Original Problems (8)

About N 26 – S. K. Balasubramanian &
Pierre Tritten.
A nice problem! Every half-move here demonstrates some interesting motive: line – opening, sacrifices of black B/R on b7/b1, fine key-moves of Black and good transformation of black K in B/R – royal phases!
But in my opinion, there are here also some significant weaknesses. I agree that in the second solution the control over “h8” is a weakness, of course. It seems inevitable in this version.
The worst is, that the black Bishop plays only in the first solution (here the Rg1 is surplus) and the black Rook plays only in the second solution (here the Bg2 is surplus). This phenomenon often occurs in helpmate – genre, but here it seems uncomfortable.
Another question is the partial use of KoBul condition (only for Black). It is of course possible, but I think that this condition has a greater impact when it affects both Kings. And finally – in this problem the condition is demonstrated only on the last half-move and it seems insufficientt. Deficiency of KoBul – effects is obvious.
It is interesting that in this scheme can be used topically (a la KoBul!) the white king, and also – to use more active black Bishop and Rook. As example I demonstrate two of many possible versions:
[img[/img]

In Version A the black King is twice modified with reciprocal effect – in I solution: K – rB – RR, in second solution: K – rR – rB! There is here also interchange of functions between black B and R – an very important ellement which absent in the initial problem.
If we work with twins, it is possible more economical position:
[img[/img]

Of course, these versions are somewhat far from the initial Co – problem. But they used the same basic mechanism – a play in the four corners of the board, in one of them stands the white Locust which capture black R and B. Many other modification of this idea are possible , even in 2.5 and 3 moves.

No.26. The original joint problem clearly suffers from the half-employed parts of the mechanism and also some other weaknesses. Versions A and B show how the perfect FORM should look but they do not improve the IDEA, they distort the most exciting paradoxical feature related to the KoBull condition. Black Royal piece in a phase of a King has the smallest mobility in the corner. But it can not be mated there. It must paradoxically transform into the long-range piece, having a long free line and only then it could be mated.

Playing obviously the worse move (to get imprisoned by own Pawns) is, of course, typical for helpmates. But the question is – “what is the essence of some idea – the form or the logic”? The author is entitled to choose the preference.
Real improvement of formal weaknesses should retain the paradoxical logic. In this problem, the first formal improvement I would care about, would be the model mates – it is closely related to the logic (if I’m not wrong, only the square d5 in the first solution is guarded twice).
Anyway, the authors know what was their idea and the spectators may not like it and may prefere a diferent content.

No.27 S. K. Balasubramanian – А very nice miniature which demonstrates a patent idea on this strange and almost unknown fairy – field! The fine aesthetic of Professor Bala makes us happy again!
Perhaps, it would be better if the position is raised by two horizontals (Kb7/Kh4). In the new position the black Rook and the Knight have greater mobility. But it is a micro detail and it reflects a subjective opinion.
I am convinced that there are opportunities to develop this idea. It is reasonable to assume, that there are two ways to achieve this goal:
a) use of another duet of thematic figures (for example: S/B B/R,B/Nightrider, etc);
b) realization in more than 2 moves (for example: H#2.5, H#3…).