Award of 1st TT Chess Composition Microweb - orthodox section - C 28.2.1999

Judged by Anders Uddgren.

I received 20 problems without the author's names. It has not been an easy task to rank the problems. The differences in quality between them are small. For the prizes I have chosen problems that use the bK-twinning with originality.

The TT is devoted to problems with bK twinning. When analysing the problems I noticed that most of the entries showed matrices and ideas that could only be shown with bK-twinning. But a few entries, could, at least in theory, be constructed with a static bK-position, the idea was not dependent on the bK-twin. I have tried to judge each problem on all it's own merits, also taking into account the positive and negative effects of the bK-twinning.

Twinning: Preferably the whole contents should evolve from the same matrix and position. When using the twin format, the twinning mechanism should be organic, avoiding to shift the balance and structure of the thematic matrix. Unless, of course, that such a shift is required. What then is so special about twins with moving the BLACK KING? Probably that it is the most potent shift of the thematic matrix that you can image.

Economy: In the non-twin format, you may argue that there are no really surplus pieces on the board, even if they are useful in only one of the solutions (compare this with direct mates). Whereas in the twin format you have different positions, so the rules should be independently applied to each position. I do not agree with either argument. I think that the rules of economy should be applied with sense and feeling for what is aesthetically sound.

Analogy: Parallel play from a choosen matrix is a very common form in the modern help-mate. If you choose that form, then it should be 100% parallel in timing, effects and character. If not, then it is better to select a free form.

NOT RATED (No. 12, 13, 14 see No. 11)
No. 1 AUW by three pawns. There is no correspondence between the two phases.
No. 2 The bK twin is symmetrical and play without any tension. I could imagine a more exiting problem based on bK in the centre, so the twin with bK does not add much. Except for the white K battery you may compare this to the 1st prize Problemist 1977-78.
No. 5 White cycle BN-NR-RB vs block by bB. I cannot see any depth in this.


Krzysztof Drazkowski (Poland)
Leopold Szwedowski (Poland)

1st Prize 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 3

a) 1.Be4 Se8 (Sd5?) 2.Bb7 Sc7#

b) 1.Kd1 Sd5 (Se4?) 2.Bc2 Sc3#

c) 1.Kh1 Se4 (Sh5?) 2.Rh2 Sg3#

d) 1.Rc8 Sh5 (Se8?) 2.Qd8 Sg7#

Since this is a TT requiring twinning with bK, I think it is only right to acknowledge this creative approach. The wN is the soloist and shall mate the bK on four different squares. The composer has thus managed to create a cyclic dual- avoidance sequence, because the wN must choose one of two possible routes in each solution, avoiding interference with a black piece. A small defect is that the black play is not 100% parallel in all details. On the other hand, I believe that this 4-part cycle cannot be done with static wN and bK, so the bK- twin format is really organic with the idea. I also believe that this concept could be extended into a 5-fold cycle, but perhaps the 8x8-board is too small for that. Economy is adequate.

h#2 (5+12)
b) a8 -» c2
c) a8 -» h2
d) a8 -» f5

Menachem Witztum (Israel)
2nd Prize 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 17

a) try 1.Be3 Rd2? 2.(Re2) (Bc2)#
try 1.Be3 Bc2? 2.(Re2) (Rd2)#
try 1.Re2 Rd2? 2.(Be3) (Bc2)#
solution 1.Re2 Bc2 2.Be3 Rd2#

b) try 1.Rf6 Bf4? 2.(Bg5) (Re3)#
try 1.Rf6 Re3? 2.(Bg5) (Bf4)#
try 1.Bg5 Bf4? 2.(Rf6) (Re3)#
solution 1.Bg5 Re3 2.Rf6 Bf4#

Very amusing dual-avoiding shunting at c2, d2, e3 and f4! I like very much the way seemingly independent moves are controlled. One of white's moves interferes with one black move, whereas the other white move interferes with two black moves, one of which is a critical move with regard the other. So the solution is the answer to the riddle!. In this problem the the overall form is free, without the usual functional reciprocity. And that is of course not necessary. This is also a problem which, at least in theory, does not require a bK twin. But, by using bK-twin form, the author has made good and original use of the force.

h#2 (6+9)
b) e4 -» e6

Michal Dragoun (Czech Republic)
Special HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 8

a) 1.Sxe6 Bxd8 2.Rf4 Bg5#

b) 1.Sxd3 Rxb2 2.Bf3 Rf2#

(There is a third bN at g3! At first I thought that was just a typing error, and wanted to award it the 3rd prize. But Juraj Lörinc verified that there should be 3 bN:s. The question of promoted force is still controversial. In time I think we shall look upon it more favourably, but then the same criteria should be applied to all entries in the competition. As a Solomonic ruling I shall award this problem a Spec.Hon.Men.)

