No.1665
Borislav Gadjanski
(Serbia)
Original Fairy problems
JF-2021-II:
01.07.2021 - 31.12.2021
No. 1665 Borislav Gadjanski
Serbia
original - 12.11.2021
white Be1h2 Pg2d2h3a5h7f7d7b7 Qc2 Kf3 Sd3e4 Ra4f8
black Bf2c6 Qb3 Ph4 Re5c5 Kc7
hs#3 b) Rc5-->h4 16+7
Take & Make Chess
Take & Make Chess
Solution: (click to show/hide)
Very good, one of the best hs# I have seen recently, from the point of view of thematic content. Only the bad luck with twinning mechanism.
Frankly speaking, I do not understand the trend to use multiple exclamation points in the comments to problems, it gives rather negative impression to me, as if the author needed to force the reader to notice thematic elements, even if this is not necessary (exactly like here).
Moreover using 16 White pieces is usually not a virtue, except very specific cases and also the use of five black line pieces seems nothing special.
Yes, I agree with the objections. The comment has two paragraphs and the second is superfluous here
Is the position legal?
One wB is promoted + 8 white pawns.
Not promoted! Example: When B capture S (or P) change field color
True. This is possible under Take & Make Chess condition.
All right, then 🙂
Regarding legality concern in fairy problems, actually it’s just not a real concern…anyway, the black-squared white Bishops are entirely justified by the fairy condition.
Surely one of the challenges of any art, is the idea of working within the constraints imposed by the medium – this is what gives the product meaning.
Compared with those working in the orthodox field, fairy composers already have considerable freedom, but if they throw out all constraints we’re entitled to ask: Is there any meaning to this?
I know that some fairy positions are inherently ‘illegal’, but would that justify, for instance, having an obviously impossible pawn cluster in the diagram? I don’t think so.
Of course. It doesn’t matter, but the legality of this position is easy to prove with the take&make condition.
It is amazing that I need all the white pieces to realize the idea. I was hoping for a better position and that’s why I didn’t send a problem to the tournament.
All my later attempts were in vain, so I decided to publish what I did.
Neal, I do see your points and I thank you for this interesting discussion but, with all due respect, let me to disagree.
We all can face the legality topic in fairy field under several aspects: formally, statistically and rationally.
Formally first: I can’t recall the Codex states there is legality concern in fairy composition.
Second, statistically: how many times do we encounter legality claims in fairy problems? What is the relevant percentage? Say 1%? Or much much less? I do think that that percentage is virtually close to zero since fairy compositions are so far from orthodox problems that the above concern virtually (and practically) does not exist at all.
And last but not least, rationally: you mention the word constraints but as you well know it carries an intrinsic non-sense in fairy field. Why should we be concerned about an impossible pawn cluster when the problem shows i.e. a royal Eagle? Why should be concerned about an impossible pawn cluster when we have i.e. a 9×9 chessboard? Why should be concerned when i.e. the piece count is greater than the orthodox limit of 32? I could go on by mentioning hundreds of similar cases.
Personally I would be concerned neither as composer nor as judge.
I agree with Parinello. Question of legality is obviously irrelevant in fairy chess. For instance, No PWC problem can be legal. Most fairy problems have too many fairy pieces compared to the missing pawns
The question of “legality” of fairies is in my view something deserving more detailed study.
For many fairy elements the legality cannot be established due to obvious reasons (too many fairy pieces + pawns, PWC not removing any fairy piece, neutrals, problems with missing kings …), sometimes the illegality is less obvious (consider white equihopper on a1).
Yet I understand the composers who set themselves an additional constraints e.g. in trying to show the idea of the problem in a “legal” form. Even if I do not consider legality of fairy position to be a very valuable virtue, it is one of possible ways to direct one’s strive for the best form. Others can try to limit number of different fairy pieces, others can try to avoid pawns even if this means using one fairy piece more, etc. etc. Additional constraints can sometimes require much time to be complied with, but the author’s satisfaction when he manages to overcome difficulties can then be much increased.
In any case, what can help anyone assessing the quality of the composition and comparing it to possible alternatives, it is the knowledge of the authors preferences (including self-imposed constraints). While for orthodox problems many “preferences” are canonical, required by definition, for fairies the authors still can have different approaches as canonical norms are often missing and mechanical transfer of orthodox norms can be impossible.
That is why I like when authors comment at length various aspects of their works or theoretical articles discussing compositions elements in non-dogmatic way. Even if my preferences are different from their authors’, understanding them enriches my own views.
Thank you Juraj. I couldn’t have expressed this better, even if I had tried. In my mind, legality of a fairy problem (by orthodox means) has to do with economy. While legality is not required in fairy chess, economy is always good to have in fairy or not fairy problems. In some cases, like with orthodox helpselfmates, reflexmates, stalemates, etc, legality of the diagram is imperative, even if these types of problems are classified as fairies. In this particular case of 1665, which besides the hs# stipulation, also uses a fairy condition, I would not discard the legality concerns completely, even if I would accept an illegal position. If I were the lucky composer to have signed this beautiful problem, I would definitely try to reach a legal position and only if I exhausted all possibilities, I would publish an illegal diagram.
I believe the composer of 1665 was thinking the same way and insisted on legality, in this case – based on T&M rules..
This is a fine problem, legal and with standard material, according to the fairy condition. I’m sorry just to discuss the more general question of fairy legality which has been raised.
I’m impressed and surprised by the large proportion of retro fairies in JF. Retro-logic only works in legal positions (i.e. those rooted in the game array). An increasing number of composers are attracted by the fertile new design space at the intersection of these two genres, and this has brought a greater aesthetic sensitivity to the legality of fairy positions as a whole.
But soundness does not formally require legality, even for orthodox problems, according to the Codex. Some fairy conditions cannot offer legality at all (e.g. horizontal cylinder only has one legal position, the game array itself, from which no legal moves can be played). And if a good problem cannot be made legal, then what the heck, publish anyway.
As a mainly retro composer, most of my positions are (I hope) legal. I will try to make even a non-retro position legal because I fear others might think: “hey he couldn’t get it legal!” However, there are exceptions: if I am deliberately taking a “road less travelled” (the lure of fresh design space again!). For example, some recent helpmates with no white king.
I should warn those interested in retro fairies that the codifiers of retro conventions took (in my opinion) an over-narrow approach which even for orthodox chess is flimsy against robust analysis, and has various silly holes. There is certainly no welcome mat laid out for the fairy folk. Pitfalls abound!
I am just wondering what the judges of the Romanian Tzuica Tournament think.