Fairy chess composition

No.574 (JV)

 No.574 Julia Vysotska (Latvia) Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (II): May – August   →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2014(II) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com

No.574 by Julia Vysotska – Chameleon-specific Disparate mates with two paralyzed black pieces! (JV)

Definitions:

Disparate: If one side makes a move with a piece of type “x” (black, white, neutral, half-neutral, etc., King included), the other side cannot answer immediately by moving a piece of the same type “x”. (For example: white Qc1, black Ka8,Qa7 – mate in 1 move. After 1.Qc8#, Black is mated because 1…Qb8? is illegal. The mate is possible also with the neutral nQc1 – after 1.nQc8#. Black cannot move the same neutral Queen.) Every Pawn’s promotion is a Pawn’s move, therefore after such promotion (into any possible piece) the other side cannot answer immediately with its Pawn. We can say that after the move of the figure of type “x” any enemy figure of type “x” falls under Half-moving paralysis. This paralysis disappears immediately on the next half-move, if the opponent plays with another piece of type “y”. (This way it is implemented in Popeye. Another implementation of Disparate you can find in WinChloe, but it is based on the different rules. )

Chameleon: On completing a move, a Chameleon (from classical standard type) changes into another piece, in the sequence Q-S-B-R-Q… Promotion may be to a chameleon at any stage in the cycle.

 No.574 Julia VysotskaLatviaoriginal – 20.07.2014 Solutions: (click to show/hide) White Ka4 Black Kh8 Be4 Pg7 Pc6 Pc4 Black Chameleon Sf6 Neutral Chameleon Sb7 h#2,5         2 solutions     (1+6+1)Disparate (Py)Chameleons: nSb7, bSf6 1...ncSb7-a5=ncB 2.Be4-h7 Ka4-a3 3.cSf6-d7=cB ncBa5-d8=ncR # 1...ncSb7-d6=ncB 2.Be4-g2 Ka4-a5 3.cSf6-g8=cB ncBd6-h2=ncR # { (C+ by Popeye 4.67)} Chameleon-specific Disparate mates with two paralyzed black pieces! Two black pieces B/cS change their functions in two self-blocks. Move order controlled by Disparate condition. Tempo-moves. Model mates. (Author)

Subscribe
Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
seetharaman
July 20, 2014 18:44

Lovely echoes with change of axis! I like the changed of function of the B/cS.

Nikola Predrag
July 21, 2014 04:08

Hm, neutral piece which in the solutions plays exactly as a white piece means a fairy element added to prevent the cooks.
This is very expensive element in the economy and to be justified, it should make the main thematic content.
Although not very complex, here it is quite thematic.

In the end, the neutral chameleon Rook must be blocked by a black piece on d7/g2 which would be paralyzed because of the Disparate condition. That might be just not enough for the expensive economy of fairy elements.

But there is another thematic feature, the anti-dual play by wK. It is uniquely determined because the neutral chameleon Bishop shows his “dark(black) side”.

The same position has no solution as h#2 because after 1.Bh7(g2) ncSa5(d6)=ncB, bcS is paralyzed. And after 1.bcSd7(g8)=bcB, ncSb7 is paralyzed.
The additional white move is required by Disparate!

However, that anti-dual play is achieved in a rather mechanical non-original way, by simple addition of 2 “horrible” bPs.
These Pawns could be removed and wK place on a proper square.

seetharaman
July 21, 2014 08:23

The blocking of the mating rook will be unecessary if it were not a neutral.

Nikola Predrag
July 21, 2014 10:33

Yes, but the thematic essence is the paralysis of the blocking piece! bPg2 would not be a thematic blocker as it is bBg2. That’s nice.
Thematic character of anti-dual play is interesting.

Nikola Predrag
July 22, 2014 00:28

Julia,
“A block of the neutral Chameleon is interesting by itself…”

When it was shown for the first time in history, it was probably interesting for a moment. But after that first time, such block by itself is not only uninteresting, it’s plagiarized!

Even the complex manoeuvres like Indian (4-move) are not interesting if they don’t show something new.
And a neutral condition added only to show such a simple unoriginal element, would not be justified.

But you’ve made an original presentation of such block in combination with Disparate.
I don’t have time now to discuss about a thematic significance of the anti-dual play, but think about wKc8.

Nikola Predrag
July 22, 2014 18:58

There are general principles. In a creative work, we can obey them or slightly change/improve them or even completely turn them upside down.
But we should be aware of the degree and precize character of these changes. There are discussions about details of some arbitrary esthetic principles without noticing that some basic principle was violated.

The most fundamental principle for the Originals is the originality.
I simply try to REMIND us all about that PRINCIPLE. And I try to do it by formulating the critical point of the principle, where any reasoning/discussion only begins.
So it’s not about MY possible conclusions, but about the critical points.

You can formulate a better and more precise point of distinction of what is original and what is not.
I said (shortly) that:
“some already seen element is not original if it does not show something new”

You said:
“…even the well-known things can be presented again and again in some original way”

Yes, that is the point of what I say, and that’s exactly what you have done in your problem. It seems that we agree and that it’s not an “end-less topic to discuss”, after all.

Remove bB in your original and put bPg3, there will be one solution showing block (and line-opening) 2.g3-g2.
That would NOT be an original way for presenting the block of a neutral piece. The neutral element would not be added to present an original block, it would be the opposite, the blocking element would be added just as an “excuse” for adding the neutral element. And the main purpose would be avoiding many cooks in case of white cSb7.

In a position wKf2, wQb6, wSf3, wPh6; bKh1,bRb7 there’s no #1. Adding Circe would enable 1.Qb1#. But this would not justify the presence of Circe if there’s is nothing else original in the content. With WPh7 instead of Ph6, there would be twins showing the change of play and logic:
#1, a)orthodox 1.Qh6#; b)Circe 1.Qb1#
In a), the capture of wQ is relevant and a capture of wP is irrelevant. In b) it is reciprocally changed.

But that’s all well known, justifying Circe would require much more of complexity and novelty.

Concerning the possibility with wKc8, I certainly agree in principle, about a realization of a thematic idea showing tempo-moves.
But I think that there’s no thematic idea of tempo-moves in your problem. The duals avoided “non-thematically” by the thematic play, would be more naturally and economically presented. Adding material just to reduce wK’s moves is a very banal and known non-creative technical tool.

My reasoning requires a lot of explanations, because there are many inconsistent interpretations of the basic principles which should be analyzed and discussed in the first place. Perhaps I’ll write more if I manage to do it considerably clear and short.

Julia, please don’t get me wrong. Your idea is original and the thematic realization is excellent, with a surprising change of functions between the black pieces of very different nature. I like that content very much. Although the wK’s moves irritate me, they look as a necessary tool.
Since I don’t consider this as thematic (but annoying), I would put wK on c8. But the idea is too good to make me satisfied with such an artificial and hollow wK’s move. I would try hard to use the extra move for something creative, at least in the construction. A good additional content might require the additional thematic pieces as Mario has convincingly made to round up the fairy content.
🙂

Bartel Erich
January 24, 2016 12:09
9
0