|
No.302 |
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2013 (I): January – April →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2013(I) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
No.302 – Pierre Tritten – An excellent Rex-solus problem with 3 modern fairy-conditions! (JV)
No.302.1 – Pierre Tritten & Dmitri Turevski – An improved version to No.302! It was a pleasure to see the activity created by No.302 and I’m happy to publish this nice result of it! (JV)
Definitions:
Anti-Andernach:A piece (excluding King) changes its color after any non-capturing move. After capture, the piece retains its color. Rooks on a1, h1, a8 and h8 can be used for castling, provided the usual other rules for that move are satisfied. After castling, Rooks do not change color, If White makes a non-capturing move with neutral or halfneutral piece, that piece becomes black and vice versa.
Take & Make: Having captured, a unit must immediately, as part of its move, play a non-capturing move in imitation of the captured unit from the capture-square. If no such move is available, the capture is illegal. Promotion by capture occurs only when a pawn arrives on the promotion rank as the result of a take&make move. Checks are as in normal chess: after the notional capture of the checked K, the checking unit does not move away from the K’s square.
KoBul Kings: When a piece (not a pawn) of his own side is captured, a King transforms into a Royal piece of the same type as the captured one. When the King is in the form of any Royal piece and there is a capture of one of the pawns of his own side, he becomes a normal King again. Сaptures are illegal if their result is self-cheсk because of the transformation of the Кings according to KoBul rules. Castling is allowed only if the KoBul King is on his initial square in the form of a normal King and if he has not already moved; however he may already have been transformed. In the case of capture by a King in AntiCirce he is reborn on his initial square and may castle. If the capture is by a King which is in the form of some Royal piece, he is reborn on the initial square of that piece.
|
No.302 Pierre Tritten
France
original-18.04.2013
 h#2 3 solutions (1+11)
Anti-Andernach Take & Make KoBul Kings Solutions: (click to show/hide)
|
No.302.1 Pierre Tritten & Dmitri Turevski
France / Russia
original-24.04.2013
Dedicated to Diyan Kostadinov
 h#2 3 solutions (0+11)
Anti-Andernach Take & Make KoBul Kings Solutions: (click to show/hide)
|
The combination between KoBul Kings and Take & Make is well know, but the addition of Anti Andernach is fresh. Even that the colour change is only on the 1st moves we have nice cycle AB-BC-CA in play of the thematic pieces (Bg1=piece A, Sb8=piece B, Re5=piece C, so in the 1st solution piece A play on 1st move with changing colour and the piece B is captured on the 2nd move; in the 3rd solution piece B play on 1st move with changing colour and piece C is captured on the 2nd move; in 2nd solution piece C play on 1st move with changing colour and piece A is captured on the 2nd move). Well done Pierre!
Probably in some twin mechanism the bRd7 can be removed and the only one bR will be enough? Its will be very nice if can be combined with removement of bBg8 which can be replaced by 1-2 bPs I believe. In this case the diagram will be with three black thematic pieces only (B, S, R).
Very nice and clever, Pierre!
With nightrider instead of the knight it possible to pull this trick with full cycle of captures and no twins or technical pieces, perhaps you may find it interesting:
[img]http://www.yacpdb.org/xfen/?1K6/6p1/1p3p2/p(n2)4p1/r2p4/6p1/2k5/7b[/img]
h#3; 3.1.1.1; C+ (Popeye 4.59) 1+11
AntiAndernachChess, KoBulKings, Take&MakeChess
b5: Nightrider
1.Bh1-c6=wB Bc6*b5-d1 [brK=rN] + 2.rNc2-a6 + Bd1*a4-c4 [brN=rR] #
1.Ra4-a1=wR Ra1*h1-d5 [brK=rB] 2.rBc2-h7 Rd5*b5-h8 [brB=rN] #
1.Nb5-c3=wN Nc3*a4-b4 [brK=rR] + 2.rRc2-h2 Nb4*h1-f3 [brR=rB] #
I wrote about twins version because with Knight looks that the bR should be in one solution on white colour square and on another solution on black colour square. But using a Nightrider is good idea. Now you realize the goal – three thematic pieces only on the diagram and complete cycle ABC-BCA-CAB (by the way – you have to change the order of 2nd and 3rd solution, because the cyclic movements will be more clear for the viewers: piece A=bBh1, piece B=bNb5, piece C= bRa4).
I do not check is it possible some bP to be saved, but even that your version is good step ahead in my opinion!
The only small weakness is that you use AntiAndernach effect only in one of the mates (in sol.1 bP can not close the line 3.bPb5=wP?? selfcheck). If you can not use the fairy effect in all mates it is better to avoid it in all mates.
Thank you, Diyan and Dmitri, for these interestings suggestions.
The use of a nightrider is definitively a very good idea, in order to have only three thematic pieces.
Following Diyan advice, I propose this setting, saving one Pawn and avoiding AntiAndernach effect in sol 1:
White : Kb8
Black : Kc2 Rc4 Bh1 Pg7 Pb6 Pf6 Pa5 Pg5 Pg3 Nb5
h‡2 (1+10)
Anti-Andernach
Take & Make
KoBul Kings
N=Nightrider
1.Bc6(B) B×b5(Bf7) 2.NKa6+ B×c4(Bc8)‡
1.Nd6(B) N×c4(Nb4)+ 2.RKh2 N×h1(Nf3)‡
1.Rh4(B) R×h1(Rd5) 2.BKh7 R×b5(Rh8)‡
This is, of course, a better version. Well done!
g7 -> e6 and rotate 180 would eliminate the anti andernach effect. Saving a pawn may be more tricky.
