Original Problems (9)

N.29. Very nice problem Julia. Pin unpin complex with white halfpin, neatly realised. Only weakness, the white bishop could not be used more efficiently to guard d8.

ABOUT N 28. VYSOTSKA
I think the discussion about the problem № 28 of Julia is very interesting and useful!
I also share my opinion that is of course subjective. Therefore, I do not want to have a theoretical war with my colleagues; on the contrary – I share my experience, which can be probably useful for some composers.
So far I’ve written several articles about the problems (orthodox or fairies) with set-play. Now I will share only some common formulations of this topic, which are reflected in my Personal system for analysis and composition PAPGS.
1. What is a problem with set-play?
In any problem genre, this is a problem in “N” half-moves, which has at least two phases, for example: I. Phase: Set play in N – 1 half – moves; II Phase – real play in N half-moves. Of course, one h#2* for example, in set-play has 3 half-moves – two from White and one from Black, but real solution here contains 4 half-moves – 2 black and 2 white.
In the other words, set-play alwas has 1 half-move less than real play. If Black is to move in a H#N* set-play in N-1 moves begins with a white move , but to realize this play in real solution (with first black move) is impossible, because Black is in zugzwang – it has no waiting move! It is well known.
2.Whether the set-play may be adequate in thematic aspect to the real play?
Formally, such adequacy is impossible, because the set-play has 1 half-move less. In fact, in many problems not all half – moves from the both sides are thematic. For example, in N 28 from Vysotska, we have a HS#3* with 5 thematic half-moves: 3 from Black: check with the Rook, creation of Dentist – mechanism , mate through forward battery-piece. White has here only 2 thematic half – moves: 2 from White: open of line plus self-pin by the S, check with other white S which is unpined from Black.
These 5 half-moves create the main content of the problem. In both phases we should realize full thematicadequacy between them!
This requirement is fulfilled in N 28. On the contrary – this requirement is not realized in both new versions from Mr. Bala. Here the “additional Umnov” after Rd6 – g6 is not a plus, but a serious thematic minus of this versions, as notes also the author Vysotska.
This “additional Umnov” is a typic unpleasant “motive plus” in real play , which violates the thematic unity of the problem!
Therefore, better is to eliminate such “additional thematic components” which are interesting at first sight but de facto they lower value of the set-play!
A lot of interesting other questions exists here:
a) How to evaluate the first move of problem N 28 (1. Bg5!) , which formally belongs to real play?
b) Is it an unpleasant thematic “motive plus” in this problem?
c) Probably is better to work with 2 solutions here?
My answer, probably rather subjective is following:
a) The white key-move 1.Bg5! here belongs not to the main content of the problem (which , we know already, has 5 half-moves)! This move has also its thematic importance in strategical and aesthetical aspect but it has no directly related to the main thematic!
Such key – moves are only a special “instumentarium” for the realization of the formula: set-play + real play. This instrumentarium is always good, if the key-move has its authonome (through not big!) thematic importance!
In N 28 1.Bg5! demonstrates de-blockade and block of new square – which is an excellent motive! But unfortunately here the Bishopopens the vertical, but closes horizontal without thematic thematic purity – after 1.Bg5 the unpleasant motive is fact that here exists also a secondary, “parasitic” block of square g5 – for the white S.
Therefore we cannot say that here is realized also Bivalve – theme… No any defect is fact that w. Bishop cannot control effectivesquare d8 because wB has a completely different function in the problem!
b) As key – move which belongs to the real solution, 1.Bg5! cannot be an unpleasant thematic “motive plus” in this problem? We already know that it doesn’t belong to the main thematic. But exists an other, very important argument – this key-move is a potential result from the set-play! It justifies its necessity, because of zugzwang.
Therefore, we can accept, that this key – move (through executed from White) has approximately equal belonging to the both sides!
I speak here about general conclusions which apply not only to № 28, and even not only to the HS# genre!
In my opinion if we can work with 2 solutions or with set-play + solution, better is to choice set-play version which have more finese (through this criteria is rather general, of course).
Of course, in practice there are many cases where the situation is not so clear-theoretical and practical, and the composers take other decisions. Therefore – do not forget the subjective character of this material!
(By the by, in N 28 is possible to add two black Pawns on b7/d7 but in this case the black Bishop e8 is obviously promoted piece! Many composers (and judges!) afraid of such figures! In my opinion it is a delusion but in practice often such problems are underrated because such anachronism….)
In conclusion, I offer one of my favorite problems which demonstrates the principles which I have discussed in this comment:
—————
[img[/img]

Set-play: 1…MOe5 2.Kf3! LEe7! 3.Sh4+ MOh3#;
Real play: 1.Ke4!! MOe2 2.Kf4 LEe1! 3.Sh3+ MOh4#.
Here the reciprocal black battery-creation MOA-MOA is realized in combination with Umnov – theme, executed by the white King (!) Other motives of the main thematic here are also: creation of white anti-batteries (with double Bivalve – play of white Ss and black Ss!) , Ambush moves by the black Leo. Therefore – as in N 28 – main contents also with 5 half-moves!
The key-move here – 1.Ke4!! demonstrates a new Bivalve which belongs not to the main thematic complexe, but which is rather interesting – Bivalve realized by the w.King – closes line of MOf3, but opens line of MOf4!