Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 835: Fadil Abdurahmanovic, Ioannis Kalkavouras - Helpmate
fadil.abdurahmanovicioannis.kalkavouras(22.05.2017) An excellent helpmate from Fadil Abdurahmanovic and Kalkavouras! Should be delight to solve.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
835. Fadil Abdurahmanovic (Bosnia and Herzegovina) &
Ioannis Kalkavouras (Greece)
832a
H#2           2 sol.        (6+10)
 

1.Sa8! Rc3+ 2.Kd4 Rd7#
1.Se7! Bc3 2.Kc4 Qa6#

 

Comments  

 
+1 #1 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-22 04:15
Actually BQ could be eliminated: -BQ, -BRc5, +WPc5 (7+8)
3b1K2/Q1R5/1nn2N2/p1P1p3/p7/1p1k4/1B6/2R5
Compare to: pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=PROBID=%27P0536662%27 with dynamic pins
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Seetharaman Kalyan 2017-05-22 06:36
Vitaly's version eliminates the pin-mates along with the black queen -- retaining only the white grimshaw.

Quote
 
 
+2 #3 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-22 09:10
I think the pin-mates, in which pinned piece doesn't play during solution, are not interesting. Such pins could be justified if they prevent cooks or save material. In other cases composer should avoid such static pins if possible (IMHO) :-)

By the way, BB could be eliminated, too - 5K2/Q1R1p3/1nn2N2/p1P1p3/p7/1p1k4/1B6/2R5

In this version, both BSs play at the edge of chessboard.
Quote
 
 
+2 #4 Seetharaman Kalyan 2017-05-22 15:01
The author Ioannis Kalkavouras comments as follows:

"Vitaly's version is unacceptable. It strips off the problem,from all its thematic content, as bS hideaways and pin-mates after anticipatory opening of two masked lines.

Vitaly's version was exactly
what, Fadil and I were trying to avoid from the very beginning.

It looks more like a caricature of our idea, than an economic rendering
of it. I am sure he can even find a miniature setting, lifeless though and irrelevant to this problem."
Quote
 
 
+1 #5 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-22 15:51
Quote:
Vitaly's version was exactly what, Fadil and I were trying to avoid from the very beginning.

I respect that but I don't share this approach.
In my view, using of pins is irrelevant to this problem.
Let me explane my viewpoint. In most cases, static unit hardly can be considered as essential part of thematic content because thematic content is created by moving pieces primarily. Therefore, a composer should avoid to use artificial (unnesessary) features such as static pins.

However, different approaches can be used in composing...
Quote
 
 
+1 #6 Rodolfo Riva 2017-05-22 21:27
In my view Problem 835 seems rather a caricature of the work quoted in comment#1 for comparison to.
Quote
 
 
+3 #7 Francesco Simoni 2017-05-22 21:49
In version at #1 the Qa7 does nothing in one solution. To play this piece the pin is accettable, despite in my opinion static pins should be "generally" avoited.
Quote
 
 
+1 #8 Seetharaman Kalyan 2017-05-23 06:27
#7... Oh, I too missed that the white queen was idle in one phase in Vitaly's version.

With reference to Vitaly's comments in #5 Ioannis sends the following remarks:

'Dear Vitaly, I really appreciate your jeal, but I don't understand why the unmasking of two prospective masked lines (c4-c7 and d4-a7), by use of hiding moves by bSs, doesn't mean anything to you.

I suppose if both knights were static and bR did the whole pinning job, then you would be satisfied.

I'm really astonished y your argumentation, though hopefully we can agree on one thing: different approaches or misinterpretations can be used in chess composing "
Quote
 
 
+2 #9 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-23 07:30
Quote:
In version at #1 the Qa7 does nothing in one solution.

True. I'v missed that.
This defect could be cured by adding WPc4 but I think it would be worse than static pin.
So, I apologys. And I agree that my version is rather caricature. I bag the author's pardon.
Quote
 
 
+2 #10 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-23 07:50
Quote:
I suppose if both knights were static and bR did the whole pinning job, then you would be satisfied.

No. I would be satisfied if there would be some function permutation between black knights - then the whole mechanism would be unified.
Pins are irrelevant to this mechanism, on my opinion.
Quote
 
 
+2 #11 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-23 11:52
Pins could be essential part of thematic content in the following mechanism showing mutual anticipatory Leibovici interferences on the same square: 2R5/QP2p3/5N2/r4rpK/1PPP1P2/p2k2p1/P1R1n3/B2b1n2


1.Rac5 Bc3 2.Kxc4 Qa6#

1.Rfc5 Rc3+ 2.Kxd4 Rd8#


Though,something similar has been shown before -
pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=PROBID=%27P0547847%27
Quote
 
 
+2 #12 Nikola Predrag 2017-05-23 14:30
Mentioning "different approaches" is a poor excuse for ignorance of the "whole truth". First I must see something from all sides and then I might comprehend what is relevant and what is just a delusion.

Pin which requires two black moves can't be called "static". But that's just inadeqate wording, the question is indeed "what motivates the play?".
Is bRc5 just a "static cookstopper" or its presence thematically motivates the play?

h#1.5, with bPc5 (instead of bR) has only one solution,
1...Bc3 2.Kc4 Qa6# and the "try",
1...Rc3+? 2.Kd4 Rd7+ 3.Sxd7!
Mating by 2.Rd7 requires extension to h#2 and the unguard by 1.Sa8!
It's clear that wQa7 is idle in this case, so to "hide" such a terrible defect in the economy, another (lesser) defect is added, bRc5 instead of bP.
So here, Vitaly is wright, the pin wQ-bR is NOT what relevantly motivates the play.
wQ and bR artificially "justify" each other's presence without a thematic reason.

However, the solution of this h#1.5, with bPc5, shows that bRc5 would require the extension to h#2 for a pure reason, so in No.835, 1.Se7! is motivated exclusively as an 'anticipatory selfpin'.
Therefore, the static cookstopper becomes a thematic piece which requires the "selfpinnig play", but only in one phase.

Just a rough example of purely motivated anticipatory selfpin in B1:
h#2, W: Qc7,Re7,Kg6,Bd2,Re1
B: Pg7,Bd6,Se6,Re5,Pg5,Rb4,P g4,Pd3,Kf3,Sc2,Qa1
Quote
 
 
+2 #13 Vitaly Medintsev 2017-05-23 17:25
Diagram for Nikola's example given in comment#12



1.Bc5 Re3+ 2.Kf4 Rf7#

1.Sc5 Be3 2.Ke4 Qc6#


Quote:
Just a rough example of purely motivated anticipatory selfpin in B1
Quote
 
 
+1 #14 Yuri BILOKIN 2017-05-26 06:41
Можно экономичнее
8/2Q1R3/3bn1K1/4r3/1pr3p1/3p1k2/2nB4/q3R3
H#2 2.1... 5+10
1.Bc5 Re3+ 2.Kf4 Rf7#
1.Sc5 Be3 2.Ke4 Qc6#
Quote
 
 
+2 #15 Yuri BILOKIN 2017-05-26 06:58
Ещё экономичнее на 2 фигуры (чёртов мередит)
8/Q1R5/1bn1K3/2r5/4p3/qp1k4/nB6/2R5
H#2 2.1... 5+8
1.Ba5 Rc3+ 2.Kd4 Rd7#
1.Sa5 Bc3 2.Kc4 Qa6#
Quote
 
 
+2 #16 Nikola Predrag 2017-05-26 10:24
Yuri, почему нет h#2:
White Qd8 Kf8 Sg6 Bb1 Rd1
Black Bb8 Rc8 Bc6 Sd6 Pd5 Pf5 Pc3 Ke3
Quote
 
 
+2 #17 Rodolfo Riva 2017-05-26 13:35
Brilliant! Ingenious reworking of the known scheme with anti-dual theme.
Quote
 
 
+2 #18 Nikola Predrag 2017-05-26 14:16
Wel, I just wanted to illustrate the question of pure/convincing motivations for the play.
The effect of pin is redundant in No.835 1.Sa8(unguard).
In Yuri's 2nd example, 1.Sa5 is anti-dual choice as line interference + pin, since the interference 1.Ba5 (without pin) is not enough for 2...Qa6#?.
So, the pin is thematic, but its importance is half-reduced in one phase.
The half-motivating pin requires 2 white pieces. From the aspect of economy, it looks better to have only one, the mating piece, and to enrich the Grimshaw with reciprocal dual-avoidance 1.Be8 Bd3?, 1.Se8 Rd3+?
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments