Definitions: (click to show/hide)
Kangaroo-Lion(KL): Moves along Q-lines over 2 hurdles of either color (which may or may not stand on adjacent squares) to any square beyond the 2nd unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdle is not affected.
Andernach Chess: A piece (excluding King) changes its color after any capturing move. Rooks on a1, h1, a8 and h8 can be used for castling, provided the usual other rules for that move are satisfied.
|
No.1071 Vito Rallo &
Mario Parrinello
Italy
original – 17.05.2016
|
Solutions: (click to show/hide)
|
|
white Kb8 KLf2h7
black Kd6 Ba6c5 Rd7 Qh4 Pc6d5e3e5e6f7h6
h#2 2 solutions (3+12)
Andernach Chess
Kangaroo-Lion f2, h7
|
1.Qh4-e7 KLf2-a7 2.Rd7*a7=w{ }Ra7-d7 # {(3.Qxd7=w?? illegal self-check)}
1.Qh4-d4 KLh7-a7 2.Bc5*a7=w{ }Ba7-c5 # {(3.Qxc5=w?? illegal self-check)
(C+ by Popeye 4.75)}
Active sacrifices by the two Kangaroo-Lions in turn, ODT and AndernachChess-specific effects in the mating moves (the bQ cannot capture the mating piece because of an illegal self-check). (Authors)
|
|
|
No.1071.1 Vito Rallo &
Mario Parrinello
Italy
version of No.1071 – 27.05.2016
Dedicated to Laco Packa
and Georgy Evseev
|
Solutions: (click to show/hide)
|
|
white Kd6 KLb7h7 Pa2
black Kc4 Rb4f5 Qe8 Sd4 Bd3 Pb6c3
h#2 2 solutions (4+8)
Andernach Chess
Kangaroo-Lion b7, h7
|
1.Qe8-e4 KLb7-b1 2.Bd3*b1=w { } Bb1-d3 # {(3.Qxd3=w?? illegal self-check)}
1.Qe8-b5 KLh7-b1 2.Rb4*b1=w { } Rb1-b4 # {(3.Qxb4=w?? illegal self-check)
(C+ by Popeye 4.75)}
Active sacrifices by the two Kangaroo-Lions in turn, ODT and AndernachChess-specific effects in the mating moves (the bQ cannot capture the mating piece because of an illegal self-check). (Authors)
|
Nice echoes !
Vive le Kangourou-Lion (in french)
Why not “common” Lions?
W: Kb7, LIh6, LIf1 (3) – B: Kd5, Rd6, Re5, Ba5, Bc4, Pc5, d4, d3, e4, f6 (10)
H#2 AndernachChess C+
1.d3-d2 LIf1-a6 2.Rd6*a6=w Ra6-d6 #
1.f6-f5 LIh6-a6 2.Bc4*a6=w Ba6-c4 #
There are also more options with KL. The content will be retained and Umnow theme is added:
White KLb8 KLa2 Pc2 Kg1 (4)
Black Pd6 Pd4 Pe4 Bf4 Ke3 Qf3 Re2 KLh2 (8)
H#2 AndernachChess
2 solutions C+
1.KLh2-b2 KLb8-h2 2.Re2*h2=w Rh2-e2 #
1.KLh2-c7 KLa2-h2 2.Bf4*h2=w Bh2-f4 #
I also got the same question as Laco – why KLs? Obvious thought is that KLs were used as the pieces which are easier to control than ordinary Lions. Of course, it is quite possible that authors started with KLs and simply have not thought about other possibilities.
At the same time Laco’s proposal loses valuable asset – Andernach-specific mate. Also, there are some other things that could be improved from my point of view.
Anyway, I have got the following version.
White: Kc1 Pd4 Lif1h6
Black: Kd5 Rg4d6 Qc4 Bd1 Pc2e4 LIc8
1.Bd1-e2 LIh6-a6 2.Qc4*a6=w + Qa6-c4 #
1.Rg4-g6 LIf1-a6 2.Rd6*a6=w Ra6-d6 #
The last moves of the solutions are wrongly typesetted – they should read Rd7# and Bc5#. This is not only a matter of writing, the last moves of the animated solutions follow the same error.
This is not a typesetting error, actually.
For the reasons unknown the recent versions of the popeye changed the syntax for recoloring, so it became ambigous when you disregard the whitespaces (that’s how py2web works):
2.Rd7*a7=w Ra7-d7 # (intended)
2.Rd7*a7=wR a7-d7 # (how the parser got it)
The fix is to use the old popeye syntax:
2.Rd7*a7[a7=w] Ra7-d7 #
Sorry, sorry, the solutions are corrected for animation!
Ah ok, thanks Dmitri! Actually I missed the fact that py2web is not only providing animated solutions, but is also changing Popeye’s syntax… Thus each modification at Popeye’s level might have a bad impact at py2web level, which is the case here… Maybe the correct solution (printed and animated)could be implemented “at hand” or using the old Popeye syntax?
Vito’s idea is to show a specific effect of the Andenach condition: in the mating move Black cannot capture the mating piece because of an illegal self-check. That was the first requirement for his idea. That’s why the final result of no.1071 is the impossibility to capture the wR in one solution and the wB in the other due to an illegal self-check.
In the first Laco’s version the aformentioned thematic content is lacking, whereas in the second one (wKg1/bKe3) it is still retained but in a rather static way (the bQf3 is there only for block purposes and it is the only piece can block the square f3 and therefore the specific illegal self-check is rather fortuitous); n.1071 shows more dynamic Andernach-specific effects instead.
This thematic feature is still present in Evseev’s version but it requires two thematic black pieces (Rg4 and Bd1) which are idle in turn and furthemore the bLIc8 is a ugly cookstopper.
We thank Laco and Evseev for their suggestions.
I can not take your opinion. If you consider your first position for better so I can not change it. But I must note that, in my opinion, I improved the composition. This view you also take me very difficult :))
In any case, your first position can be more economical. I managed to save three pieces while maintaining complete content.
White KLb7 KLh7 Kd6 Pa2 (4)
Black Qe8 Pb6 Rf5 Rb4 Kc4 Sd4 Pc3 Bd3 (8)
H#2 AndernachChess 2 solutions C+
1.Qe8-b5 KLh7-b1 2.Rb4*b1=w Rb1-b4 #
1.Qe8-e4 KLb7-b1 2.Bd3*b1=w Bb1-d3 #
bLIc8 may indeed be an “ugly cookstopper”, but that actually emphasizes that wKLs are the “ugly WHITE cookstoppers”, since their nature is not thematically required.
bPs e3,f7 are simply added, they don’t play to these squares for some thematic reason.
There’s only one active hurdle, bQ, so wLions would be thematic.
Showing the illegality of self-check might make an example to explain the specific rules, but an original composition should create something more, using these specific rules.
Any dummy-hurdle on e7/d4 would do the job, so showing that “even bQ may be a hurdle” might serve only as an illustration of the rules.
I see these “selfchecks” as a completely superfluous, non-thematic feature.
An IDEA makes a theme, not the rules.
I agree that LIc8 is somewhat ugly, but the fence of black pawns around black king, while traditional, also does not seem like good technical device to me.
The following position is quite polished (even though without Andernach mates and with two black queens):
White : Kh8 LIa8a1
Black : Ke2 Qf3e1 Rd3 Bd2 Ph3
1.Bc1 LIh1 2.Qexh1(W) Qe1‡
1.Rd5 LIh1 2.Qfxh1(W) Qf3‡
Or even the following 100% clean version with thematic mates, but inverted tactics.
White : Kh8 LIa8a1
Black : Ke2 Qe4f3c1e1
1.Qed3 LIh1 2.Qexh1(W) Qe1‡
1.Qcd2 LIh1 2.Qfxh1(W) Qf3‡
I like this version with four black queens. The dual avoidance on B1 moves (even if simple), the line openings and the echoe mates are very nice! Bravo..
Georgy, your last version is extremely elegant and economical, well done (by the way, why not two black Bishops replacing Qc1 and Qe4? C+) . Given different tactics, don’t you think it is rather a different problem, in other words entirely yours?
Laco’s version (4+8) is really more economical (we were not able to improve further). Therefore we think it’s fair to add his name to this version. Laco, what is your opinion?
I think my contribution is not so great that I deserve to be co-author. But I would not object if you dedicated me this composition :))
1. In case of two black bishops one mate is Andernach-specific, while other one is not. It is possible to have Rd1 and Be4, but I do not like unneeded and unused square block on d1 in one solution. From the other hand, Queens+Andernach give the impression of additional possibilities. It is also possible, for example, to have two model mates with the choice of 2nd white move, while sacrificing corner-to-corner play.
2. I participate in these discussions to consider specific rules and definition issues, technical excellency, general artistic principles and so on. All my positions and versions mentioned in the discussions should be only considered as examples. Some time ago I had decided to never publish positions form these discussions as independent originals.