Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 305.1: Vitaly Medintsev & Nikola Predrag - Helpmate

vitaly(04.01.2014) Wonderful helpmate with ODT, exchange of functions between two complex masked batteries and Boros by Vitaly Medintsev from Russia!

After the publication of the problem it was improved and the author replace it with the version 305.1. It is join composition with Nikola Predrag.

 



305.1


A clear interaction between white and black thematic pieces in a mechanism of two masked indirect batteries, check avoidance on B1, BiValve and dual avoidance on B2, pin-mates by different white pieces on the same square. (Authors)
 

Comments  

 
0 #1 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-04 09:36
Excellent work, but the harmony of the mattes is not perfect because of the wPe5/solution B. (A berolina pawn would be sufficient in a fairy version.)
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-04 15:36
wPe5 is a technical unit that makes the problem sound.
Checkmate in the second solution is immodel not because of wPe5 but because of double guarding d4 by both white rooks, too.
Since we have a model mate in the first solution one can say about imperfection of final positions but - tactically - there is a complete harmony.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-04 21:05
Checkmate positions:
A) wRg5 is defended by wBd2
B) wBd6 is def. by wRd2 & wPe5
Perfect harmony would be with
B) wBd6 is def. by wRd2.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-04 22:21
Fairy form with 11 men only:
White Pd6 BPe5 Pg5 Ra4 Bb4 Rg2 Bh1 (7)
Black Pc6 Sc4 Ke4 Sf3 (4)
H#2 2 solutions
wBerolina pawn e5
(No wK)
1.Sf3*g5 Rg2*g5 + 2.Ke4-f4 Bb4-d2 #
1.Sc4*d6 Bb4*d6 + 2.Ke4-d5 Rg2-d2 #
Quote
 
 
0 #5 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-04 22:56
I agree :-)
Quote
 
 
0 #6 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-05 08:14
I'm very glad :-)
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Diyan Kostadinov 2014-01-05 09:08
Janos, I think that here is some misunderstanding, because the Vitaly's comment "I agree" is about your comment n.3 - it is obvious that wPe5 protects wBd6. But he explain that the mate is not model not only because of that but also because the square d4 is protected by both wRs. In my opinion the problem have excellent thematic content and model/not model mate is acceptable.
But.. your version in comment n.4 is terrible! There is one typical mistake - the fairy pieces should NOT be used just for technical reason! The way using the BPe5 is unacceptable and NoWhiteKing is unneeded. The fairy tools should be used with main idea to create an original mechanisms and ideas which can not be realised in orthodox genres, and should be used in their full potential!
By the way even in this version the mate in the second solution is still not model, because of double protected d4 square (but as I noted, this is the smallest weakness of this bad version).
Quote
 
 
+1 #8 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-05 09:35
OK, Diyan!
I accept your opinion!
This was a misunderstanding on my part ...
Quote
 
 
+1 #9 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-05 10:46
I suppose Janos was confused by the order of comments. It is true I have agreed with comment #3 but not #4. I thank the both commentators!
Quote
 
 
+1 #10 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-05 17:23
Quiet of starts, Meredith form, –wPe5:
White Pd6 Pf5 Pg5 Ra4 Bb4 Rg2 Ke8 Bh1 (8)
Black Pc6 Rd4 Ke4 Sf3 (4)
H#2 b) –wPf5

a) 1.Rd4*d6 Bb4*d6 + 2.Ke4-d5 Rg2-d2 #
b) 1.Sf3*g5 Rg2*g5 + 2.Ke4-f4 Bb4-d2 #
Quote
 
 
+2 #11 Nikola Predrag 2014-01-05 20:52
Well Janos, the author's idea could be changed in various ways, for instance:
White Kf8 Ra5 Bb5 Rg3 Bh2
Black Rc7 Sc5 Ke5 Bh5 Sf4 Ba3 Rf2 Qh1
Stipulation H#2
bK can initially stand on e6 and play actively to the masked battery-lines.
Quote
 
 
+1 #12 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-05 21:41
Not bad, Janos, but I don't like (a little) your version on two reasons: 1) I prefer multi-solution form; 2) the suggested version have one tactical imbalance - the bR also open the mating d file on B1, which do not occur in the other phase. A complete tactical harmony is the predominant criterion in h#2, on my glance.
Quote
 
 
+1 #13 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-06 04:57
OK, Vitaly!
I accept your motivation, of course.
Quote
 
 
+1 #14 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-06 09:08
Nikola's version is good enough! I'm asking Diyan to publish it under V. Medintsev & N. Predrag, if Nikola don't mind :-)
Quote
 
 
+1 #15 Nikola Predrag 2014-01-06 13:19
I agree Vitaly. The question is would you prefere bKe5 or e6, with different description of 1st black move (departure/arrival effects).
1.Ke5-f5 anticipates self-unpin of Sf4 (departure), while 1.Ke6-f5 anticipates self-pin of Sc5 (arrival).
I did not try much to avoid the cookstopper bBh5, it looks unavoidable.
Also, this mechanism contains the avoidance of dualistic play by wrong bS with hypotheticall double checkmates. I would write the solutions as:
1.Kf5 Rg6 2.Sg2! Bd3# (2.Sc~+? Bd3???)
1.Kd6 Bd7 2.Se4! Rd3# (2.Sf~+? Rd3???)
You decide, I agree :-)
Quote
 
 
+2 #16 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-06 17:34
Thank you, Nikola! The version is really good! It would be fantastic, if the BQ was interfered on diagonal/orthogonal.
Anyway, the interferences look better than captures, on my taste, and check avoidance on B1 is an additional tactical bonus that determinates the sequence of black moves. I'm not speaking about admirable Aristocratic position with black octet (just one technical unit)!
I would prefer to place the BK on e6 in initial position since it is somewhat paradoxically that he moves away from the WK in both solutions.
Quote
 
 
+1 #17 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-06 17:52
Since the improved version is much better the older one, I think it would be right to remove my h#2 No 305 and to publish this problem instead of it.
Quote
 
 
+1 #18 Janos Mikitovics 2014-01-06 18:06
Vitaly & Nikola,
Congratulations on your excellent joint problem!
Quote
 
 
0 #19 Vitaly Medintsev 2014-01-06 22:36
Thanks, Janos! It was a good experience of joint creative activity :-)
Quote
 
 
0 #20 Nikola Predrag 2014-01-07 14:52
Thanks Vitaly, thanks Janos! Joint creativity is indeed a pleasure.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments