Masand: When a piece X gives a direct check with its move, all pieces of the same color controlled by X and all pieces of opposite color attacked by X, except for the Kings, change color.
No.1366Julia Vysotska Latvia original – 29.12.2018
white Kd6 Sg7d2e1 Rg6 Bb6
black Pf2 Kf4 Re5f7 Bg4h1
hs#2 2 solutions (6+6)
Masand
1.Bb6-c7! Re5-e4 2.Se1-d3[f2=w] + Re4-d4[d3=b] # {
(3.Se6[d4=w]? but also [c7=b]! - self-check)}
1.Rg6-e6! Bh1-e4 2.Bb6-e3[d2=b][f2=w] + Sd2-c4[e3=b][e5=w] # {
(3.Rxe4[c4=w]? but also [e6=b]! - self-check!)
(C+ by Popeye 4.79)}
The first white move is the soul of the content, preventing possible White defense on the 3rd move.
Teams of 3xB, 3xR, 3xS do their job, showing the idea in Meredith form.
Emotionally I prefer this version.
But rationally I'd very much like to hear what version out of these 3 would you prefer and why:
In the 2nd solution of no.1366 bBg4 is only blocking piece;
Version No.1 has one piece more, but all black pieces have guarding duties in both solutions;
Version No.2 is Meredith again, but it uses promoted Bishop (3 of them on white squares).
The Three versions differ only in the details, so when I judge this tourney it will not matter which version you choose.
Generally, I don’t think extra orthodox pieces is a weakness in fairy chess – only the total economy (the force employed, in relation to the result achieved) is relevant. So one extra Bishop is not worse than one extra grasshopper (if anything, it is slightly better).
The case here is especially interesting: all three versions contain supernumerary pieces, but in 1366 and version 1, they may have appeared by Masand colour changes (if we assume that the position occurred in a game from the normal game array [PAS]), but in version 2, the white-squared bishops can only have appeared by pawn promotion (under the same assumption, that the position appeared in a game). I see no rational reason at all why one way of producing extra pieces should be OK but the other way should not!
So when comparing the three versions, I look only at other aspects, not the way the extra pieces may have come about. And then I prefer version 2, an airy position with all pieces well used.
Thank you, Kjell!
In fact, for now three different composers picked up three different versions.. composing is so much subjective!
But let it be! Let’s be different, dear friends! Happy New Year!
No.1366 
The Three versions differ only in the details, so when I judge this tourney it will not matter which version you choose.
Generally, I don’t think extra orthodox pieces is a weakness in fairy chess – only the total economy (the force employed, in relation to the result achieved) is relevant. So one extra Bishop is not worse than one extra grasshopper (if anything, it is slightly better).
The case here is especially interesting: all three versions contain supernumerary pieces, but in 1366 and version 1, they may have appeared by Masand colour changes (if we assume that the position occurred in a game from the normal game array [PAS]), but in version 2, the white-squared bishops can only have appeared by pawn promotion (under the same assumption, that the position appeared in a game). I see no rational reason at all why one way of producing extra pieces should be OK but the other way should not!
So when comparing the three versions, I look only at other aspects, not the way the extra pieces may have come about. And then I prefer version 2, an airy position with all pieces well used.
Thank you, Kjell!
In fact, for now three different composers picked up three different versions.. composing is so much subjective!
But let it be! Let’s be different, dear friends! Happy New Year!