Julia's Fairies

No.590 (JV)

Julia Vysotska


Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (II): May – August

  →Previous ; →List 2014(II)

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

No.590 by Julia Vysotska – This problem was going to be my 3rd problem for 12th Romanian Tzuica Tourney but I couldn’t finish it in time. So, I present you my mates with a triple check here! (JV)


Rook-Lion(RL): (0,1) Lion. Moves along Rook lines over another unit of either color to any square beyond that unit. A capture may be made on arrival, but the hurdle is not affected.

Locust(L): Moves along Queen lines only by capturing an enemy unit, arriving on the square immediately beyond that unit, which must be vacant.

LEO(LE): Chinese Queen. Moves as Queen, but captures only by hopping over a hurdle to any square beyond.

No.590 Julia Vysotska

original – 30.08.2014

Solutions: (click to show/hide)

White RLg4 Kb2 Rh1 Pf4 Pa3 Black Kh4 Rh2 Le2 Sa2 Pg6 Ph5 Pa4 Ph3 Neutral LEe1

hs#2,5         2 solutions     (5+8+1)
Rook-lion g4
Locust e2
Leo e1

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Manfred Rittirsch
Manfred Rittirsch
August 31, 2014 14:53

It would be very interesting to have triple checks where even double-checks would not have been enough because both of them could have been defended at the same time in both phases. Here you do not even need a second check apart from the rook’s one in solution 1. … nLEc3 due to the Pg6 interfering the nLE. All you need is the power of that nLE to guard the flight a1 not occupied by wR. The additional 2 observations of b2 do nothing but spoil the mating net economy. That’s why this realization does not convince me.

For the idea it is even better (and enough!) to let the nLE get the white flight only, so here is my suggestion for a 2 move setting with required triple checks in both phases:

Kb2 Rh1 Bh5 Sh7 Pa3g4 LEd5
Kh4 Rg2 Sa2 Pa4g3h3 LOe2
hs#2 2.1;1.1

And maybe it is worth some additional pawns to let the nLE come from the offside (nLE->d8, +bPb7d6g7).

What do you think?

Manfred Rittirsch
Manfred Rittirsch
August 31, 2014 15:03

No need to move the bR, btw., it may as well stay on h2.

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
August 31, 2014 21:43
Reply to  Julia

If triple-cheks are thematic, then Manfred has shown an example how to do it. If the example should be improved, then improve it!

In the original, nLE is hardly justified. Except for the guard of g3, it can be bLE in the mates and only Black moves it during the play. g3 could be blocked, so Leo is neutral mainly because of the cooks – an undesirable fairy element.

Manfred Rittirsch
Manfred Rittirsch
September 2, 2014 00:00
Reply to  Julia

Yes, the “other content” can be enjoyed, but merely from a geometrical point of view. From a logical point of view even the critical moves are not pure as the LE needs to guard g3. It’s all about priorities, and obviously I was assuming the “wrong” ones (= not meant by you).

My horses are always happy with important guarding tasks, as long as they may witness some extraordinary endeavour!

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
August 31, 2014 19:14

Double-check is not much welcome in principle and unnecessary double-checks should better be avoided if possible.
Of course, everything depends on the content.
But at least, if there is some superfluous feature, don’t mention it as an “achievement”.
If a superfluous multiple check can improve the economy, it’s acceptable but not thematic in principle.

August 31, 2014 20:01

I think triple check may not be fully justified. It might even be possible to use a queen instead of Rook lion. But what makes the problem interesting is the wandering moves of the Leo. I like such visual effects !

Personally I would strive to achieve this effect using a black Leo, but it might not be possible!

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
September 1, 2014 02:59

Hm, I have too easily trusted Manfred but I don’t see why the check by nLE is needed in his example.
True triple-check seems as a bit of challenge in this scheme, here is an example with white Moa as a mere hurdle-cookstopper.
White Pf6 RLg6 Pa5 Kb4 Rc4 MOd4
Black Ph7 Pa6 Kh6 Le4 RLf4 Rf3 LIh3
hs#2.5; Twin Exchange c4 d4
a) 1…LIb3 2.Rc5 LIb8 3.RLc6+ Lxc6-b7#
b) wRc4wMOd4
1…LIa3 2.Rd5 LIf8 3.RLe6+ Lxe6-e7#

Manfred Rittirsch
Manfred Rittirsch
September 1, 2014 23:27
Reply to  Nikola Predrag

Thanks for the hint, Nikola! You are absolutely right that I was not rigorous enough. I was thinking that it would be enough to have only one pair of checks that may be parried at once (in my suggested version: LE+R), but in fact you need defenses against each subset of n-1 checks to turn each single check into a mandatory one! This does not seem impossible but is very hard to achieve – even in your version the LO might as well be any non-checking piece because W cannot defend against LE and RL attacks in a single move (LE/LO: 4.Rb5 (a) Rc5/Rd6 (b), LO/RL: 4.MOb3 (a) MOa3 (b), LE/RL: 4.??).

Looks like a “true” triple check is still pending.

I wonder if n = 4 with 4 defenses against triple check subsets can be done at all.

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
September 2, 2014 01:18

Now I thank you Manfred. First I made it with nLIh3+bPc7, so nLI would attack bRLf4 in both mates. Then I realized that hypothetical captures of bRLf4 would be illegal due to the selfcheck (to wK) by nLI. But I didn’t realize that then the triple check is not needed.

I hope now that a quick example with black Kangaroo-Lion on h2 does show a true triple-check (without critical moves).
Anyway, it’s an interesting challenge.
White Pf4 RLg4 Pa3 Kb2 Rc2 MOd2 BLd1
Black Pa4 Kh4 Le2 Pg2 KLh2 RLh1
Neutral LEe8
Stipulation Hs#2
Twin Exchange c2 d2
a) 1.Rc2-c3 nLEe8-b8 2.RLg4-c4 + Le2*c4-b5 #
b) wRc2wMOd2
1.Rd2-d3 nLEe8-h8 2.RLg4-e4 + Le2*e4-e5 #

Manfred Rittirsch
Manfred Rittirsch
September 4, 2014 09:05
Reply to  Nikola Predrag

Now we got it (if I didn’t miss anything)! Congratulations!

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
September 5, 2014 01:14

Thanks, however, although it works in two phases, Moa and neutrality of Leo are required only by the idea of a “true” triple-check and not by the solution of a problem.
So, it is only an illustration of the idea, not a chess problem.

Manfred Rittirsch
Manfred Rittirsch
September 5, 2014 10:10
Reply to  Nikola Predrag

Agreed! And if the true triple check was the main goal, it would be perfect to prepare the 3rd check in a pure foreplan. If I remember correctly, in the Variantim Cup Theme-Tourney Andernach 1989 it was requested to achieve exactly that with the Madrasi condition.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x