|
|
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2016 (II): July – December →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2016(II) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
No.1148, 1149 
Definition: (click to show/hide)
|
No.1148 N.Shankar Ram |
Solution: (click to show/hide) |
|
white Pe7h3f4f5f2d2 Ke1 Rf1a1
black Ph6g7a3a2h4 Kh5 Rh7
r#2* (9+7) |
|
|
|
|
|
No.1149 N.Shankar Ram |
Solution: (click to show/hide) |
|
white Kh8 Sf4 Na6f3
black Pf7 Kh6 Ne8
#2 (4+3) |
|
Why double refutations?
Miniature setting!
This version avoids the dual refutation… and also has all mates as model mates:
Wkh1, WRg5, WNa6, WNf3; BKh6, BNe8, BPs f7, h7, h2. (4+5)
Ah, I see, thanks.
Then, of course, the try in 1149 is worthless according to the current canons. I see some comments below that strongly disagree with (and just one I agree with), but I would limit myself only to discussion about the comparison of versions offered by you.
In my view the 4+5 version is much better. 4+3 version is single phase, 4+5 version is double-phase with clean change and altogether 5 model mates, with the same strategy conserved from the miniature setting.
I agree. Single phase Nightrider grimshaw should be at least 50 years old! It is the second phase with nice changes that adds originality to the problem!
A search in WinChloe for “Nightrider”+”Grimshaw”+”Miniature” finds only 1 problem:
J.Mortensen, feenschach, 1961: WKa8, WQc2, WPe7; BKa1, BBa7, BNb7; #2; 1.e8=Q!(2.Qea4#) 1…Bc5/Nc5 2. Qe1#/Qe5#
hm…. surprised !
I am not particularly in love with the number 7, so I do prefer the “sound” version (unique refutation) even though it is no miniature.
The original intention was a n/p grimshaw in miniature. The try with changed play was a serendipitous bonus.
It is not a question of being in love with the number 7. It is about composing a Miniature which many composers strive to do.
I like Shankar’s version and would myself have presented the problem thus without the wK and bPh2 – retaining the Miniature form.
“Unique refutation” makes sense only if the author claims it as being thematic for the content.
Otherwise, it’s just a bureaucratic term, meaningless outside of a certain system of perception.
1.Nc2 would prepare mates for the Grimshaw by gaining access to g4/d4, but not for the 2 crossings. *Nf3 guards g5*.
1.Ne4 would prepare for these 2 crossings (by the threat), but without gaining access for repeating the same Grimshaw-mates.
So, what might be a solution?
The same wN would mate after 1…f6, along the same line. Perhaps a solution requires a wider meaning of the access – to the line and not to the square?
1…Nf6 is more complex. Perhaps a solution again requires a wider meaning, but of what?
– One wN is enabled to safely move to d4 because the other wN guards g5*, and wNa6 gains access to the line f2-h6. –
This is the general strategy for a solution.
The real solution must prepare for the crossings, by Na6 gaining the access to g8 as the threat.
That’s the content and what might be a meaning of “unique refutation”?
1.Nc2 is a logic try, refuted by a crossing move.
The mentioned “sound” version makes the try fitting into a certain bureaucratic system which is here just a meaningless violence.
It only lames the content by cutting off one crossing.
The problem would indeed be richer only if there were TWO tries, uniqely refuted by a respective crossing.
That would give a real meaning to the system which simply doesn’t exist with only one try, except as a hollow bureaucracy.
The “sound” version is in between, adding nothing but losing the essence.
1148.. What a beauty! complex short reflexmates are rare nowadays. (Perhaps I am not looking at the right places). Welcome back Shankar !
Poor Shankar.
He makes a nice #2 Miniature N/P Grimshaw – when quite accidentally and having no Grimshaw connection, an alternative White move pitches-up. It threatens a solution that can be refuted by Black in 2 ways.
Then what happens?
Someone writes-in asking: Why double refutations? and another says it would be a good idea to get rid of one of the refutations by adding two additional pieces!
Poor Shankar.
He will be tempted in the face of all this to think that the alternative move is not so “serendipitous” after all; that it would be better if the move did not exist! But hold fast Shankar. It is serendipitous notwithstanding the two refutations.
The alternative move, causing zz, is very surprising and interesting even if not thematic.
[All the above has nothing to do with Miniatures].
And by the way, in the try the mate after 1…Nf6 should be 2.Ncd4#, if am not mistaken.
2.Ncd4# after 1.Nc2? Nf6 is right! Julia, Please correct!
Showing the full move then. Sorry, animation program shows just arrival square by default, or the both, departure and arrival, with an additional setting.
Juraj, the question is – how can you apply a certain system of canons before knowing the problem?
The author’s solution pretty clearly gives the proper canons:
– a PAIR of intersecting thematic lines
– a PAIR of thematic short moves to the intersection
– a PAIR of thematic moves crossing the intersection
The essence of Grimshaw is about a PAIR of moves and here you see also the PAIR of Grimshaw avoidances by crossing.
The esthetic canon for the try is:
“a THEMATIC refutation is UNIQUE if it matches the THEMATIC essence, and here, only a PAIR of THEMATIC moves can make a SINGLE refutation.”
I see it as a BEAUTIFUL canon-system, grounded on the logic of the try refutation.
The “current canons” are worthless here as being UGLY and LAME without another (complementary) thematic try.
There can be a frantic compulsion to create phases – irrespective of their merit.
This is a single phase problem.
It has a W move that because it has two refutations cannot, according to the “canons”, be accepted as a Try.
What can be done?
Answer: add 2 pieces to remove one of the refutations and voila! we have a second phase.
But the thing about all this is:
even if it did not involve the cost of two additional pieces, the single line Try would be so disparate from the N/P Grimshaw pairs that it does not warrant being brought into the reckoning.
The changes also involve N/P grimshaw.
You are of course right Seetharaman.
A careless aberration by me..
I have become enamoured with Shankar’s serendipitous zz move!
I think it is better than the key move – so I have made a version switching try / key.
The version introduces 2 Equihoppers.
The wEq mates when the old f7-f5 refutation is played.
The bEq is used to refute of the old key.
Note:
The key move deprives the bEq of a move and thus makes zz possible.
The wEq provides the hurdle for the bEq to make the refuting move.
The version in Popeye format is:
beg pie
whi kh1 rg5 na6f3 eqd2
bla kh6 pf7h2h7 ne8 eqa2
stip #2
opt var try
end
1.Na6-c2 ! zugzwang.
1…f7-f5
2.EQd2-h8 #
1…f7-f6
2.Nc2-g4 #
1…Ne8-a6
2.Nc2-g4 #
1…Ne8-c7
2.Nc2-g4 #
1…Ne8-b2
2.Nc2-g4 #
1…Ne8-c4
2.Nc2-g4 #
1…Ne8-d6
2.Nc2-g4 #
1…Ne8-g4
2.Nc2*g4 #
1…Ne8-f6
2.Nc2-d4 #
1…Ne8-g7
2.Nc2-g4 #
1.Na6-e4 ? threat:
2.Ne4-g8 #
1…f7-f6
2.Ne4-f2 #
1…Ne8-f6
2.Nf3-d4 #
but
1…EQa2-g2 !
1.Na6*e8 ? threat:
2.Ne8-g4 #
1…f7-f5
2.EQd2-h8 #
but
1…f7-f6 !
Well Shankar I wonder what you will think!
Thank you for your interest in this problem, Peter!
Your version with equihoppers switching the try and key is quite ingenious!
My beliefs are a bit old fashioned in that I try to keep the number of fairy elements to a minimum.
A challenge would be to implement Nikola’s requirement. Maybe we will call it Nikola theme 😉
1. A black grimshaw after key
2. Two zz tries each of which are refuted by one of the grimshaw pieces making a move over the interference square.
Well Shankar, I prefer developing the “canons” which so clearly enhance your miniature.
Some SINGLE concept(complex) “X” suits White but Black defends/refutes by a SINGLE anti-concept “X-avoidance”.
Each concept alone consists of 2 or more complementary features.
These concepts complement each other since the features of one concept complement the features of the other.
Thus,
– a pair of moves along the thematic lines ONTO the intersection is “Grimshaw” and
– a pair of moves along the thematic lines BEYOND the intersection is “Grimshaw-avoidance by crossing”
As one interference can’t make Grimshaw, one “crossing” can’t make the mentioned “Grimshaw-avoidance” since that would be a “single interference avoidance”.
And if a complete SINGLE concept of Grimshaw is present in ONE phase through TWO variations, then a complete SINGLE concept of Grimshaw-avoidance should be present in ONE phase through TWO variations.
A “unique refutation” is a SINGLE complex consisting of TWO complementary “moves beyond”.
Single-move refutation is simply not thematic and thus makes not a “unique refutation.”
It’s about “concept versus anti-concept”.
My version with two Equihoppers was made for interest sake.
Of course the addition of two pieces merely to switch Try and Key moves cannot be justified – however more attractive the one may be.
The additional pieces would have to bring something additional. In the present case they bring the wEqh8 mate using the bPf5 and bPh7 as hurdles and the bEqg2 refutation using the wEqd2 and wRg5 as hurdles – which will be deemed insufficient justification.
I am pleased that you think the version is ingenious – even if only “quite” so.
There are 6 different types of chess pieces and one does not try to keep the number of types used to a minimum. The same should apply to the use of different Fairy pieces. That a distinction is drawn between the two is not sustainable if we a composers in our own Fairy World. This is not a matter of being old-fashioned. [Anyway if it is, you are young enough to change!]
The requirement that there must be “two zz tries each of which are refuted by one of the two grimshaw pieces making a move over the interference square” for the problem to have merit, is nonsense.
I take this opportunity to apologize to Juraj and Kjell for not properly appreciating the play in the Try.
Shankar:
I visited the Royal Fairy Retreat House for Problemists this morning. [It is under the patronage of Queen Titania]. I described an ailment to the Fairy-in- Charge. Yes she said, it is called Multi-Fairy-Piece-Phobia – which she abbreviated to MFPP. She said the treatment for it sounds drastic and admitted that during the first few days it is found to be very painful but that as the days pass the pain abates until at the end the patient actually enjoys the treatment.
TREATMENT: compose five problems having only Fairy pieces with no two pieces the same.
She also said that in the beginning patients seem rather subdued and shackled whereas at the end they feel liberated and are full of the joys of spring. She has received reports that thereafter they compose great problems.
Peter, the “2 tries beyond the intersection” has PERFECT SENSE as thematically related to the Grimshaw.
A single try with single-move refutation is nonsense, as related to the Grimshaw.
Peter,
Thanks for saying I’m young enough to change! You are really a role model for us “youngsters”, with the energy and enthusiasm you display. Nikola’s “requirement” is more in the nature of a theme definition, I feel, rather than a “canon”.
Dear Nikola,
You are just too abstruse for me!
And I say this in the nicest way.
You are a seeker of perfection – which is a good thing.
Peter.
Peter,
Re: MFPP
Back in 1980, fresh from reading the Dawson and Dickins FC books, I got my first problem published. It had: fers, camel, dabbabarider and superpawn. The editor, Dr Lytton, perhaps didn’t want to discourage a newcomer by pointing out the many fairy pieces!
Subsequently, my style has changed, and I plead guilty to be stricken with MFPP!
I do occasionally venture back into multi fairy piece land, taking care to ensure that the “ends justify the means”.