No.1261
Günther Weeth (Germany)

Original Retro & PG problems
JF – R2017-18


Definitions: (click to show/hide)


No.1261 Günther Weeth
Germany

original – 17.12.2017

Solution: (click to show/hide)

white Ke1 Bh4h7 Pe6 black Kb8 Ra4d5 Sf6g1 Pa2a7b7c4c7d4

-17 & #1    Proca Retractor       (4+11)
Anti-Circe


No.1261.1 Günther Weeth
Germany

version of No.1261 – 16.01.2018

Solution: (click to show/hide)

white Ke1 Se4 Bh4h7 Pe6 black Kb7 Ra4d5 Sf6g1 Pa2a7c2c7d3d4

-18 & #1    Proca Retractor       (5+11)
Anti-Circe


No.1261.2 Günther Weeth
Germany

version of No.1261 – 10.03.2018

Solution: (click to show/hide)

white Ke1 Bd4g6 Rf7 Pg4 black Kb7 Ra4d5 Sf6g1 Pa2a7c2c4c7e6

-18 & #1    Proca Retractor       (5+11)
Anti-Circe


No.1261.3 Günther Weeth
Germany

version of No.1261 – 21.05.2018

Solution: (click to show/hide)

white Ke1 Bd4h5 Rf7 Pe4 black Kb7 Ra4d5 Sf6g1 Pa2a7c2c4c7e6

-18 & #1    Proca Retractor       (5+11)
Anti-Circe Calvet
No forward defence


Subscribe
Notify of
guest
12 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Georgy Evseev
Georgy Evseev
2 years ago

Is 4…a4xXb3(Pb7) impossible for some reason? It looks like balance is not broken.

Joost de Heer
Joost de Heer
2 years ago
Reply to  Georgy Evseev

Looks like a short solution: -5. X-b3 OOO -6. Kd2-c3 Bf2-e3 -7. Ke1-d2 Be3-f2 -8. Kg4xPh3 S~ -9. Be7-h4 & 1. Bg6#

Joost de Heer
Joost de Heer
2 years ago
Reply to  Joost de Heer

Oh wait, the black king isn’t back on c8 yet.

Kjell Widlert
Kjell Widlert
2 years ago

It really looks like a cook (insolubility) to me.

A couple of other remarks:
– Move 15 should be Kc6xRb6[Ke1], not KxRa6.
– The reason Black’s P balance must be modified is that otherwise Black could defend with 16. – Kg8xX~[Ke8] or Rg8xX~[Ra8]. It took me a while to understand this…

Georgy Evseev
Georgy Evseev
2 years ago

BK should be on b7, shouldn’t it?

Kjell Widlert
Kjell Widlert
2 years ago

That’s true, Georgy: bK is on b7 in the composer’s diagram.

Paul Rãican
Paul Rãican
2 years ago

Two notes about the last version:
1) NFD must be added;
2) dual: 16.Kc4xRb4(Ke1)! 0-0-0 17.Kd5-c4 S any 18.Be7-h4 & 1.Bg6#

Kjell Widlert
Kjell Widlert
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rãican

I agree about NFD (=No Forward Defence): without it, Black is allowed after 6.Ke1-d2 Be3-f2+ to play the forward move c1R#.

But the reported dual seems incorrect: I believe Black can play for example 16. – Rb1-b4+ instead of retracting 0-0-0. (So it is essential that bRe5 in the author’s solution is incarcerated and cannot retract to e4 or e6.)

Paul Rãican
Paul Rãican
2 years ago
Reply to  Kjell Widlert

16. – Rb1-b4+ is impossible: wK is then already in check from bRa4.

Kjell Widlert
Kjell Widlert
2 years ago
Reply to  Paul Rãican

Oh sorry: you are right, Paul! There really is a dual. Perhaps the composer can use it instead of his intended continuation?

Kjell Widlert
Kjell Widlert
2 years ago

The version 1261.2 seems to have a dual at the end in both sub-variations:
18.Bc5-d4 instead of 18.Bg7-d4 and 18.Bf6-d4, respectively.

(I have informed the composer.)