Pierre Tritten 


Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2015 (II): July – December

→Previous ; →Next ; →List 2015(II)

Please send your original fairy problems to:

No.963 by Pierre Tritten – A sequence of reciprocal pins and unpins in two phases. (JV)

No.963 Pierre Tritten

original – 03.12.2015

Solutions: (click to show/hide)

White Kg1 Rg8 Bc7 Black Kg3 Rd6 Rf2 Bg7 Be2 Se8 Sb5 Pd7 Pc6 Ph6 Pd4 Ph4 Ph3

ser-h#5         2 solutions          (3+13)

Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Geoff Foster
Geoff Foster
December 4, 2015 23:22

This is a really beautiful problem, with perfect correspondence between solutions. The “Hesitation Grimshaw” is a delight!

I quoted some “series-helpmates with self pin & unpin” in the November 2015 issue of The Problemist Supplement. Did that inspire this problem?

Pierre Tritten
Pierre Tritten
December 5, 2015 11:27
Reply to  Geoff Foster

Yes, thanks for this interesting selection that gave me the desire to also try!

December 5, 2015 10:02

Lovely problem!

shankar ram
shankar ram
December 5, 2015 18:02

“Overshoot Grimshaw” seems more appropriate than “Hesitation Grimshaw”!
Similar mechanism has been used earlier to show full 3×3 cycle:

Geoff Foster
Geoff Foster
December 5, 2015 23:28

In the Myllyniemi problem the bSf6 plays to h7, not h5.

The theme of black self-pin & unpin is much easier to show in stalemate form. Also, in the stalemate problems only the moves of the Q/R are different between solutions. The problems are clever but they are also mechanical.

shankar ram
shankar ram
December 6, 2015 05:19

Thanks for correcting the mistake in the solution of the Myllyniemi problem, Geoff!
Of course, Pierre’s problem stands apart – as it includes Grimshaw, the overshoot moves, the Pelle selfblocks and ODT. I just quoted the sh=s for the mechanism.
“…clever but mechanical…”, “…ingenious but mechanical…” : in my experience, many cyclic problems are fated to get this reaction! 😉

Arno Tüngler
Arno Tüngler
February 15, 2016 10:29

Please see the beneath that probably fully anticipates this problem… The 5-mover was a version that was published with the solutions of the 6-mover (that later was selected for the FIDE-Album 1998-2000 as No. G16) in 2001 with my comment “Maybe that is even better?” and the response of the editor (and one of the judges) Hans Gruber: “No.” (both in German obviously…)

Arno Tüngler
8025 feenschach 11/12 1999
2nd Prize
FEN: B6b/3p4/2rP4/8/q2s2P1/Rb3krP/p3ppp1/K7
ser-h#6 b)bPf2 to f4
a) 1.Rxg4 2.Re4 3.Rc3 4.Bd5 5.Rf4 6.Be4 Rxc3#
b) 1.g1B 2.Be3 3.Bd5 4.Rc3 5.Bf2 6.Re3 Bxd5#

Arno Tüngler
8025 (Version) feenschach 07/2001
FEN: 1b1r4/4pp2/1pP1kp2/8/p5K1/1r3p2/Bp2b3/4R3
ser-h#5 2 solutions

1.Rd5 2.Re3 3.Bc4 4.Rd6 5.Bd5 Rxe3#
1.Be5 2.Bc4 3.Re3 4.Bd6 5.Re5 Bxc4#

February 16, 2016 07:17
Reply to  Arno Tüngler

Of course there is strong resemblence. But I dont see the grimshaw in this.

Arno Tüngler
Arno Tüngler
February 16, 2016 08:58

Yes, that is missing in the 6-mover (that has some other advantages) but look at the 5-mover that was published in 2001.

February 16, 2016 12:44
Reply to  Arno Tüngler

Oh… yes. You are right. I looked at the six-mover only. Ser.h#5 Clear anticipation.

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
February 16, 2016 16:41

There’s no Grimshaw in Arno’s or Pierre’s h#5. That’s probably what Hans has meant by saying “No”.

Pierre Tritten
Pierre Tritten
February 18, 2016 09:29

I agree, it’s a clear anticipation.
Maybe the ‘No’ means that the sh#5 setting is cooked:
1.Be5 2.Bc4 3.Re3 4.Bd6 5.Re5 B×c4‡
1.Rd5 2.Bd6 3.Re5 4.Bc4 5.Ra3 B×c4‡
1.Rd5 2.Re3 3.Bc4 4.Rd6 5.Bd5 R×e3‡
1.Rd5 2.Re5 3.Bc4 4.Bd6 …
1.Rd5 2.Re5 3.Bc4 4.Ra3 5.Bd6 …
1.Rd5 2.Re5 3.Bd6 …

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
February 19, 2016 11:09

I presume there’s typo in Arno’s FEN, 1 instead of p (+bPa3).

Arno Tüngler
Arno Tüngler
February 24, 2016 04:25

Nikola is right – the bPa3 is missing! The right FEN is 1b1r4/4pp2/1pP1kp2/8/p5K1/pr3p2/Bp2b3/4R3

When Hans wrote his short comment he did not have in mind the “Grimshaw” as there was no comment not from me not from him about such a thing. Probably it is already understood that such terms like “Grimshaw”, “Umnov”, “Bristol” etc. in helpplay are often used when in reality talk is just about an effect resembling those themes. Personally I usually do not use them in such context, especially if the effects are not “pure” like in the given problem where the mutual interception is connected with blocks of king flights.

Hans (and bernd ellinghoven and Hanspeter Rehm) just felt that the 6-mover is still better than the 5-mover due to other merits: the unblocking of a king flight in the first move and thus better hidden solutions and the nicer mate positions maybe… Their comment in the awards to the 6-mover was short: “Relay of pin-changes in perfect orthogonal-diagonal unison”.

Nikola Predrag
Nikola Predrag
February 24, 2016 14:05

Yes Arno, there’s the point. The thematic bRg3/bPg2 in your masterpiece make a reciprocally functioning mechanism. And it’s indeed surprising that an obviously needed “simple passive blocker” from one phase, becomes the most active thematic piece in the other phase.

In the shorter version, each of bRd8/bBb8 is superfluous in one respective phase. The deceptive “Grimshaw” actually just highlights the weasels.

“Absolute purity” is not necessary in help-genres. “Relatively pure” motivations make a content of the most of help-play masterpieces.
Of course, “no motivation at all”, doesn’t contribute to a content.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x