Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 545: Luis Gomez - Twomover
luis.gomez(02.03.2015) Welcome to Luis Gomez from Spain! He presents a nice combination of the Barnes theme and Pseudo le Grand.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
545. Luis Gomez (Spain)
02.03.2015
546
#2 vv                    (8+8)
 
 
1.Se6? (2.Bxd4,Rh3#), 1...Rxa7/Rfxe6 2.Rh3#, 1...Rexe6 2.Qa3#, 1...Bxe6!
 
1.Sb3? (2.Bxd4#), 1...Rb6 2.Rh3#, 1...Rxa7!
 
1.Sd3! (2.Rh3#), 1...Rxf4 2.Qxf4#, 1...Be6 2.Rxe4#, 1...exd3 2.Bxd4#
 
Theme Barnes in combination with Pseudo le Grand. (Author)
 
Theme Barnes: Double-threat does not work, but one of these threats threatened singly works!
Theme Pseudo le Grand: Reversal of threat & mate after different black defences. (Seetharaman)
 

Comments  

 
+1 #1 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-03-04 13:00
This theme is a good paradox. Not frequently seen. The capture refutations are a weakness, but we could not any improvement without losing the Le-grand effect.
Quote
 
 
+1 #2 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-03-07 12:37
Here is another example of the Barnes theme. Marjan nicely combines it with an excellent key, white correction and changed mate!



You can see the The preliminary award of the FIDE World Cup 2015 here!
wfcc.ch/.../...
Quote
 
 
+2 #3 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-03-08 06:37
Evgeny Permyakov sends a beautiful version of 545, removing its only defect the bad refutation. I appreciate his technique and skill of composing! Very instructive even for experienced composers!

version by Evgeny Permyakov
Quote
 
 
+2 #4 Kjell Widlert 2015-03-08 20:28
The version seems to me a great improvement. The paradox of the Barnes theme ("why does the refutation of the double threat not refute the same threats when they are single?") is handled in a unified manner - 1.Sc3? closes c5-c1 so Oxc5 does not defend against Be4#, and 1.Se3! closes c5-f2 so Qxc5 does not defend against Rf2#.
Quote
 
 
0 #5 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-03-09 12:07
Quoting Kjell Widlert:
The version seems to me a great improvement. The paradox of the Barnes theme ("why does the refutation of the double threat not refute the same threats when they are single?") is handled in a unified manner - 1.Sc3? closes c5-c1 so Oxc5 does not defend against Be4#, and 1.Se3! closes c5-f2 so Qxc5 does not defend against Rf2#.

Thanks for the good analysis Kjell Widlert! The bad refutation of the original, made this paradox invisible! The improved version makes everything clear!
Quote
 
 
0 #6 Luis Gomez 2015-03-30 20:19
The version of mr Permyakov significantly enriches the original form. The refutations are very good and respects the barnes issue with pseudo effect legrand. Bravo.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments