|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
|(1) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Oct 29, 2012 22:11]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-11-02]|
Seetharaman-64 Jubilee Tourney
To celebrate his birthday and his fairy invention Superguards, K.Seetharaman, (India) announces a Theme Tourney for problems featuring Superguards, the new Fairy Condition.
Definition of Superguards:
Any piece (including Kings and pawns), which is observed by another piece of the same color cannot be captured. Pinned pieces also observe.
The tourney will have two sections.
Section A is for Directmates in Two or Three moves.
Section B is for Helpplay problems of upto three moves, of the following types:
Helpmates, Helpselfmates, Help-stalemates and Help-selfstalemates.
Twins allowed in Section A. Twins and multisolutions (but no Zero positions) allowed in Section B. No other fairy conditions or fairy pieces are allowed.
Computer-tested problems may be sent to the Tourney Director Mr.C.G.S.Narayanan (India) by email. <email@example.com> At present Superguards problems can be checked in Winchloe. (version 3.20).
Book prizes will be awarded.
All participants will receive the award by email.
Closing date of the Tourney March 18, 2013. (My birthday!)
See the announcement with examples at : http://juliasfairies.com/superguards-tourney/
|(2) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Oct 29, 2012 22:18]|
One more original:
S.K.Balasubramanian & K.Seetharaman
White: Kd7 Ra5 Ps e2 & e4
Black: Kd4 Be5 Sc2 Ps b3 c3 & e3
Helpmate in Two (Two solutions) Superguards
1. Kc4 Kc6 2. Sd4 (Bd4?) Kb5# (2…Kc5#? Kb5!)
1. K:e4 Ke6 2. Bd4 (Sd4?) Ke5# (2… Kf5? Ke5!)
Typical King mates with Anti-dual selfblocks by black.
|(3) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 01:56]|
to give the diagram :
(= 4+6 )
or a lighter version :
(= 2+3 )
1.Kc1 Kd3 2.d1=B Kc2‡
1.Ke1 Kf3 2.d1=S Kf2‡
|(4) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 06:02]|
Superb! Instructive example in construction !
|(5) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 12:21]|
Do you allow a version Rex exclusive of your idea ? it means that a King controlled by his own pieces may be in check ?
|(6) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2012 15:10]|
Hm.... "Superguards - Rex exclusive" Sounds fine to me. Probably gives flexsibility in some schemes without bothering about the overprotected King ! I will accept for this tourney itself, if Winchloe can implement it for testing. Will consult Mr.Poisson.
|(7) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Friday, Nov 2, 2012 21:10]|
Another nice original from C.G.S.Narayanan (India) showing superb duel between black rook and WQ.
|(8) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Nov 5, 2012 21:56]|
Thanks for the enthusiastic support ! C.G.S.Narayanan has already received 5 originals !
|(9) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Monday, Dec 10, 2012 15:15]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-12-10]|
A nice Superguards problem by Mr.Petkov published recently in Julias Fairies.com.
(= 6+6 )
Helpmate in Two (2 Solns)
I. 1.Re4 Sg4 2.Ra4!! Bb4#
(2.Rb4?? Bxb4?? – impossible)
II. 1.Re3 Bc5 2.Rh3!! Sf3#
(2.Rf3+?? Sxf3?? – impossible)
White Half-battery, line opening and nice hideaway critical moves by the black rook !
|(10) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012 06:15]|
I hope this isn't a stupid question, but in II, why not 2.Rg3?
|(11) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Tuesday, Dec 11, 2012 06:32]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-12-11]|
Thanks Ian for your interest. One has to get used to the Superguards condition. If 2.Rg3, white cannot mate, as black then will have the valid defence to the mating double check 3.Rg1 ! after which the black king becomes immune from capture ! That is why the black bishop has to be at h1, and not at a8.
|(12) Posted by Ian Shanahan [Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 05:05]|
Thank you! That is truly beautiful!!!
|(13) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 22:22]|
I guess the author wanted just to give a (very nice) scheme.
But it seems it could be done lighter and with models :
(= 6+4 )
1.Re4 Sg4 2.Ra4 Bb4‡
1.Re3 Bc5 2.Rg3+! Sf3‡
it could give also something even stranger :
(= 6+4 )
1.Rb2 Seg4 2.Rb8 Bb4‡
1.Re4 Bg5 2.Rh4 Seg4‡
1.Re3 Bc5 2.Rh3 Sef3‡
possible also are twins :
(= 6+3 )
1.Re4 Seg4 2.Rb4 B×b4‡
1.Re3 Bc5 2.Rh3 Sef3‡
1.Re4 Sc4 2.Rh4 B×h4‡
1.Re3 Bg5 2.Rc3 Sd3‡
My preference goes to B]
|(14) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Wednesday, Dec 12, 2012 22:36]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [12-12-12]|
>>>I guess the author wanted just to give a (very nice) scheme.
Yes. He did mention that is was a light illustrative example. It seems it can be made even lighter !!
Indeed your version-B is very nice and the best !
|(15) Posted by Kevin Begley [Thursday, Dec 13, 2012 14:45]|
Well done Jacques!
I actually have a preference for the second solution of A, which is a very original interpretation, but then the first solution becomes non-analogous.
|(16) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Friday, Dec 14, 2012 09:45]|
Do you mean something like that ?
(= 6+6 )
1.Re5 Bd4 2.Rc5+ Sd5‡
1.Re6 Bh4 2.Rc6+ Sfe6‡
|(17) Posted by Kevin Begley [Friday, Dec 14, 2012 19:11]; edited by Kevin Begley [12-12-14]|
Yes, that's very close to what I had hoped to see.
This offers a much more paradoxical rook-hiding scheme, maximizes the use of the condition, and provides nice cross-checks; except, the double-checkmate in the second variation might be viewed as slightly less than perfect analogy.
|(18) Posted by Jacques Rotenberg [Sunday, Dec 16, 2012 01:17]; edited by Jacques Rotenberg [12-12-16]|
If I understand you well, you mean "...the useless double check..."
perhaps this ?
(= 6+8 )
1.Rc7 Be8 2.Rc3+ Sc5‡
1.Rd7 Be4 2.Rd3+ Sd4‡
|(19) Posted by Kevin Begley [Sunday, Dec 16, 2012 04:53]|
Hmm... both your examples are quite nice... but, I was actually referring to an imperfection in thematic analogy, rather than "uselessness" in a double-checkmate -- the latter misfortune I hadn't fully appreciated (in D), until having come to admire the resolution of this, in your new version, E.
Nevertheless, the new version does continue to strain the thematic analogy.
Whether the subtle differences are a blessing or a curse, would require of me some involved philosophical consideration.
Generally, the simple solution has been to favor perfect analogy.
I'm not certain this is possible without an involved effort (it is worth noting, here, that Petko's original version had some analogical strain, too -- though, perhaps limited to post-mate considerations).
At any rate, I certainly don't want to ask more of you, here (particularly considering that a thematic tourney is on).
I do appreciate your excellent examples, which greatly clarify the condition.
|(20) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Sunday, Dec 16, 2012 06:06]|
Five versions showing varied and interesting possibilities for same scheme -- Instructive even for experienced composers ! Thanks for the trouble and time spent on these !
|Page: [Previous] [Next] 1 2 |
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions Seetharaman-64 Jubilee Tourney