If bRf6 and bBe2 could move, then you could play Nxa6. So the annihilations by bN of wR/wB are motivated only to unpin and open the gate for the rear battery pieces (R/B), and provide for a mate close to the bK, using the other piece as a rear guard. The latter aspect is a nice organic touch of the bK-twin. In consequence to the unpin you get masked pin replacements, and black self-interferences. So very good thematic and parallel play, but the analogy is not perfect in all the details. In b) Be2-f3 also opens for Re6, which is a somewhat disturbing fact. Further in a) Rf6 shuts off Bc1 (and not Be2), but that is perhaps a very minor detail!

h#2 (7+16)
b) h6 -» f1

Shaul Shamir (Israel)
Menachem Witztum (Israel)

1st HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 18

a) try 1.Ba5? Sd4 2.Rd3? Sdc2#??
try 1.Rd3 Sd6? 2.Ba5 Sc2#?
solution 1.Rd3 Sd4 2.Ba5 Sdc2#

b) try 1.Bc7? Sd5 2.Be6? Sde7#??
try 1.Be6 Sc4? 2.Bc7 Se7#?
solution 1.Be6 Sd5 2.Bc7 Sde7#

Another shunting problem. It is necessary to play the moves in the right order, but the shunting is here limited to two pieces of each solution. The basic idea is that white opens a black line by the mate-giving piece so this line must be shut again. In doing so black will pin the other white N which, as a secondary idea, could also have given the mate. That dual-avoidance idea is nice extra touch!

h#2 (5+11)
b) b4 -» c6

Michal Dragoun (Czech Republic)
2nd HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 6

a) 1.Sb2 Rd8 2.Bc4 Qe3#

b) 1.Sb6 Rg8 2.Rc4 Qf8#

Functional reciprocity between bR and bB, with Grimshaw-interferences on c4, because of unpins by the mating move. This has been shown before. What is added here are the line openings for wQ (which motivates the bK-twin). The initial clearing of c4 by bN is OK as such, but also the root of a serious defect: Nb2 is an unblocking move and Bc4 is also used as a block, and Nc4 does in fact guard e3, but not the f8-f3 line. So the solution vith bKf3 is more pure in strtegy than the other. Also: The visual impact of position around bK in a) as "closed" vs b) as "open" should be noted.

h#2 (4+14)
b) c5 -» f3

Michal Dragoun (Czech Republic)
Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia)

3rd HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 11

a) 1.Sa4 Ra6 2.Qb4 cxb4#

b) 1.Sg7 Bxf8 2.Qg6 hxg6#

It seems that the same author submitted four variations (No.11-14) of the same basic matrix. In general I think that the author should not leave that choice to the judge. The basic matrix idea is the bQ move along the pinline, and the function for the other white piece is to help providing a flight guard (g7/a4), by pinning down the bN (either of wB and bN cannot t on it's own). Very nice! For this reason I consider No.12 to be ruined because pa4 removes the threat of check (not so at g7!) and the only motive for Na4 is that there is no other move (not so at g7!). Also the unpin of Rg3 lacks interest. The interference by bQ of Rb7/Bf7 is just an extra and not so necessary embellishment. No.14 is basically another variation of the previous trio with a third pin by Qa6/pb7/pe2, but this adds in effect very little to the problem since it is very passive. As for No.11 and No.13 they are without such defects. The question remains if the extra effect of the R/p-battery adds or detracts to the problem, or if a double pin should be prefered. Well, that may be a simple matter of personal taste. I shall consider the R/p-batteries to be just that little extra.

h#2 (7+8)
b) a3 -» h6

Shaul Shamir (Israel)
Menachem Witztum (Israel)

4th HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 19

a) 1.Ke3 Sc3 (Sc5??) 2.Rf5 Sg4#

b) 1.Kc4 Sxd7 (Se4??) 2.Bc6 Sab6#

Black K moves from one pin into another (reciprocically). The unpinned piece interferes and the new pin is used. The twinning mechanism thus becomes an integral part of the matrix. So far so good, but the depth of the strategy is shallow. White must avoid interfering with black, but that element is of somewhat minor importance. A defect is that wNd7 is pinned (to avoid a dual-mate). Otherwise good use of material.

