|
No.632 |
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2014 (III): September – December →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2014(III) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
No.632 by Manfred Rittirsch – Specific line opening of the black Q after thematic R-moves; Grid Chess effect! (JV)
Definitions:
Grid Сhess: The board is divided not only into its usual 64 squares, but also into 16 larger squares consisting of 4 normal squares each. All moves by both sides must cross at least one line of the grid. Illegal are all settings with white or black King on the squares ‘a1’, ‘h1’, ‘a8’ and ‘h8’.
|
No.632 Manfred Rittirsch |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
White kc3 rd4b8 pc2
Black kc5 qa8 re1b7 sb2 bc1 pa6b6f4
h#2 (4+9) |
|
Nice echo mates! Wish it was possible for the WR to start at a7 — of course impossible in this scheme. !
Analogously is canceled attack on the lines of matting piece. It is necessary to deal with the fact that B1 creates Antizielelement, opening lines of bQ. Means used are typical for Grid Chess.
Very nice.
Nice “scissor”, however the comments are questionable.
3/4 of Cross (Albino, AUW etc.) sounds like “a triangle is 3/4 of a quadrate”.
B1 is a move with two useful functions, hiding bR and line-opening for hiding bQ which attacks the 8th rank.
However, a harmful effect of B1 is virtually present, bQ would be hidden on a7, behind bRb7. But B1 opens 7th rank and the hiding square for bQ must be changed.
Anyway, a truly deep logic of Antiziel element is not about the same move having one useful and one harmful effect, but about a move played for some purpose, which produces some effect apparently counterproductive for the same purpose. That makes a paradox.
I fail to see how the bQ could hide on a7.
It is fairly unusual for the same motif to have both positive and negative impact on the final aim in helpmate*. Line opening of long diagonal has both – it makes bQ guard vertical checkmating lines as well as it gives access to hideaway squares. On the second sight it is however possible to talk about opening two different lines, e.g. in a) a8-c6 as well as a8-d5 (first negative, second positive), counting upon the fact that it is impossible to move directly from d5 to c6 in Grid Chess.
Nice strategy and analogy in any case.
* – In selfmates it is well known theme, also used in some previous WCCT.
bQ attacking 8th rank is rather undesirable effect. In the first two solutions would be bB enough, in the third phase is bQ used just due cooks.
I’m not familiar with Grid chess but according to my understanding of the definition, bQa8 prevents all 3 mates from 8th rank. bQa7 would be hidden behind bRb7 and only bR would be able to parry the checks.
But hiding of bR would open 7th rank as a harmful effect as related to bQa7.
Well to hide bQ on the thematic diagonal, bR opens that line which enables also the defenses on the same line. But if the purpose is hiding of bQ, that plan itself eliminates the defenses, there’s no corrective play.
I don’t think that here, the real play alone shows a true AntiZiel element.
But it’s related to virtual content:
1.Qa7!? – vacating both 8th rank and the diagonal disables the particular defenses by bQa8 when bR departs from b7.
Now we see the new defenses (along 7th rank), enabled by the same bR’s departure.
The try-plan shows the “departure from b7” as the harmful effect without possible correction.
“Departure from b7” alone, creates also a harmful effect in the solution but now the corrective play is possible, exactly due to that departure.
The solution uses the “departure from b7” for hiding bQ along the diagonal in 3 twins EXACTLY because there IS NO harmful effect of “departure from b7”.
Only the virtual play shows that the “departure from b7” could be harmful for the planned hiding of bQ (to a7).
Juraj, I don’t see why this would be unusual for helpmates, what’s different in this example:
White Kb8 Pc7 Ph4 Rh1
Black Qe7 Pc6 Rf6 Ph6 Pf5 Kh5 Pa3 Pe2
Stipulation H#2
1.Rd6!(Qf7?) c8Q 2.Qxh4!(Qf7?) Qxf5#
Orthodox pin instead of “Grid pin”
Qa8 cannot move to a7 in Grid chess.
I have not said it is “impossible”, only that it is “unusual”.
Vow, that is perfectly clear in the rules, stupid me 🙁
So, there’s no help of a virtual play to “create” the AntiZiel element.
However, my example might endure my own speculations 🙂
Thanks to everybody for attention & comments! It is hard to find the right places for individual replies, so let me sum it up here.
The primary goal was to achive exactly what is mentioned in the 1st sentence of my comment provided with the solution.
I learned that
– one thematic black piece needed to be positioned on the line of the other one in order to force a unique order of moves,
– the cook in c) with interference of the diagonal on a different square needed to be stopped by an additional purpose of the a8 piece’s move.
I achieved this by chosing a q instead of a b. So Laco’s comment dated 3.11. is absolutely right.
If there is any Antizielelement character, it followed from those requirements and is purely incidental. However, the potentiality of a double impact in both directions as observed by Juraj seems very interesting to me.
Contrary to that I was investing some time to look for a common pattern in W1 and I was happy to find a geometrical relation. In my 2nd sentence I tried to express that as concise as possible when I mentioned the fragment of a cross. Maybe we can agree on the statement that the R is playing 3/4 of the moves he would have played in a full cross (in analogy to the fact that a triangle contains 3/4 of a square’s vertices).
How many relations there are among 3 elements and how many among 4 elements, and what is relevant for a cross?
The unique 4-points pattern b4-d2-f4-d6 includes four 3-points patterns b4-d2-f4, d2-f4-d6, f4-d6-b4 and d6-b4-d2.
4th phase with the move Rd4-d6 would create all these patterns that we see as a cross. Without it, there is
only 1/4 of a cross.
Even if we treat some elements as redundant, at most 2/4 content of a cross is present.
Triangle might be 1/2 of a quadrate.
Tossing 3/3 heads of a coin is only a half job of 4/4 tosses.
But 4th move of wR, accompanied by 3 new half-moves in 4th phase is more like pulling 4th Ace from a pack of cards after pulling 3 Aces in a row.
Moves of wR in this problem might be 3/4 of the following “4 moves of a full cross”:
White Rb8 Rd4 Kc3 Pc2
Black Qa8 Rb7 Pa6 Pb6 Pd6 Ph5 Pf4 Rh4 Ke3 Ph3 Sb2 Ba1
Stipulation H#2
Condition GridChess
Twins b),c),d)=Move e3-c5,e3-g1,c3-g1
632 is a chess problem published for the delight of readers and solvers. Any comment on a chess problem is an attempt to map the details of the problem to words for the sake of communication.
If I comment on an own chess problem, the purpose of that comment is to provide a hint to what I hailed myself (and what I did not).
It is impossible to avoid ambiguity in a mapping like this (of a chess problem’s content to words) because – other than chess moves, pieces or squares – words are never exact.
That’s why I would not even try to claim that the word “cross” or the number “3/4” are the only options here.
In the last paragraph of my comment above (dated 12:48) I tried to explain my preference for the choice of terms and numbers in the 2nd part of my initial comment.
Let me give it another try: I was hoping that it was an appropriate and understandable abbreviation of the statement
“I worship that the 1st white moves are all performed by the same white rook moving 2 steps in 3 out of the 4 possible orthogonal directions, which makes a geometric pattern that is lacking nothing but another move in the 4th direction to resemble a cross”.
For evidence see your own quadruplet version. (You did not provide any validation of that result, but the repeated instance of a pair of hiding moves suggests that you consider it a theoretical demonstration rather than a possible improvement.)
I do not get the significance of your listing of 3-point-patterns. With a single rook move in each of the phases, considering combinations of destination squares does not make sense to me.
Enhancing the scope is a sure-fire way to enhance ambiguity. With that approach it is easy to add a bunch of further objections, like:
– The cross is not complete, as the set of moves does not cover the squares adjacent to the center (c4, d3, d5, e4).
– With the constant distance to the arrival square this is a “plus” token rather than a “cross”.
– On the standard chess board 2 steps in each direction make a “medium” cross rather than a “big” one.
– …
Note that this time I avoided to use the term “sentence” because I know my initial comment is missing some essential parts (like the predicate).
I also avoided the term “half” because I know that the 2nd part is much shorter than the 1st.
However, I doubt that communication benefits from this kind of “preciseness”.
Internet provides access to much to much of information.
To enable people to receive ever more and more information, the definitions and explanations are so much shortened that very often the essence is missing.
Everyone can be quickly informed about anything and think that it’s knowledge. The very essence of the concepts is wrongly understood, it can be seen every day in all areas.
So I try to warn the readers that 3/4 of a cross has no meaning or it could mean “zero of a cross”.
If you want it arithmetically, when there’s no cross, 3/4×0=0!
But it’s the age of democratic logic and everyone may vote about the truth, understanding the essence or not.
So, OK, it’s
“…a geometric pattern that is lacking nothing but another move in the 4th direction to resemble a cross…”
Whatever that should mean.