Julia's Fairies

No.483,484 (TP)

No.483, 484 
Thomas Pantalacci (France)

Warm welcome to Thomas at Original Problems section of Julia’s Fairies!


Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (I): January – April

  →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2014(I)

Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com

Welcome to Thomas Pantalacci with two fairy problems:

No.483 – Light demonstration of Patrol fairy condition;

No.484 – Surprising stalemate-finals with Provocation fairy condition.  (JV)


Patrol Chess (Patrouille): A piece can capture or give check only if it is observed by a piece of its own side.

Provocation Chess (Provocateurs): A piece can capture only if it is threatened.

No.483 Thomas Pantalacci
483-h#2-tph#2                2 solutions             (5+3)
Solutions: (click to show/hide)
No.484 Thomas Pantalacci
484-h=3-tph=3               b) Sf4→e5             (4+3)
Solutions: (click to show/hide)

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kjell Widlert
Kjell Widlert
January 14, 2014 00:27

A new name to me, and already two quite good problems!

(483) An economical realization of a very Patrol-specific idea: Black gives his K access to a square by capturing the observer of a white guarding piece; White mates by re-observing that piece.
I suppose you must call both mates models (wSe4 does not guard d2/f2) even though two pieces are observing Rd2 after 3.Kd3? etc. The concept of model mate is not clearly defined in all fairy forms.

(484) I like it that both white pieces restricting the mobility of Black’s piece are also used to guard flights thanks to the attacks from that black piece; a very harmonious concept.

shankar ram
shankar ram
January 15, 2014 03:40

Yes.. two clear cut ideas realized with harmony and a light touch..
The idea of 483 – the WS and WB mutually activating each other has possibilities for extending into a cycle..
btw.. Bxc2 and Bxf5.. not Bc2 and Bf5..

January 15, 2014 05:27

As far as the white King plays no role (in both problems), I wonder if it would not be simpler to delete it (and of course to add “No white King” in the stipulation). Saying otherwise, is economy a stronger requirement than the traditional attendance of both Kings?

shankar ram
shankar ram
January 20, 2014 15:04
Reply to  dupont

Hmm… an old question..
We just keep the WK in any odd corner.. so that it’s out of the way and doesn’t make a nuisance of itself..
Sometimes, we need to surround it with pawns and such..
Something like the vermiform appendix, i suppose.. more trouble trying to get rid of it..
Of course, the obvious solution is to find a use for it.. so that it earns it’s keep.. 😀

January 20, 2014 19:48
Reply to  shankar ram

I remember our Parthasarathy ‘s a two part article (in our good old magazine “Crosscheck”) on the non-thematic uses of the White King ! (

Bernd G.
Bernd G.
January 15, 2014 13:10

Just a short note (because I am very busy right now):
I have discussed Nicolas’s question about superfluous kings in my paper
“Wozu eine Doppelmonarchie?”, feenschach: Zeitschrift für Märchenschach, Heft 151, Band XXVIII (April-Juni 2003), S. 74.

January 17, 2014 20:20

Two nice problems. Provacation is an interesting condition. Hope it might be implemented in Popeye in future.

January 17, 2014 22:50
Reply to  Julia

Yes, you are right. I was APWin. It was not listed in it. But there is option to write the unlisted conditions also. Thanks.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x