|
|
Original Problems, Julia’s Fairies – 2015 (II): July – December →Previous ; →Next ; →List 2015(II) Please send your original fairy problems to: julia@juliasfairies.com |
No.972
No.972 by Petko A. Petkov – Two kinds of Super pawns in a triple batteries’ transformation. (JV)
Definitions:
Berolina Super Pawn(BS): It is Berolina-Pawn but its moves and captures are respectively extended to the entire diagonal and the entire column.
Berolina-Pawn(BP): Walk and capture are swapped relative to the orthodox Pawn. The Berolina-Pawn moves without capturing diagonally (possibly two squares if it is on the second row of its side) and captures vertically.
Super Pawn(SP): Moves straight forwards and captures diagonally forwards through as many empty squares as desired. Promotion is normal.
|
No.972 Petko A. Petkov |
Solutions: (click to show/hide) |
|
white kd6 rb2 rd2 sc5 sf4
black kc1 rf6 bg1 se6 sg4 spf7 bse7
hs#3 b) Sg4→h7 (5+7) |
|
The idea is good, but the use of fairy pieces is not justified. Orthodox rook and bishop may be easily used instead of fairy pawns. And twinless form is reachable in this case.
Interesting use of the superpawns… though only their capture move is used. The fact that they do not guard the squares behind is feature which differentiates them from a bishop or rook and this necessitates the firing of the black indirect battery and later its transformation. Very ingenious!
About Evseev`s comments:
I think that the commentary of Georgy is a fallacy. In this scheme it is obvious that the Super-pawns can not be replaced with the black Rook and Bishop! Pay attention, for example, that .in the a) solution after 2…BSxe2# the square “e4” is not controlled by the BS! Threfore here is neded the move 1…Sg5+! With black Re7 (instead of b. BS) there are a lot of duals after 1…Se6~+. From other side (with b.Re7) here it would be quite comical to speak for a “black indirect battery Re7/Rf6”.
The same situation we see in th solution b) – with black Bf7 (instad of black SP) there are a lot of duals aftr 1.Ke5! (1…Se6~+) and even cooks bcause thе square “d5” is controlled by th Bf7.
By the by my main idea was to dmonstrate with this problem the difrence between the two theoretical possible black Nowotnys on f6 – with use of orthodox R and B and with use of SP and BS.
In is obvious that thre are a lot of analogical (other) schemes in which is possible to use Nowotny with only R and B – but I repeat the important thematic point – in a) after 2.Rexe6 there are no indirect black battery Re6/Rf6! On the contrary – the indirct black battry SPe6/Rf6 is very nice! In other words with R and B it is not possible to ralize mate-finals with simultaneous play of two black batteries – direct+ indirct.
On this rason I think ttat the Ram`s commnt is very correct and I repeat here some of his arguments! Thanks, dear Ram!
I never recommend any changes, unless I am ready to prove my point (or, sometimes, at least to try to prove) . The only thing that cannot be preserved is the position of white king on the black rook line.
It is may be discussed if we can call Re6/Rf6 an “indirect battery”, but the line opening effect is still exactly the same as in the case of battery.
And antidual choices may be preserved, though in slightly changed form.
I consider the use of exotic fairy pawns in this problem to be a very high price, not justified by problem contents.
I tried to hide a possible version below, not sure about success.
White Ke5 Rb7d7 Sc4f5 Pd2
Black Kc8 Se3 Bf2g8 Re1h3 Pd3g6
1.Ke5-d4 Se3-d1 + (Se3-d5?) 2.Sc4-e3 (Sf5-e3?) Re1*e3 3.Sf5-e7 + Re3*e7 #
1.Ke5-e4 Se3-g2 + (Se3-d5?) 2.Sf5-e3 (Sc4-e3?) Bf2*e3 3.Sc4-b6 + Be3*b6 #
To Evseev`s version:
I definitely can not perceive the version of Evseev as improvement of my problem! On the contrary – I think that his position is a step back in the development of my synthesis of ideas.
1. It is obvious that the King`s key-moves in Evseev`s version are not full aesthtic and not identical. In the first solution the w.K stands on the battry-line Se3/Re1 and the key is a move of the King on the same battery-line. But in the second solution the King lawes the initial battry-line and play on e4 – square from other battry-line. It is an unpleasant imbalance, but the author did not comment this. But de facto this imbalance leads to different numbers of black battery – transformations in both phases.
