|(1) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Thursday, Feb 19, 2015 15:53]|
A new theme for s#2?
I am currently judging fairy tourney where the following theme appeared in the fairy s#2.
The threat is 2.T+! with 3 different checkmates possible 2...X, Y, Z#
Then immediate moves 1...X, 1...Y and 1...Z are defences against the threat.
While the s#2 I have in hand to judge is fairy, I would say that the theme might be shown also in the orthodox form. Maybe. So I would like to ask the opinion of s# experts what is their opinion/knowledge - do you know any such s#2?
|(2) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Friday, Feb 20, 2015 14:50]|
Sounds promising as a theme for an important thematic tourney - to prove S#2 is still alive.
|(3) Posted by Darko Šaljić [Friday, Feb 20, 2015 15:35]|
It's a beautiful, fresh idea!
|(4) Posted by Neal Turner [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 11:47]|
Certainly not easy in orthodox selfmate form, but here we have an example in reflex mate with four(!) thematic moves.
It also points the way to an even greater challenge!
The Problemist July 2013
(= 7+12 )
1.Be8 ! (> 2.Kc6 Rb8/Re7/Rd7/Rc7 # )
1...Rb8+ 2.Ke6 Rxe8 #
1...Re7+ 2.Kd4 Re4 #
1...Rd7+ 2.Kc4 Rac7 #
1...Rc7+ 2.Kd4 Qxf6 #
I think there was the intention to also seperate the four mates after other defences, but it didn't quite come off as we only get two of them:
1...Sge5 2.Qe6 Rd7 #
1...Qxf6 2.Ke4 Re7 #
But still a remarkable effort!
|(5) Posted by Siegfried Hornecker [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 12:21]|
So is this reflex mate an Anti-Fleck theme then?
|(6) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 12:29]|
Thank you, Neal, for a very interesting example!
Siegfried, the mere name "anti-Fleck" can be understood in many ways. Name is not important for the point of view of chess essence - name of Goethart or Lacny theme says nothing about content. That is why I have described the content in the algebraic way. Still, it can be shown with very different strategy.
|(7) Posted by Neal Turner [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 13:14]; edited by Neal Turner [15-02-22]|
It's been the tradition in selfmates to pay little attention to Black's mating moves, as the stipulation was considered completed on White's last move.
This is the argument put forward by those who consider black mating duals to be perfectly acceptable.
But in a S#2, after the Key, the black mating moves make up 33% of the content!
It doesn't seem to make any sense to ignore them from a thematic point of view.
Just in the example above we see two possibilities:
- Mating moves as defences
- Fleck-like mating move separation.
There must be lots of other thematic possibilities involving black mating moves which have either been ignored or neglected just waiting to be explored.
|(8) Posted by Juraj Lörinc [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 13:37]|
Once upon a time I have got an idea of cycle of Black defences and mating moves in s#2. It was in the framework of TT for s#2 with Chinese pieces and basis of the mechanism was specific triple-half-battery with pao as rear piece and three firing pieces. Michel Caillaud was able to finish it and we have got together some award in the Wola Gulowska.
However Michel was able to pursue the theme further and even managed to show it within orthodox setting. His cycle has four elements and important dual avoidance motifs.
2nd Prize Pat a Mat 2000
(= 8+11 )
1.Ra3! threats 2.Q×g4+ S×g4#
1...Se3 2.Sab3+ B×b3# (2.Sc2+? Sxc2!)
1...Bb3 2.Qd2+ S×d2# (2.Qe3+? Kxe3!)
1...Sd2 2.Sc2+ B×c2# (2.Sab3+? Sxb3!)
1...Bc2 2.Qe3+ S×e3# (2.Qd2+? Bd3!)