I solved it yesterday rather easily. I quickly saw the geometry of Sb8,Re5 and Bg1 and thought “that might be a nice cycle with very economical functionality of pieces and perhaps the Kobul-transformations could go with it cyclically”. I actually did not believe in that but anyway I tried, and I was astonished by the achievement.
Marvellous, Pierre!
Rd7 spoils a perfection of a tremendous thematic economy but a Rook on white square is needed because of “Take & Make” restrictions of Sb8&Bg1. Quite stupidly I presumed that it would be hard to replace Sb8 with a Nightrider.
Bravo, Dmitri!
I hardly understand the approach which is quite often:
“The only small weakness is that you use AntiAndernach effect only in one of the mates (in sol.1 bP can not close the line 3.bPb5=wP?? selfcheck). If you can not use the fairy effect in all mates it is better to avoid it in all mates.”
What does it have with the thematic content? Triple use of that effect would be thematically enriching and single use is simply NOT thematic! It is only a technical tool, nicely using the by-effects of thematical features. What’s wrong with that.
wK must be on the board and it is used to guard flights of rRa6. Should that be also avoided because wK does not participate in the other 2 mates?
The thematic content should be pure but it should be welcome to use all by-effects for technical reasons if that is economical.
Otherwise, add bPa7 and move wK away!
Dear Nikola, I am little surprised that such a harmony searching composer like you do not understand what I mean with my note that in fairy composition the fairy effects should be equal used in the play or mate position and if such a fairy effect is used in only one solution and it not exist in the other solutions this looks not harmonic and will be better to be avoided.
This is just mine opinion, but believe in it!
Unfortunatelly in last few months I almost do not have time for composing, so I do not try to search improvements of this nice Pierre’s problem and just shared my feelings that it can be improved, so I am happy that Dmitry and Pierre proved that – well done to both of you!
P.S. Nikola, about your note that the wK is not needed in all solutions – yes, I also saw that and though that probably the problem will be more attractive with black pieces only, but I did not share this opinion, because it is the matter of taste. Personally I think that the best form of this problem will be with black pieces only (with no wK) and three thematic black pieces + bPs. This will be the best economic, harmonic and pure thematic form. I repeat – this is just my point of view, probably it will be different to other composers.
Dear Diyan, you said your opinion. It could be a result of deep thinking and contionous development with growing experience, or just a taste, simply accepted long ago and preserved without later “self-questioning”.
I don’t question your opinion, I am concerned about my opinion.
I continously question myself about my own opinions. Self-questioning is rather slow and uncomfortable process but it deepens the understanding and eventually changes and
improves one’s own opinion.
If “harmony” is the main or important goal of creative work then it should be searched for. I became suspicious about that and found it as very simplified, superficial and shallow way of looking at the creativity.
My opinion is that harmony is not the goal. But it is a great tool for the human perception. We will easily perceive the harmonious features and we could fail to see the non-harmonious.
An original idea should be exposed clearly and harmony might significantly help this. So I will search for the harmonious presentation of my original idea because it is very efficient way to highlight what is most important. But the original idea sometimes could be clearly visible without the apparent harmony, so why should we insist on harmony even if it is not necessary for the clear perception? The supporting non-original and technical features may be, or even should be less visible. Insisting on harmonious non-original and technical elements could be absurd and sometimes even malicious (when the problem is a complex masterpiece and the commentator is eager to diminish its value).
Harmony helps the perception, I said that I solved Pierre’s original because I was searching for the harmonious play and functions. That search for the harmony quickly reports that bRd7 does not fit in the presumed pattern. But the lack of harmony is still not the weakness for itself, we only become aware that the EXPECTED perfection and economy of play of 3 pieces with beautiful additional influence on bK, actually DO NOT EXIST.
Once, when the facts are clear, we should forget about the harmony and about what is LACKING. We must see what DOES EXIST.
There is a great complex of 3 related chains of 4 halfmoves with thematic effects of 4 pieces which serve as the links in the chain. There is a weak link (Re5) which must be substituted by a reserve link (Rd7) in one of the 3 chains. When we accept the extra costs for the reserve link and the trouble with redirecting the flow of one solution through d7 instead of e5, we could be very satisfied with the efficiency of an extremely complex mechanism. If the harmony exists, we can see it – if it doesn’t exist, we don’t see it. But what does it mean “the lack of harmony”=”I don’t see something that does not exist?”
The harmony might be considered as a phantom which reveals the reality and then dissapears. The reality shows the true richness and beauty of what is left. If the reality could be enhanced, Dmitri will be ready -:)
After the mating moves in the first Dmitri’s version, the positions are certainly not original – checks, blocks and guards without any thematic meaning. We just have to verify the mates. We can see that 3.b6-b5 is illegal according to AntiAndernach and verify the mate. We don’t see such effect in 2 other solutions and the verification is easier. Still, we may notice that we don’t see succh effect, so there are no such effects in all 3 phases – AND WHAT? If Dmitri could enrich the content with 3 AntiAndernach virtual selfchecks, it would be wonderful. But as long as such enrichment is not achieved, well, it is simply not achieved. How such an obvious elementary thing could be explained. And if we eliminate that effect from that one solution, the triple AntiAndernach effect in mates WOULD STILL NOT BE ACHIEVED.
Inclusion of extra pieces and especially fairy elements for technical reasons is too expensive. But if I decide to pay the costs of extra elements for thematic reasons, I will readily use them additionally for all possible technical reasons.
I shall accept the help of the “phantom of harmony” to perceive the facts but then I will analize the facts without that phantom.
Well, that is my opinion. It will surely change with time and experience, dogma is not my preference.
My Translation in English:
It is ok to have a special effect in one of the variations 🙂