Problem 645: Hubert Gockel - Twomover |
![]() 645. Hubert Gockel (Germany)
12.12.2015
![]() #2 vvv (12+10)
1.Bh6? (2.Bxf4#)
1...Rxg4 a 2.Sxf3# X 1...Rxe4! b 1.d7? (2.Bd6#) 1...Rxe4 b 2.Sxf3# X, 1...Bc7 2.Qxc7#, 1...Rxf5! c 1.Sc5? (2.Sd7#) 1...Rxf5 c 2.Sxf3# X, 1...Rxg4! a 1.g3! (2.gxf4#) 1...Rf~ 2.Sxf3#, 1...dxe4 2.Qc5# Cyclic Arnhem theme. Pioneer example with bR conducting all 3 thematic defences! (Author) |
KOBULCHESS.COM
site for chess composition
General editor:
Diyan Kostadinov
Co-editor:
Seetharaman Kalyan
Comments
True... the Se4 is used for tryplay only. But without it there is no theme. Hopefully someone will find an even better scheme for this theme.
In 2 tries White removes one guard, of d6 or e6, which Black uses for refutation.
But 1...Rxg4 is a strong general defense so the try 1.Sc5? is not very convincing.
The author has at least removed the non-thematic tries which would be refuted by that general defense.
Wouldn't it be better to have the thematic mate already in the set play for all moves 1...R~, with the creation of white weaknesses in all 3 tries?
e.g.:
White Bb8 Be8 Pc6 Pd6 Pe5 Rg5 Sd4 Rf4 Pc3 Sc2 Pf2 Qb1 Kh1
Black Sa8 Sb6 Pe6 Pc5 Kd5 Pc4 Re4 Pe3
1...R~ 2.Sxe3#
1.Qb5? Rxf4!
And wSd4 is needed to guard c6 in case of 1.f3! Sd7?! in the solution.
While the set play makes the tries convincing...the substitute try 1.Qb5?Rxf4! has the weakness that no other move of the rook defends the threat and hence there is no transferred mate.
While trying to achieve the complete set-play and some function for wS, I forgot about the most important thing - the original content.
I've reversed the cause and the consequence and then I've carelessly "applied" that mistake in the example. So, I've lost a link for the cycle without even noticing that :-(
But I like the cyclic mechanism in your original very much.
RSS feed for comments to this post