By the way, as regards mating duals, it is important to consider them in the context of the thematical complex to be shown in the selfmate. Sometimes they are unacceptable (e.g. in Bohemian selfmates), sometimes they do not matter (e.g. in selfmates close to modern twomovers), sometimes they are wanted (e.g. if they are part of the theme to be shown).
|(9) Posted by Hauke Reddmann [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 17:44]|
I find the s# theme interesting even with only one variant,
it's sort of the Up To Eleven variant of the #2 Umnov.
(Or maybe the Dombrowskis complex.)
The r# shown is a bit of cheating, especially with a battery
involved (but still, hats off to the construction).
|(10) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Feb 22, 2015 20:29]|
In Kari Valtonen's excellent example all the four mates are in fact separated, but the white threat is repeated. 1..b5 2.Kc6 Rb8# 1...Be1 2.Kc6 Rc7#.
|(11) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Friday, Jan 11, 2019 16:48]; edited by Diyan Kostadinov [19-01-11]|
Hm... Interesting idea. I tried it today and now I have an orthodox S#2 with it (three thematic mates).
Well, I think that I should not publish it here if I want to send it as an original somewhere, but if somebody want to see it - just give me your email and I will show it to you.
Or can write me in messenger.
Here is the pattern:
1.X! [2.Y A,B,C#]
1...A 2...# D
1...B 2...# E
1...C 2...# F
P.S. I just saw that this topic is very old... Is this theme still original and interesting nowadays?
|(12) Posted by Diyan Kostadinov [Tuesday, Jan 15, 2019 18:27]|
Well, finally I decided to publish it in KoBulChess website, so here is the link:
Is this the first realisation in an orthodox S#2?
|(13) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Jan 15, 2019 20:20]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [19-01-15]|
Well done Diyan! Nice realisation of the theme. The two added tries with thematic refutations and changes enrich the problem! I hope this proves to be a pioneer.
|(14) Posted by Geoff Foster [Tuesday, Jan 15, 2019 23:01]|
By the way, the tourney that Juraj was judging (see first post in this thread) must have been feenschach 2012. He gave a Commendation to a problem by Neal Turner that used royal Grasshoppers and the fairy condition SAT (WinChloe 480045). The award was in feenschach 217 (jan. 2016).
|(15) Posted by Neal Turner [Thursday, Jan 17, 2019 20:11]; edited by Neal Turner [19-01-17]|
It was indeed my problem – here it is for anybody whose interested.
Comm. feenschach 2012
(= 5+6 )
S#2 SAT Royal Grasshoppers
1.Rg3! (>2.Rxf7+ Bd3/Sd3/rGxd5#)
1..Bd3 2.Rfg5+ Sh6#
1..Sd3 2.Sc3+ Sb4# [2.Rfg5+? Sf4!]
1..rGxd5 2.Rd3+! rGg5# [2.Rh3+? rGg5+ 3.Rd5]
The key opens up the d-file revealing the situation where the black rG's flight on d5 is guarded by the Rf5 while the white rG's flight on d6 is guarded by both the Sf7 and the rGd2.
The threat move leaves a check on d5 while at the same time eliminating the knight's guard of d6.
Of the Black replies - the first two close the line to d5 so stopping the check, but also close the line to d6 checking the WrG. Now we see the point of the key piece's arrival square - the WrG can't run to d6 because of the hole on h2.
The third reply sees the BrG running to d5, but in doing so relinquishing its guard of d6. So we have three different mating moves after the threat, each one unguarding d6 after White has removed the first guard.
Comparing the two problems we see that the motivation for Black's defences is similar - in each case Black preempts White's intentions, as instead of the Black moves giving check, it's now White's move that results in self-check if he tries to carry through the threat.
But that's where the similarity ends!
Diyan demonstrates his mastery in producing a very nice setting and engineering not one, but two tries very much in the modern style.
My effort however is a bit of a hotch-potch with nothing much tying the variations together.
Any interest to be found comes, not from me, but from the effects derived the amazing SAT+rG combination.
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Selfmates A new theme for s#2?