Award of 37th TT Chess Composition Microweb C 9.9.2015


The tourney was for problems with antagonistic stipulations (direct, self, reflex, semi-reflex) where black checks are met with moves by the white king (or another royal piece).

There's no denying the fact: the tourney was a disappointment. I had not expected original orthodox twomovers, but I had hoped for threemovers with three interesting variations or with reciprocal change between two variations, or moremovers with interesting reasons for white K walks while under permanent fire from Black - and of course in fairy chess the possibilities are endless. But what I got was only 6 entries, none of them of a prize-winning level.

As there were so few entries, I can comment also on those that do not appear in the award:

Kb7-Kh1 has four trivial variations (stalemate by capturing Black's only mobile piece) and a single good one - too little for a distinction.
Kf7-Kh5 has only this type of trivial variations.
Ka6-Kh4 has quite weak justification for the fairy piece employed: it has hardly any active function, it is just for blocking a Circe rebirth square for another. And the wK walk is disappointingly short. (Also, I would have preferred to move Pg2>f4 and replace Pg3+g4+g5 with a wRg6.)
Kc4-rGd7 has unclean variations: one is just a prolongation of the short threat, and the other is also a full-length threat.

1st Commendation: 37-2 - Ivo Tominic

This is the only problem that closely corresponds to my mental picture of a possible prize-winner in the tourney - but for one small detail...

Black has two 1st-move checks, both answered by wK moves that form direct batteries masked by the checking piece, and those batteries produce two more thematic checks in each 2nd-move variation. Best of all: both variations are Romans, as we have the tries 1.Kxd2? Ba5+! replaced by 2.Kxd2 Bc3+, and 1.Kxf3? Rf5+! replaced by 2.Kxf3 Rf4+.

The small detail that pushes the problem down to the commendation level is of course the check in the diagram position. This provides another thematical effect as the check is met by a wK move (making 7 thematic checks in my count; the composer comes to 11 by counting also wK moves that do not work). But it also makes the problem seem more like a curiosity than a serious composition.

It would be possible to change to a normal key 1.b2-b3, replacing the actual check on the wK with threatening checks. But we also lose the Romans, as 1.Kxd2/Kxf3? are no longer good tries. So I wouldn't propose that change.

2nd Commendation: 37-3 - Neal Turner

Neither the composer nor WinChloe has pointed out the correction structure, which is actually the most interesting feature of the problem - more interesting than the two thematic checks by themselves. Any move of Bd6 will defend the threat by making 2. - rGf5?? illegal (hole on d5). 1. - Bf8,Bb4 are primary defences, with the error of opening d7-d3 allowing 2.rGd3+. 1. - Ba3,Bb8,Bxe5! are corrections, defending the secondary threat by a hole on a3 (2.rGd3+?? illegal) but allowing 2.Se2+ rGf1# by that same hole on a3 (3.rGd3?? illegal) - motive inversion! Unfortunately this has the same W2 move as the primary threat, obscuring the correction logic (and causing solving programs not to give this important variation). 1. - Be7+! is another correction, cleverly defending the secondary threat by guarding f6(!) for 2.rGd3+ Rc5+ 3.rGa6! The correction simply allows 2.rGf7+ with a forced mate by 2. - Rc5#. 1. - Bc7+! is a third degree correction of Ba3! etc, compensating the error of giving a3 by a check (2.Se2?? illegal) but also allowing 2.rGb7+ rGf5#. The remaining move 1. - Bc5?? is illegal (hole on d5).

With the five central pawns, this may not be the most elegant s#2 SAT with royal Gs we have seen in recent years (many by you-know-whom), but like most of them it is interesting to see how many widely dispersed flight-squares are guarded or non-guarded at just the right moment by a relatively slender force. In a free tourney, I would have placed this before the other awarded problem - but the stipulated thematic motif doesn't stand out very clearly here.

One last detail: why bPd7? The problem is equally sound without it. I believe the composer wanted to avoid a threatening black check in the diagram: without Pd7, 1. - R~+ is legal, but with the P it isn't. This is probably worth a P-capturing key, even though threatening checks are not such an obvious flaw in selfmates SAT.

Kjell Widlert
Stockholm, October 2015
Ivo Tominic
1st Commendation
37th TT Chess Composition Microweb C 9.9.2015

(0...f3+!)

1.Kxd2? A th. 2.Sc3#, Qc4#
1...Ba5+! 2.Sc3+ Bxc3+!
     2.Kc1 Bd2+!
     2.Kc2 Sb4+!

1.Kxf3? B th. 2.Sc3#, Qc4#
1...Rf5+! 2.Rf4 Rxf4+!
     2.Kg3 Rf3+!
     2.Kg2 Rf2+!

1.Ke3! th. 2.Qc4#
1...Bxd4+ 2.Kxd2! A th. 3.Qc4# Bc3+ 3.Kxc3#
     2...Be3+ 3.Kxe3#
1...Rxe4+ 2.Kxf3! B th. 3.Qc4# Re3+ 3.Kxe3#
     2...Rf4+ 3.Kxf4#
     2...Rxd4 3.Rg5#
     2...Re2 3.Kxe2#









#3 (10+7)
Neal Turner
2nd Commendation
37th TT Chess Composition Microweb C 9.9.2015

1.rGxd7! th. 2.Se2+ rGf5#
1...Bc7+ 2.rGb7+ rGf5#
1...Be7+ 2.rGf7+ Rc5#
1...Bb4 2.rGd3+ Rc5#
1...Bf8 2.rGd3+ Rc5#









s#2 (5+8)
SAT
1+1 royal grasshopper

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