problem, ANY move by bB (respectively wR) would paralyze the check by wB (respectively wR). Therefore Black must self-pin bB or respectively bR.
Irrelevant virtual features only detract the attention from what is thematically relevant.
And even worse, in the last Mario’s version, if bBf6 is not pinned in one phase and bRf4 in the other, both would be able to interfere on the respective mating line.
But that motivation for the self-pin is actually neither relevant nor irrelevant, because it simply DOES NOT EXIST, so it’s technically a “lie”.
Self-pin is EXCLUSIVELY motivated by Disparate condition (and there’s the beauty).
A mechanism of the lies and non-existing stories misinforms the public in some gossip column of the yellow press 🙂
Please note that the “strong words” should just technically describe the features of such mechanism and by no means the intentions of any particular person.
I prefer the economy of the true content (especially the addition of the 2 bPs which imprison bR looks rather artificial):
W: Bc6 Pd5 Ka4 Ra3 Pc3; B: Ra8 Pa7 Be5 Kf3 Rd2 Bh1
At least, the virtual differences between the phases might provoke the public to think deeper and learn what are the true motivations for the play.
Disparate doesn’t recognize the colors of Bishop’s squares.
If nevertheless, a harmony of virtual “lies” is considered as a content worth 1bP, a small change in the version A)PAP is possible: wPc5 to b6 and bRg5 to g6.
Mario, since all thematic fairy content was created by you, now I think that creative importance of my contribution was very small, mostly about technical and “philosophical” details.
I have had a “feeling” for a moment that the additional bR&bB might be of some use, but I have abandoned it as a “nonsense” 🙁
Therefore, I’m amazed and doubly-glad about successfully provoking you to extend the fairy motivations.
It seems as only fair that you do with all these last versions whatever you like. My comments were all merely the questions about the general principles and certainly not a struggle for the authorship.
(But I’ll keep the published joint-version, because of the dedication to our Professor)
🙂
Thanks, Seetharaman, I’m pleased you have experienced the same situations after creating a problem (trouble shared is a trouble halved…).
Petko, I respect your decision about co-authorship and we must thank you for your interesting suggestions and for taking part in this discussion.
Nikola, I thank you for sparkling this interesting discussion on general principles and providing suggestions for the present problem; with no doubt, without your support the problem would not been improved. Thanks.
What you say about the motivations of the pins is right in the end I convinced my-self that the best way to present those pins is to motivate them exclusively by the Disparate condition. Thus, after having studied more deeply almost all possibilities of my matrix, I have composed the following version:
White Bh7 Pg6 Ka5 Ra4 Pc4
Black Ke4 Bd3 Pa2 Rg2 Ra1 Bc1
H#2 B) bPa2 to b2 (5+6)
Disparate
A) 1.Bb1 c5 + 2.Rxg6 Kb5 # (Kb6#?)
B) 1.Rd2 g7 + 2.Bxc4 Kb6 # (Kb5#?)
In this version, which by the way is a Meredith and moreover does not show the small minus pointed out by Petko (after moving, a white pawn guards the bK’s field), the pinned black pieces do not prevent the mates ONLY by Disparate pin (and not also by interfereces with the mating line if not pinned).
As I said above, without your suggestion I would not have studied other possibilities of that matrix, so I would like to accept the co-authorship.
Mario, I agree whatever you decide. It was indeed the honor and pleasure to participate in the discussion.
Still I wonder why so much care is given to the artificial, unoriginal or non-existing content at cost of the real play and motivations.
A concept of “flights” around a paralyzed King is meaningless. A fairy condition is a particular set of rules and the rules of orthodox chess are here as relevant as the rules of football.
What looks paradoxical in the orthodox view, might be very ordinary and banal in a view of some fairy set of rules.
In any case here’s 🙂
569.2 Beautiful! Now both B1 and B2 is Disparate specific!
The idea of “virtual pin” which is transformed into the real pin is interesting.
A piece A can be “virtually” pinned by an opposing piece B of the same type. When piece A vacates the “virtual” pinning line, there is only a “virtual/pseudo” self-check because the piece B is paralyzed.
But piece A can arrive on the REAL pinning line of an opposing piece of a different type, so A can’t paralyze B again.
Then activation of B transforms the “virtual/pseudo” self-check into a REAL check(mate).
Here’s a rough example (a motivation for W1 could surely be better):
White Bd7 Pc6 Pb5 Rc5 Ka3 Pb2
Black Rh8 Qa7 Ph7 Be6 Rd5 Kf5 Pa4 Pf2 Be1
Stipulation H#2
Condition disparate
Twin Move d5 e5
a) 1.Rd2 c7+ 2.Bd5 Ka4#
b) 1.Bg8 b6+ 2.Re6 Ka2#