|
|
Original Problems (page 113)Original fairy problems published during 2012 will participate in the informal tourney JF-2012. The site is mostly about fairies, but h# and s# are also welcomed for publication! Please send your problems to my e-mail: julia@juliasfairies.com Go to →List of Problems ; →Page 112 ; →Page 114 |
No.178 – hs#3 by Seetharaman Kalyan – Four white under-promotions combined with reciprocal black battery creation. (JV)
|
No.178 Seetharaman Kalyan
India
original-04.12.2012
Dedicated to S.K.Balasubramanian
 hs#3 2 solutions (4+4)
Solutions: (click to show/hide)
|
The diagrams are made on WinChloe and its Echecs font is used for Logo design
Ram, you found a crystal clear construction to present the idea of creation of black batteries with change of functions, but the white play is not balanced: in the first solutions there are two promotions of the same piece (Rooks), but in the another solution there are two different minor promotions.
In my opinion the problem can be improved in two ways:
– 2×2 different white promotions in both solutions (white AUW);
– 2×2 promotions of the same white pieces in both solutions.
Here are two versions with both possibilities (sorry Julia, I still have not time to learn how I can include diagrams here…):
Version 1:
White: Kb1, Pa2,a7,e7
Black: Ka3, Rh3, Bh5, Pb2,b6,c4
HS#3 b)Pe7-f7 (4+6) C+
a) 1.e8Q! Bd1! 2.Qb5 Rh1 3.a8R+! Ba4#
b) 1.a8S! Rd3! 2.S:b6 Bg6 3.f8B+! Rd6#
White AUW; creation of black batteries; change of functions of black pieces and white Ps.
Version 2:
White: Kb1, Pa7,f7
Black: Ka3, Rh2, Bh3, Pb2,b3,d7,e6
HS#3 b) Pa7-e7 (3+7) C+
a) 1.f8R! Bf1! 2.Rb8 Rh1 3.a8R+! Ba6#
b) 1.e8B! Rc2! 2.B:d7 Bf5 3.f8B+! Rc5#
2×2 promotions of white minor pieces; creation of black batteries; change of functions of black pieces and white Ps.
What you think Ram, which version is better? And what is the opinion of other composers?
Generally, batteries and various combinations of promotions might draw a bit of my attention if someone claims that it is exactly a milionth problem showing such content.
Or, if the content is realized in an original and economic way.
Since after 3…Rc5#, the power of bR does not participate in mate, that would be the priority for any improvements. I don’t consider that AUW or 2 pairs of the same promotions are original or particularly interesting.
Such “balance” is indeed easy perceivable because it is very simple as a pattern. “Simple” does not mean “banal” in principle, but after many thousands of repetitions it becomes equal to banal.
Each of 2 Pawns is promoted 2 times on the same square into a different piece, but only 3 kinds of pieces are (under)promoted. 2xR + S&B is a very nice pattern, considering that there are only 3 underpromotions possible. The relation of 4 promotions and 3 underpromotions is actually the most interesting feature here.
Moving the thematic white Pawns in the twins is unacceptable, especially because the intended pattern (AUW/2×2) is desperately worn out.
Thank you Diyan for your comments and the two nice versions. Your version 1 is very nice with neat hideaway move of the white queen. Of the two, I would prefer this version. In fact I found version 2 myself but preferred my setting for two reasons. I didnt like that the twin had to be a shift of the thematic pawn (losing some of the charm) and only one of the thematic moves was a capture. In my setting all moves non-captures (in addition to being most economical).
I look at it this way. Each pawn makes two different underpromotions (R/B, R/S). Considered this way, there is no unbalance 🙂
I agree with Nikola, that the ideal would have been for the black rook to participate fully in both mates. But I could not find an easy method to guard “a1” alone, Black pawn b2 unnecessarily guards c1 also !!
I am completely agree with you Nikola – just white promotions and/or black batteries creation is not enough to attract attention. Much more strategy should be included and usually some added fairy condition with specific interesting effects doing good job for that.
I posted both versions above just to present my personally preferable for analogous play instead of anti-identical play. Of course this is abstract opinion and may differ to each composer.
Personal preferences are the basic creative element which ensures the variety and development.
But the commom/habitual preferences are not actually the CREATIVE PERSONAL preferences, they are mainly a choice among the offered ready-made popular options.
What might be the analogy or anti-identity? Does AUW show analogy or anti-identity? Does 2×2 same promotions show half-analogy or half-identity?
What do show 3 elements organized in 2 pairs of underpromotions of 2 Pawns?
Dear Nikola, I am always glad to read your comments in the site and also the comments of another composers (even that I prefere to wrote here not so often, because I prefere to discuss some weakness or possible improvements in private correspondence with the autor and to give him eventually chance to improve his problem himself, because sometime such a public discussions can completely destroy the problem and/or to hurt the author). But comments here are nice way to sharing opinions between all of us.
I am not sure that your questions above are rhetorical or I should answer…
Speaking generally (not about the problem above):
– the problems with AUW can not be clarify as ANI type or identical type – it can be both types and this depends also from the another part of the thematic content. But for sure AUW usually make the content more complete if is present in some original way;
– “Does 2×2 same promotions show half-analogy or half-identity?” – again the answer depends also from the another part of thematic content, but basically 2,3 or more solutions with consecutive promotions of the same type pieces looks thematic connected (identical type problem);
– About Ram’s problem 178: I also think that both versions which I present are not better (technical bPs are included, capture of one of them…), but as I noted in my first comment they just present some “possibilities”. Unfortunatelly probably both of them and even the original one are anticipated. I do not check exactly, but the play looks rather familar.
Once I got the basic idea, this setting came quickly. Will be lucky if it escapes anticipation. 🙁 It was fun to compose, so wont mind if disappointed !
Dear Diyan, of course the strategy and motivations for the play make the deeper content of some problem. But we can speak generally about some easy recognizable pattern (like the combination of promotions) even without analizing the motivations.
My question about the analogy and anti-indentity is – What do these terms mean in principle? Whole universe is a wonderful balance of the analogies and anti-identities.
Treating the solutions of No.178 separately and comparing them, we can indeed see anti-identity. But that’s because we sepatared the phases in the beginning, identifying them differently (sol.1 and sol.2) What we can see when we treat both phases as one unified solution, a new entity? (When I’m thirsty, I don’t take the oxygen and hydrogen separately nor the simple mix of these gases)
We see 2 similarly looking men at a7 and f7 showing the same behaviour (promotion). First they reveal the same family name – Rook and then the different personal names – Knight and Bishop. These brothers nicely reciprocate their functions.
I see it as a very nice and natural balance of the analogy and anti-identity. Simplified and mechanical treatment of those two concepts does not make me happy.
What about the analogy and anti-identity of X/Y chromosomes in men and women? Should we prefere AUW X+Y & W+Z or 2 pairs of the same pieces X+X & Y+Y? 🙂
Hehe, it was interesting – obviously the God likes both types: analogy (women’s X/X chromosomes) and anti-identical (men’s X/Y chromosomes)… 🙂
It was interesting point of view and I agree with you. Thanks.
analogy and anti-identity..
oxygen and hydrogen..
xx and xy chromosome pairs..
knight and bishop brothers..
this problem has certainly generated some metaphysical ideas.. reminds me of some stuff i read in “Godel, Esher, Bach”.. 🙂
Dear Seetharaman,
Lot of discussions going on XX-XY combinations. I am not participating in that discussion. But I want to thank you for your kind dedication to me.
—- SKB