Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 760: C.G.S.Narayanan - Helpmate
narayanan.cgs(04.11.2016) The Indian Meastro usually composes directmates but this time tries his hand at helpmates and delights!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

760. C.G.S.Narayanan (India)
04.11.2016
761
H#2                        (5+12)
b) Qa4-a6     c) Sh5 -f6
 
a) 1.Rxd4  Rd2 2.Re4  Bd6#
b) 1 Rxc5  Sb5 2.Rd5  Re2#
c) 1.Rxc2  Be7 2.Rg2  Sxf3#
 
Cyclic Zilahi, All black moves by Rc4! (Seetharaman)
 

Comments  

 
+1 #1 Miodrag Mladenovic 2016-11-04 20:53
Very nice problem. I like it although some problemists do not accept passive capture of white pieces as a Zilahi theme. The passive means that white piece that is captured does not move to the square where it will be captured. However, I do accept this as a Zilahi and many of my H#2 Zilahi problems do not contain active sacrifices of white pieces.

By the way three black pieces can be saved:


H#2 5+9
a) diagram
1.Rxe5 Re7 2.Rd5 Be3#
b) bQh5->h3
1.Rxg4+ Sg4 2.Re4 Rd7#
c) wSa2->c3
1.Rxf7 Bd2 2.Rb7 Sxc6#

In this position it's nice that black pown is captured on the mating move. However in this position there is a check by bR in twin with bQh3.

It's also possible to place bPc3 and remove wSa2 in initial position and then c) twin is wSc3. That will bring down number of white pieces in two twins to the minimum white force (4 pieces). However not sure that's an improvement or not.
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Massimo La Rosa 2016-11-05 16:40
I agree with you, it is a nice problem.
In the 3rd sol, however, you can pick the rook up from the board and nothing changes. As you know, The black Rook MUST reach g2 to interfere with the black Bishop. The fact that in his walk it meets the white Rook c2 is not very important for Black.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-11-05 17:47
Quote:
In the 3rd sol, however, you can pick the rook up from the board and nothing changes.

In twin b) you can do the same with WBf4.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Massimo La Rosa 2016-11-05 18:00
Quoting Vitaly Medintsev:
Quote:
In the 3rd sol, however, you can pick the rook up from the board and nothing changes.

In twin b) you can do the same with WBf4.

I was talking about original problem.
Quote
 
 
+1 #5 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-11-05 18:15
I see.
Anyway, all captures seem accidental
Quote
 
 
+2 #6 Miodrag Mladenovic 2016-11-07 09:41
I agree that captures are accidental. However I think it's a paradox and that it's not easy to compose H#2 where white pieces are "dummy" within solution (solution works even without them on the board). In my opinion this does not downgrade the value of the problem. Of course this is my personal taste.
Quote
 
 
+1 #7 Nikola Predrag 2016-11-07 13:19
Idle white officer is a too terrible flaw for help-play. But idleness should be perceived in the complete context of a problem seen as one whole and not partially by seeing some phase outside the context.

Each one of 3 thematic white pieces plays actively in 2 phases. There's the cyclic shift of these activities between W1/W2.
So, the effects of the active play (moves) give the full triple cycle B1/W1/W2.

The cyclic ACTIVE flightguard in W1 crucially increases the participation of white officers in unified strategy of the play, considering the problem as one whole.

In a separated phase, "being captured" doesn't make "activity". But again, the completeness of the content shows the play of one and the same bR. Thus, by transferring its own activity to a respective white piece, bR participates in the cyclic mechanism.

B1 - bR plays to capture X
W1 - Y plays for flightguard
W2 - Z plays for checkmate

And since there's no idle white officer in the mates, the apparent flaw could be considered as irrelevant.
Quote
 
 
+1 #8 Massimo La Rosa 2016-11-07 17:45
Quoting Nikola Predrag:
Idle white officer is a too terrible flaw for help-play. But idleness should be perceived in the complete context of a problem seen as one whole and not partially by seeing some phase outside the context.

Each one of 3 thematic white pieces plays actively in 2 phases. There's the cyclic shift of these activities between W1/W2.
So, the effects of the active play (moves) give the full triple cycle B1/W1/W2.

The cyclic ACTIVE flightguard in W1 crucially increases the participation of white officers in unified strategy of the play, considering the problem as one whole.

In a separated phase, "being captured" doesn't make "activity". But again, the completeness of the content shows the play of one and the same bR. Thus, by transferring its own activity to a respective white piece, bR participates in the cyclic mechanism.

B1 - bR plays to capture X
W1 - Y plays for flightguard
W2 - Z plays for checkmate

And since there's no idle white officer in the mates, the apparent flaw could be considered as irrelevant.


I prefer to talk in general and not about this problem and about his Author who is, for me, an expert at chess problems.

In general I prefer a Zilahi with no passive captures.

As regards this problem, very interesting to me, considering that it is performing a cycle this flaw could be considered irrilevant to me, too.

I agree with your comment
Quote
 
 
+1 #9 Rajendiran Raju 2016-11-07 17:54
a) 1.Rxd4 (A) Rd2 (B) 2.Re4 Bd6 (C) #

b) 1.Rxd2 (B) Be7 (C) 2.Rg2 Nxf3 (A) #

c) 1.Rxc5 (C) Nb5 (B) 2.Rd5 Re2 (A) #

Beautiful Cyclic Zilahi

In Part a)
Whites
Piece A Captured ,
Piece B Guards and Piece C mates.

In Part b)
Piece B Captured ,
Piece C Guards and Piece A mates.

In Part c)
Piece C Captured ,
Piece A Guards and Piece B mates.

economy of white admired --- !!
and without pawn.

Great unity in solutions
the same black rook made six different moves is very attractive.
Quote
 
 
+2 #10 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-11-07 18:28
Quote:
Great unity in solutions
the same black rook made six different moves is very attractive.

The motivation of bR's play is not equal in phases, so the unity is not perfect.
Besides, make two moves by the same piece in order to self-block (in two solsutions) is too expancive for contemprorary h#2, in my view
Quote
 
 
+1 #11 Nikola Predrag 2016-11-07 22:35
Unity of motivations is relevant if the author claims it. The observer is expected to perceive what DOES make the content.
Talking about what DOES NOT make the content is completely absurd.

I agree that wasting 2 moves for a trivial selfblock in b)&c) makes the help-play rather trivial.
Quote
 
 
+1 #12 Rajendiran Raju 2016-11-08 03:48
Dear Nikola....

I am just a day by day learner...

In my view i saw the unity in white's one piece captured , another guards and another one mates in all the three phases.

I am always try to learn lessons from my mistakes.
Quote
 
 
+1 #13 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-11-08 06:35
Quote:
Unity of motivations is relevant if the author claims it.

This approach is a straight road to relativism and subjectivism.
Quote:
Talking about what DOES NOT make the content is completely absurd.

In h#2, each move MUST make the content, if it does not then an author's idea is wrong and a problem as a whole is imperfect though it may exist (be published).
Quote
 
 
+1 #14 Nikola Predrag 2016-11-08 10:17
Vitaly, it is all upside-down.
It is the AUTHOR who creates the content.
There's no unity of motivations and the author does not claim there was such unity.
So, when you mention it, it's YOUR "relativism and subjectivism".

You should first perceive and understand what DOES MAKE the content and then you may comment it.
bR is related to 3 white pieces. That relation has 3 perspectives. This makes the most economical 3-dimensional structure of tetrahedron which represents the cyclic play.
B2 moves are not part of it but still, they DO MAKE the content of the solution.

What you or I may say "objectively" is e.g. that there's the unifying "tetrahedron-strategy" presented through the rather trivial chess-play.
Quote
 
 
+1 #15 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-11-08 10:46
Quote:
It is the AUTHOR who creates the content.

Yes, it is true.
In H# genre, there are neither additional nor technical variations. So, the whole play is an author's concept. This concept may consist of some main idea (which - in most cases - is an internal driver of helpmate problem) and some other ideas or effects. If all these elements of the concept are unified, we call it perfectness (complete harmony), otherwise we may talk about imperfectness (incomplete harmony).

Concerning to h#2, the author's content should involve all half-moves, ideally.
In given problem, we see unifying "tetrahedron-strategy" (as you call it) and some other effects which are not unified - this is what I want to say.
Quote
 
 
0 #16 Nikola Predrag 2016-11-08 15:14
I understand what you mean only too well, I'm afraid.
-"...We call it perfectness..." sounds as referring to some self-established "lobby" that imposes an extremely narrow bureaucratic perception of the creativity.

The "internal driver" does not have to rely on the most simple analogies and mirror-symmetries. Such a trivial perception of harmony is much below the mediocre human perceptive abilities.

A mechanism is harmonious when it works efficiently. Harmonizing the asymmetries and apparent "imperfections" makes a harmony deep and complex. At least in this Universe.

Obsessive-compulsive need for a perfection on elementary level disables a creation of depth, since the depth comes out of the growth which requires a breakaway from the "perfect loops".

The mechanism works perfectly within the content of this problem. Any hypothetical imperfections within a non-existing content make simply a nonsense.

The "internal driver" must block a black piece (bK or bB), guard flights and mate but also, in a) it must clear the line (d2-d6), in b) it must close bQ's line (a6-e2). It works perfectly, solutions are there, no cooks&duals.
The overall content is more rich and original than of many problems showing nothing but boring non-original trivially analogous "internal drivers".
Quote
 
 
0 #17 Vitaly Medintsev 2016-11-08 15:55
Quote:
The "internal driver" must block a black piece (bK or bB)

2.Rg2 (2.Rb7 in the version) is not a blocking effect and that is the point.
I suppose, you understand it too well :-)
Quote
 
 
0 #18 Nikola Predrag 2016-11-08 16:57
Interesting, so how do YOU call it in everyday life when some object "blocks" your movement?
I suppose "Pardon me Sir, your car interferes with my moving direction".
Quote
 
 
0 #19 Rajendiran Raju 2016-11-08 17:17
Nice Black & White twin too ---

It seems need correction for the month below the authors name ?!
Quote
 
 
0 #20 Seetharaman Kalyan 2016-11-08 17:50
Quoting Rajendiran Raju:
It seems need correction for the month below the authors name ?!


Thanks Raju. I have since corrected the month.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh


Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/youcult/public_html/chessbul/templates/edenrock/s5_tab_show_ER.php on line 5

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/youcult/public_html/chessbul/templates/edenrock/s5_tab_show_ER.php on line 9

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments