Fairy twomovers with multiple threats 5

1.Rc3! th. 2.Ke5#, Kd4#
1...Qh1+ 2.Rg2#
1...Qd1+ 2.Rd2#
1...Qe4+ 2.Kxe4#
1...Qe1, Qc2 2.Rb(x)c2#
(1...Qf1 2.Rf2#, Re2#, Rd2#, Rbc2#)

There are unprovided checks in the diagram position and thus there are still some available after the key. It opens half-battery and threats two mates with the formed royal battery. 1...Qd3+ and 1...Qf5+ are onluy half-defences (threat mates 2.Kd4# and 2.Ke5# still working separately), one check is met by simple capture of bQ and two remaining are answered by direct checking in the Grid chess style. wR moves away from bK to check him, parrying the check with impossible capture QxR.

1.Kf2? th. 2.MBe5#, MBd4#, MBd6#, MBc5#
1...f4!

1.MBe5! th. 2.K~#
1...Rxd1 2.Kf2#
1...f4 2.Kxf4#

Any move of wK would mean threatening four different mates by mao-bishop. To ensure bK remains in the corner, only 1.Kf2? is the true try. Check does not refute, attack on the diagonal a8-h1 is effective.

Then precise move by mao-bishop (other four moves are refuted by 1...Rxd1) threats any move by wK. Two defences specify two mates.

It is more study of special fairy piece properties than normal twomover.

1.rROh8! th. 2.rROf7#, rROh2#, rROd8#
1...Sc2 2.rROh2#
1...Sg2 2.rROf7#
1...Sd3 2.rROd8#
1...Sf3 2.rROxf3#

Royal pieces in the main role. Of course, with royal rose White manages to checkmate Black with a single piece only especially if black royal grasshopper is initially immobile.

This is exploited in the triplet of threats (after fine key to corner), that are separated by three bS always providing the flight coverable by one of threat mates only. 1...Sf3 then defends against all three threats, but allows simple capture.

Surely there is much unexplored potential in royal pieces.

a) 1.f7! th. 2.mQg8#, mQg7#, mQh6#
1...Bxf7 a 2.mQg7# A
1...Rxf7 b 2.mQg8# B
b)
1.f7! th. 2.mQg8#, mQg7#, mQh6#
1...Bxf7 a 2.mQg8# B
1...Rxf7 b 2.mQg7# A

A capture of mined piece results in removing the capturing piece from the board as well. This is somewhat similar to kamikaze pieces, but not exactly the same.

In both positions the key is the same. Pf7 then guards g8 and there are three threats in both cases, exploiting Nowotny. 2.mQh6 is then removed by any capture of Pf7, while remaining pair of threats is separated in a reciprocal fashion (when two phases are compared).

Today, the similar effect would be probably achieved by some othodox vs. Anticirce hybrid, although not in the miniature form.

1.Sc6? th. 2.Se5#, Sb4#
1...Qa5!

1.Sf3? th. 2.Se1#, Se5#
1...Qe8 2.dxe8BS#
1...Qe7!

1.Sc2? th. 2.Sb4#, Se1#
1...Qh4!

1.Sb3? th. 2.Sc1#, Sc5#
1...Qc8 2.dxc8BS#
1...Qc7!

1.Se6? th. 2.Sc5#, Sf4#
1...Qg5!

1.Se2! th. 2.Sf4#, Sc1#
1...Qh4 2.Sc1#
1...Qc7 2.Sf4#

Attractive diagram position with all pieces on the same file hints there will be some exploitation of asymmetry - missing the left-most file or presence of the h-file, whichever way you take it.

3+3 jumps of Sd4 form two cycles of double threats well known from orthodox twomovers. Black queen defends always by guarding a pair of potential mating squares, once from h4. And that refutation naturally has no symmetrical counterpart.

Also, note two promotion mates, justifying the use of boy-scout.

1.d7! th. 2.dxc8CR#, dxe8ZR#, d8N#
1...Bf8 2.dxc8CR#
1...Ne7, Na7, Nf2 2.dxe8ZR#
1...Nd6, Ne4, Na4 2.d8N#

Promotions in threats naturally have to be into fairy riders. Bishop cannot defend against camelrider promotion (as CRc8 cares only about light squares), while any move of Nc8 defends against camelrider promotion and then, depending on the arrival square maybe against one of two remaining threats (although e.g. 1...Nb6 is even weaker).

1.Ke2? th. 2.Rg7#, Rc7#, Ra7#, Rf6#, Rf4#, Rf2#
1...Kxf7!

1.Rf4? th. 2.Kc2#, Kd2#, Ke2#
1...Se2!

1.Rf5? zz
1...Sf3!

1.Rf3! zz
1...Se2 2.Bxe2#
1...Sh3 2.Bxh3#

Here it is important to realize who can even check the black king. As bK stands on wK circe square, bK (almost) immobile, while wK cannot check it. Also, wB cannot check bK directly as it checks from f1. Thus only wR remains as potential checking piece.

The try 1.Ke2 prevents potential defence 1...Se2 and threats any move of wR to a dark square, thus check on the a1-e1 line. However bK has enough time to capture the rook for refutation.

Then the try 1.Rf5 refines the attack by leaving danger of capture by bK, however, bS manages to guard a1-e1 line.

So we have solution 1.Rf3! that again moves bR out of dangerous zone and waits for bS to open h1-e1 line. Both 1...Se2 and 1...Sh3 is met by 2.BxS#, opening the battery in the process.

Why 1.Rf5? does not solve equivalently? Because there is no threat and at f3, the black knight cannot be captured, so that there is available 2...Sg1! to parry any check.

1.Sb3? A zz
1...Sc2 a 2.Sxc2(Sb1)# B
1...Sxb3(Sg8) b 2.Rd3# C
1...Kb2+!

1.Sc2! B th. 2.Qe5#, Qc6#
1...Sxc2(Sg8) a 2.Rd3# C
1...Sb3+ b 2.Sxb3(Sb1)# A

Unusual Anticirce construction. In the initial position there is unprovided flight 1...Kd4, but the check 1...Sb3+ is provided for. Note that wQ is forced to guard e8 all the time due to the presence of white units in the bK field, thus there is additional potential flight e8.

The try removes check and more importantly guards d4. If bS captures wS, rook mates thanks to the irreversible removal of bS from a1. Non-capturing defence is met by capture of bS by wS, resulting in the mate from b1 after rebirth.

The solution can be described in the same way, with exception of check. This means that the variations are mirrored and ...

... as a result we get already well known Kiss cycle. Have you noticed nothing was said about double threat in the solution? The threats are a result of guarding of b4 and b2 not needed for the thematical play, however the pair of precise mates by queen is interesting as they are in a way focal moves (wQ attacking both c3 and e8).