2. Speaking about the position of the white King in both positions (my original and the new scheme) we need to mark an another weakness in the version of Georgy.
Please note that in my problem in the initial position the white King stands on the line of the dirct battery Se6/Rf6. After the keys the King self creates two new black batteris in every phase: dirct battery Se6/SPf7 plus indirect battery Se6/Rf6 in position a) and dirct battery Se6/SPe7 plus indirect battery Se6/Rf6 in position b). This is a very important thematical moment in my problem! But in the version are missing such thematic motifs and I want to reiterate – the key – moves by Evseev are not equivalent! With other words, by Evseev the square “e5” is a bad square for the w.King. The right square here would be only “e3”
3. I firmly think that the mechanism Re3/Rh3 in the version can not be an indirect black battery – in theoretical, practical and especially – in the aesthetic sense such concept seems to me frivolous. The evaluation of the version can`t change, even if we say that “this question is controversial”.
4. The Super Pawns have a very interesting fairy – effect that is unfamiliar at orthodox figures. See again my problem – in a) solution after the moves: 1.Kd6 Sg5+ 2.Sce6 BSxe6 the direct battery BS/SP is ready and the square e4 is controlled by BSe6. But after the final move 3.BSxe2 the square e4 is no longer controlled although BS moves along the same line! So we need advance to keep the square “e4” (through 1…Sg5+) An analogical situation we have in the solution b).
In conclusion: I do not think that Evseev`s version improves my problem – his version cripples my idea and content! To the above mentioned arguments I add one more thing:
A) The Evseev`s construction is obviously worse – 2 technical pieces more (no Meredith!).
B) The ambition to improve some problems in which the fairy figures are replaced by the orthodox pieces must not be denied. But in such cases the eventual elimination of the fairy elements should not crippled the content and form.
I was somewhat at a loss, so I needed some time to answer. Anyone may disagree with me, but I’ll explain my feelings.
It is as if I was given a wax apple and when I said that it is inedible, I am objected that its round form is perfect and the color is ideal. Sorry, this kind of dispute is fruitless.
So, just to finish my arguments, I’ll present the position with similar scheme, but where I think the use of superpawns is
justified.
White Kb3 Rc4 Pd4
Black Ke4 Rd8 Bh8e6 Pf5 Pc2e2a5
Neutral BSd3 SPc3
h#2
1.Rd8*d4 nSPc3*d4 2.Ke4-d5 nSPd4*h8=nQ #
1.Bh8*d4 nBSd3*d4 2.Ke4-e5 nBSd4*d8=nQ #
I’d like to offer to use a page https://juliasfairies.com/software/py2web-demo/ for visualization of any notation/solution in Popeye format (overwrite the default example I’ve given!). Just fill in two fields: pieces and solutions, and click [Go] for animated diagram.
(the same you can do at D.Turevski’s original page dedicated to Py2Web: http://www.yacpdb.org/#static/py2web)
I am very surprised by the last comment (and example! ) by Evseev! From his almost ” poetic comparison example” with the apple I did not understand almost anything that relates to my problem and Evseev`s “versions and arguments”.
” Sorry, this kind of dispute is fruitless” – say Georgy and I agree with his opinion! By the by, right from his first comment I understood that no discussion can be obtained.
Read above: “The idea is good, but the use of fairy pieces is not justified. Orthodox rook and bishop may be easily used instead of fairy pawns. And twinless form is reachable in this case” (G.Evseev, December 15th). This extremely strong opinion sounds like “verdict of the last instance.” What a dispute can be possible here?
BUT!!! The practical example with which Evseev is trying to prove his arguments, is de facto a weak position with many defects, which is too far from my original. In my previous comment I wrote in detail about it.
SO FAR EVSEEV HAS NOT SHOWN ANY VERSION IN WHICH IS PRESERVED MY THMATIC COMPLEX IN USING OF ROOK AND BISHOP INSTEAD OF SUEPR PAWNS!
I DO NOT RCOGNICE AS ‘IMPROVEMENTS’ COMPROMISING POSITIONS AND MAIMED AUTHOR`S CONTENT! SUCH WEAKNESSS HAS THE VERSION OF EVSEEV FROM HIS PRVIOUS COMMENT!
But why I stayed very surprised now? Today Evseev published a version which “demonstrates” how should we use the Super – pawns “thematic” in the following “similar scheme”:
White Kb3 Rc4 Pd4
Black Ke4 Rd8 Bh8e6 Pf5 Pc2e2a5
Neutral BSd3 SPc3 h#2 2 solutions
1.Rd8*d4 nSPc3*d4 2.Ke4-d5 nSPd4*h8=nQ #
1.Bh8*d4 nBSd3*d4 2.Ke4-e5 nBSd4*d8=nQ #
I think that the word “similar scheme” is quite “foggy term”. There are probably millions of schemes that we can identify as “similar”. But the main question here is: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE SIMILAR SCHEMES AND WHAT IS THEIR AESTHETIC VALUE!
In this regard, I have the following remarks to the scheme / or version / of Evseev which obviously is made in change of colors.
1. Here we have not “Neutral Nowotny” on “d4” but so called “Neutral Finish Nowotny”. This old (also orthodox) combination is rather different – here at the beginning it is necessary to capture some static piece (here a w.Pawn!) on the thematic square (d4). Then obtained Neutral Novotny and the formation of neutral batteries. Of course such thmatic can be ialso interesting. But it is obviously that there is a very important thematic difference between my problem and this version. I use not Neutral Finish Nowotny – I use the Standard black Nowotny but combined with theme Umnov on the thematic square. This combination seems much interesting and difficult as the “Finish Nowotny” with his static Pawn!
2.On the other hand, in my probloem the Super Pawns play with thematic effects in 2 directions – a typical fairy effect!. I repeat the point 4. of my previous comment: “4. The Super Pawns have a very interesting fairy – effect that is unfamiliar at orthodox figures. See again my problem – in a) solution after the moves: 1.Kd6 Sg5+ 2.Sce6 BSxe6 the direct battery BS/SP is ready and the square e4 is controlled by BSe6. But after the final move 3.BSxe2 the square e4 is no longer controlled although BS moves along the same line! So we need advance to keep the square “e4” (through 1…Sg5+) An analogical situation we have in the solution b)….”
Why Evseev not see (or not evaluated!? ) this special effect which, according to my research, can be a major theme of many other problems ? From other side it is obviously that in my problem there are no Super-Pawn` promotions as a thematic elements but in Evseev`s version the promotions have an important rolle?
3. My problem and new Evseev`s version are problms with different stipulations and with different lenght of play and also: Georgy use neutral tematic pieces! Considering all these arguments, it is clear that the degree of thematic analogy between my problem and version of Evseev is not so hight as it seems at first glance!
In other words, the version of Evseev can be an independent problem, but not in this position which has a number of thechnical and thmatic weaknesses!
The optimal realization of the Evseev`s scheme can only play with white, not with neutral Super-Pawns! Therefore this scheme needs a solid processing and change.
The optimal form probably can be the following Meredith (11 pieces!) with use only of white Super-Pawns:
WHITE: Kb7, Rb5, Pd5, Pg6, SPa2, BSd2 (6)
BLACK: Ke5, Rd8, Bg8, Pe4, Pf6 (5)
H#2 b) Pg6-> f5
a) 1.Bxd5+! BSxd5! 2.Ke6 SPxd8=Q#; b) 1.Rxd5! SPxd5! 2.Rd6 SPxg8=S#! A beauty position with maximal activity of all thematic figures!
Thank you Petkov and Evseev for an interesting discussion.
In Petko’s version one of the main ideas of my position is lost – subtle differentiation of Q/R and Q/B promotions. While it may be possible to achieve the same effect using only ordinary neutral pawns or pawn+berolina combination, I was not able to do it (though I only tried to have a mating move promotion). And in case of “short” pawns it is of course impossible to have reciprocal batteries with same units.
I have also considered why my approach and Petko’s approach to the initial problem is so different. I think that Petko uses “action-based” approach while I, probably due to solving experience, prefer a “goal-based” one. The difference is mainly visible in helpplay problems: for Petko all effects seen in problem seem to have similar value, while for me there are “main” and “secondary” effects. Those secondary effects seem to me semi-automatic and not very valuable, while at the same time I have more strict requirements to the main effects .