Jean-Marc Loustau


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

Definitions: (click to show/hide)

No.1233 Jean-Marc Loustau

original – 26.06.2017

Solution: (click to show/hide)

white PAa6 Qa7 PAb7 Kb8 PAc1 NAc8 Pd4 VAd8 VAe1 NAe6e7 VAf7 NAg1g3 black Ra2 Pb2 Kb5 VAc2 NAd2 PAe2 Pf3 VAf8 VAg2

#2                                              (14+9)
VAO d8, e1, f7, c2, f8, g2
PAO a6, b7, c1, e2
NAO c8, e6, e7, g1, g3, d2

No.1233.1 Jean-Marc Loustau

version of No.1233 – 30.06.2017
Dedicated to Shankar Ram

Solution: (click to show/hide)

White NAe8 Qh8 VAb7 NAc7 VAe7 PAf7 Kh7 NAc6 PAg6 VAh5 Pd4 NAa1 VAc1 PAe1 Black VAb8 Pb5 Kf5 Ph4 NAa3 Pb3 Ph3 VAa2 PAc2 NAd2 VAe2 Pf2

#2                                            (14+12)
VAO b7, e7, h5, c1, b8, a2, e2
PAO f7, g6, e1, c2
NAO e8, c7, c6, a1, a3, d2

Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ladislav Packa
Ladislav Packa
June 27, 2017 11:29

Spectacular work. But the theme (a-AB, b-BC, c-CA –> a-C, b-A, c-B) has been already processed, see YACPDB Id 330467.

Jean-Marc Loustau
Jean-Marc Loustau
June 29, 2017 13:01

Thanks, Ladislav, for the « spectacular »…
About your remark, I knew that this theme (a-AB, b-BC, c-CA –> a-C, b-A, c-B) had been already achieved, I think even I have seen several examples although I am unable to quote them (I did not say my problem is a 1st achievement), and I even thought it had been named because the form is interesting by itself! (may be “Packa theme” would be appropriate???). Your problem with Juraj is very different from mine, so I think there is no question about any kind of anticipation…

Ladislav Packa
Ladislav Packa
June 29, 2017 14:36

This was really just a note inspired by the fact that this theme is not at all common – mainly because its processing is difficult. It did not concern the naming of the theme and, of course, anticipation is not at all considered.

shankar ram
shankar ram
June 29, 2017 20:55

In the set play, the moves to e4 remove one flight guard and stop one out of the three possible anti-battery mates.
The spectacular key simultaneously closes the 3 W flight guarding chinese lines. The same B moves now _enable_ the very same flight guard, allowing W to play the one anti-battery mate which guards the other two flights. The reference to a “Chinese A1” is confusing, though.
Typical Chinese piece style threat paradox effects, combined with additional tries and cyclic piece correspondences in the arrivals on e4 and b6.
The triple W “anti-Grimshaw” anti-battery on b6 is reminiscent of Jean-Marc’s 1st pr. problem in JF 2012, though that was with normal pieces and here it’s with Chinese pieces, as also a similar multi flight giving key.
A slight drawback is that 2.Pa-b6 also opens a second guard to a5 and a4 from the WQa7.
The “Lacny-like” pattern aBC/bCA/cAB -> aA/bB/cC with cyclic duals in one phase is interesting, but may not pass the Gvozdjak test!

Jean-Marc Loustau
Jean-Marc Loustau
June 29, 2017 23:35
Reply to  shankar ram

Thanks Shankar for this comment.
First the points of minor importance:
– The reference to specific Chinese A1 is unclear, I agree; the theme A1 implies 2 lines (the other name of the theme being « double interference »), and in this case the 2 lines are in fact a single line, the 2 lines being somewhat overlapped. I admit this is questionable.
– Of course the problem would not pass the “Gvozdjak test”, and clearly this problem is not a Cyclone! But the spirit of Cyclone appears sometimes in problems which are not Cyclone!
Now, what you call a “slight” drawback; this is very nice of you for the “slight”, but to be honest, to my eyes, it’s not a “slight” but a “serious” drawback: the spirit of the matrix is in the relationship between the pieces, and this relation is broken. The truth is that sometimes I compose too quickly (also I wanted to send the problem before the deadline), and I just did not see the point (the other truth is that I become older and older!).
So I’ll send in some minutes a version to Julia, in order to replacing this one. The setting is unfortunately heavier, but clean; the try 1 NAe4 is lost, but I can live with that, the main content is elsewhere.

Jean-Marc Loustau
Jean-Marc Loustau
July 1, 2017 00:22

Just some words about the new version, heavier but clean I hope.
Of course there is no more the drawback noticed by Shankar (that was the purpose!), but there is also only 1 mate (the threat mate) after any King move. Of course duals after black moves which don’t prevent the threat are not relevant (although it has not been always the case: in the 1st quarter of 20th C, duals were often seen as a defect even on moves which don’t prevent the threat); but when there are flights, King moves are special moves, and it’s normal, not only for a solver, to look at what happens on these moves: to my opinion it’s better when there is only 1 mate, what is the case in this new version; when there are 2 mates (what was the case in the previous version) or more, it’s a very very slight drawback, a very admissible drawback, but a drawback nevertheless.
Now some words about the construction:
– The VAh5 is a little bit questionable; its function is to guard f7 after 1… Ke6; a white Bg8 would do the job, and in theory it’s better (an orthodox piece is preferable). But I don’t like this Bg8 which is unable to play, completely incarcerated, and incarcerating also the Queen… So my preference goes to this Vao. (There is also another option, but with 1 piece more)
– It’s possible to save 1 unit by replacing the Pawns b3 and h3 by a white Pao b3; nevertheless this Pao is quite expensive, quite out-of play (just used as a Pao after 1… Kg4), and moreover 2 mates occur after 1… Kf4; so I clearly prefer the 2 Pawns.
– Finally, in the previous version there was an interesting try by playing on e4 (now c4), with threats 2 A, B, C#, refuted by 1… f2 (now 1… f2) with a Dombrovskys effect in relationship to the set play (1… b2 2 A, B, C#). This is a nice additional content, but very aside the main content and I think it is not really necessary. Nevertheless, it’s possible to get this try by replacing the Pb5 by a white Vaob5: then 1 VAc4? (2 A, B, C#) But 1… b2! But I think this Vao is really out-of-play, and seems to me too “expensive” for the added value…