Gani Ganapathy (India) &
Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia)


Original Fairy problems
JF – 2017(I): January – June

Definition: (click to show/hide)

No.1211 Gani Ganapathy &
Juraj Lörinc

India / Slovakia

original – 22.04.2017
For JF’s 5th anniversary

Solution: (click to show/hide)

White Ke1 Qf7 Rg7c1 Bc5 Sf6 Pe6f4 Black Kd3 Qa8 Pa7c6

#2                                                (8+4)

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Andrew Buchanan
Andrew Buchanan
April 23, 2017 12:19

Can authors of this fine problem please explain what dual avoidance is exactly and how it applies here. It’s a phrase I sometimes see but I suspect it’s sometimes used in a looser sense. Thanks!

Juraj Lörinc
Juraj Lörinc
April 23, 2017 13:13

In the solution 1.Rg8!, the threat appears after retreating move of rook thanks to attack of bQ to Rg8.

There are two defences by bQ with different defences motifs (1…Qxg8 captures threat piece, while 1…Qb7 removes the attack of bQ from Rg8), but with the same harmful motif (both 1…Qxg8 and 1…Qb7 attack wQ). Thus seemingly there would be dual in both variations 2.Qg6# and 2.Qd7#. But there are present dual avoidance motives in both defences: 1…Qb7 additionally guards d7, preventing 2.Qd7+? by 2…Qxd7! and 1…Qxg8 additionally guards g6, preventing 2.Qg6+? by 2…Qxg6!

I have to admit that both dual avoidance and mate change themes have rather basic motivation, but the point of the composition was to show AMU-motivated play without fairy pieces in pleasant position (meredith, mirror mates). Dual avoidance is more means than aim, but it is show in my opinion in pure form.

Andrew Buchanan
Andrew Buchanan
April 24, 2017 01:56

Hi Juraj,
Thanks for this – very clear. But why are these defences not shown after the try 1.Qf8? There should be 1… Qxf8/Qb7 2.Rg3/Rg3.

Juraj Lörinc
Juraj Lörinc
April 25, 2017 00:16

As there is no change and both defences mentioned by you in the 1.Qf8? try do not anything to the content, they do not form any part of authors’ intention and therefore are not listed. They are there, the try is try also because it has single refutation, but need not be listed.

Actually, there is more hidden content in the position, not only what computer might show you now, but also what we have met during constructing the final position, but we have deliberately chosen to omit some content (e.g. some new checkmates, some additional defences) to have a clean position as a result.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x