h#2 (5+13)
b) e2 -» b3

Janez Nastran (Slovenia)
5th HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 16

a) 1.Ra3 Rxa3 2.Rb3 Qxb3#

b) 1.Qb8+ Bxb8 2.Bc7 Qxc7#

Sacrificial Bahnung moves - doubled!, in each part. So far as I know that is original. There are some defects in the economy - the main black pieces operate in one solution only. That aspect makes the bK-twin less interesting.

h#2 (4+13)
b) c4 -» c6

Shaul Shamir (Israel)
Menachem Witztum (Israel)

6th HM 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 20

a) 1.Qc6! (Bc6?) Ba5 2.Kd6 Sfe4#

b) 1.Qe3! (Re3?) Ra5 2.Kf4 Sh3#

The bQ makes a move that pins a wN and provides a flight to bK. Consequently the bK moves and unpins wN. That is an idea thats suits the requirements of the TT. But it is also an idea where analogy is of great importance, and that is not the case: Qe6 already pinning Nf6 (but not Ng5). The bQ should start from f3 or someting like that. Can that be amended?

h#2 (8+11)
b) c5 -» g3

Michal Dragoun (Czech Republic)
Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia)

1st Comm 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 9

a) 1.f5 Kxc5 2.Rh5 Bd6 3.Se7 Bf4#

b) 1.c4 Ke6 2.Ba2 Rd6 3.Sc6 Rd3#

There are so very many helpmates in 3 with wB/wR that I truly cannot say if this is original or not. Mayby someone could help me. Black pf6/pc5 opens for the masked pin and interferes with Rg5/Bb3. wK moves away preserving on the (self) pins, and creates another on the bK. Blocks by Rg5/Bb3. Unpin-moves (Grimshaw) by white, with subsequent unpin/opening for the battery by black. So plenty and good parallell play, but economy is not so good with two coal heaps, and, more seriously, primary use of most of the black pieces in just one of the solutions. The two parts seem like two separate problems with few links.

h#3 (3+16)
b) h6 -» a3

Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia)
2nd Comm 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 7
in memoriam my grandmother Anna

a) 1.Qxf6 Sxd3 2.Rxh5 Se5#

b) 1.Qxb2 Se4 2.Rxc2 Rh1#

Annihilation of two white pieces next to the bK. That is not a new idea, but as such very organic with the requirement of bK-twins. There is a minor defect: a) ends with a battery mate, b) does not.

H#2 (6+8)
b) g6 -» c1

Constantinos Paizis (Greece)
Camillo Costantini (Italia)

3rd Comm 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 15

a) 1.Sb4 Be5+ 2.Qf4 Re3#.

b) 1.Se5 Rb4+ 2.Sb5 Bd4#.

Most of the play is focused on b4 and e5, where either white or black perform unpinning moves. This accounts nicely for the bK-twinning. But there are some defects here in the analogy: The unpin moves by Nc6 also unguards d4 (in b), Rb4 unpins Bc3 but Be5 interferes (not a true unpin) of Re4, and Qf4 also shuts off Rf6.

h#2 (5+10)
b) g3 -» b6

Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia)
4th Comm 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 4

a) 1.Sb7 Bxd4 2.Ra5 Bc5#

b) 1.Sg5 Rxf4 2.Bh1 Rg4#

Good interplay between white and black, where wR-wB and also bR-bB interchange their roles. For the intererence by bN the author uses two Ns, a slight economy defect, but a more serious defect is that Nc5 opens a line, which is not the case of Nf7.

h#2 (6+8)
b) a4 -» h2

Michal Dragoun (Czech Republic)
Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia)

5th Comm 1st TT CCM (orthodox section) C 28.2.1999
No. 10

a) 1.Be7 Ra5 2.Rc2 Bb5 3.g4 Bxe8#

b) 1.Rc2 Ba6 2.Be7 Rb5 3.Qf2 Rxb1#

Another helpmate in 3 with wB/wR so how about anicipations? Rather simple unpinning moves (this change AB-BA is just too obvious to be of any interest, since the effects are the same), followed by critical move and battery creation. Lacks in depth, but the sequence is however determined by the bK-twin.

h#3 (3+14)
b) h5 -» f1

Comments to Juraj Lörinc.
Back to main page of Chess Composition Microweb.