Final Award in Quick Composing TT-172 | Окончательные итоги блицконкурса TT-172

“Superfluous” solution | «Лишнее» решение

Theme | Тема

12 entries were received from 8 authors representing 5 countries | На конкурс поступило 12 композиций от 8 авторов из 5 стран

EN <-> RU

The proposed theme provided opportunities not only for seeking original ways of presenting it, but also for getting previously unimplemented ideas out of authors’ archives so as to revisit them with a fresh look. In a bid of solidarity with the tourney participants, the judge also got involved during the same period in composing a problem conforming quite well to the theme definition (see A in the Appendix). And even though participation was not as massive as I had expected it to be, the prize-winning problems fully justified the holding of the tourney.
I would like to thank all problemists who sent in their entries; unfortunately, however, in my opinion, half of these problems still need to be improved. I hope that the authors will work on these problems more fruitfully without linking them to the theme in question. Below I briefly comment on these entries:
- No 4 (Kh7-Kc5) – the thematic content is overshadowed by a number of parasitic attempts; the dual in one of the phases is also unpleasant;
- No 6 (Kc7-Kd5), No 9 (Kb8-Kc6), No 10 (Ke8-Ke5) – the content of both the try play and the post-key play is not quite interesting, artificial, or rather simple; moreover, in No 6 (Kc7-Kd5) nothing will be detracted from the content if the white bishop is removed from b6 and the white king is moved to that square;
- No 8 (Ka6-Kc4) – the thematic play involves elimination of black king’s flights;
- No 11 (Kb4-Kf5) – the problem is artificially “adapted” to the theme; the problem looks much better without the h7-pawn, when one of the thematic tries becomes the key.

Award is the following | Отличия распределились следующим образом

1st Prize, 1st Place - No 12
Marjan Kovačević
TT-172, SuperProblem, 16-10-2016
1rr1b3/8/6p1/2Q5/2B2N2/5K2/Npk2Ppp/nR1R2b1
#2(8+10)
2nd Prize, 2nd Place - No 7
Andrey Frolkin
TT-172, SuperProblem, 16-10-2016
1k6/pPp3B1/Bp5P/b6P/1p5p/PP5P/1P4QP/R3K2R
#2(14+7)
3rd Prize, 3rd Place - No 3
Peter Novitsky
TT-172, SuperProblem, 16-10-2016
7Q/1B1NP3/5P2/1K2P3/p2kNp2/b1pp1R2/2b5/3n4
#2(9+8)

1st Prize, 1st Place - No 12, Marjan Kovačević (Serbia) 1rr1b3/8/6p1/2Q5/2B2N2/5K2/Npk2Ppp/nR1R2b1

Battery mates Bd5# and Bd3# are set in response to checks to the white king. The white knight tries to play to the same squares d5 and d3 on the first move, which results in a paradoxical situation, when a move that pins a white piece proves to be more efficient than the same move delivering check:
1.Sd5? – 2.Se3# [A], 1...Bc6! (2.Bd5#?)
1.Sd3? – 2.Se1# [B], 1...Rb3! (2.Bd3#?)
A similar idea, but involving play by two different batteries, has already been seen, e.g. in yacpdb/231625. Here, however, the author not only linked both tries through play by the same battery (remarkably, with obstruction of white pieces in both cases) but also enhanced the content by adding another try, one which involves two thematic threats and is also refuted by pinning:
1.Sxg2? – 2.Se3# [A], 2.Se1# [B], 1...h1Q!
As a result, we have a task presentation of Barnes theme in the try phases with all refutations pinning the same threatening piece! An attempt to change the plan of play fails to bring about the desirable result at once, as it destroys another set mate:
1.Se2? – 2.Sd4#, 1...Bxf2! (2.Qxf2#?)
Only a fifth attempt, which completes the White Combinations theme, brings the knight to a square where it does not get in the way of any other piece:
1.Se6! – 2.Sd4#, 1...Bc6+ 2.Bd5#, 1...Rb3+ 2.Bd3#, 1...Bxf2 2.Qxf2#
I wonder if anyone can criticize this twomover – undoubtedly one with quite modern content – for lack of change of play. I wouldn’t do so. Moreover, I can state with confidence that change of play would be absolutely superfluous here.
A sense of mechanism, a sense of harmony, and a sense of moderation – these are the cornerstones for transforming a position on the chessboard into a problem!
EN <-> RU

2nd Prize, 2nd Place - No 7, Andrey Frolkin (Ukraine) 1k6/pPp3B1/Bp5P/b6P/1p5p/PP5P/1P4QP/R3K2R

This is a composition of an entirely different kind, its content being formulated by the author as “retroanalysis-based choice of defense against a check to which no set mate is available.” A lot of attempts are refuted by check to the white king 1...bxa3+! One more attempt – 1.Qd2? – is refuted by the same move, but due to pinning rather than checking: 1...bxa3! (a reason to recall the previous problem). Playing for zugzwang also fails: 1.a4? ruling out 1...bxa3+; 1...c6/c5 2.Be5#; but 1...b5!
White tries to avoid check while simultaneously creating a threat:
1.0-0-0?! – 2.Rd8# or 1.0-0?! – 2.Rf8#.
These tries, which are refuted retroanalytically, present the main content of the problem. It is not hard to see that the white pawns made 9 captures: c2xb3, dxc>c6xb7, exfxgxh, fxgxh, gxh, while their black counterparts made 2: dxcxb; that is, both sides’ balances are closed. To be accounted for in the balance, the black e-pawn had to promote on e1, making the white king move and thus depriving White of the right to castle. Therefore, only a prosaic key works:
1.Bc3! – 2.Qg8#, 1...c6/c5 2.Be5#
At this point the problem seems to have been solved completely; but let us now recall the thematic condition in which the judge focuses on the absence of pieces that are uninvolved in the solution. With that in mind, how should the white rooks be perceived? Let us try to remove either one of them. The resulting spare capture enables the shifting of the black e-pawn’s promotion square to a neighboring file. However, in order to leave the white king in peace the black pawn must have captured a white non-highest-rank officer (rook, bishop, or knight) only on d1 or f1, promoting to a minor black piece (bishop or knight) through e2xd1B/S or e2xf1B/S. Considering this fact, none of the white rooks is superfluous for the solution, since its removal in the diagram position would result in a second, cooking solution in the form of the king’s castling with the remaining rook. Thus, in this problem retroanalysis is used to prove not only that the key is unique but also that the problem is thematic, even involving Ceriani-Frolkin motifs in this case. Noteworthy, in the tries the white rooks play to the squares d1 and f1 on which the black promotion must have occurred.
EN <-> RU

3rd Prize, 3rd Place - No 3, Peter Novitsky (Ukraine) 7Q/1B1NP3/5P2/1K2P3/p2kNp2/b1pp1R2/2b5/3n4

1.f7? [A] – 2.e6# [B], 1...Bd6 [a] 2.exd6#, 1...Bxe7! [b]
1.e6? [B] – 2.f7# [A], 1...Bxe7 [b] 2.fxe7#, 1...Bd6! [a]
In the tries, a half-battery mechanism is used for an interchange of functions of white moves (introductory move and threat) and black moves (defense and refutation). The paradoxical destruction of the half-battery (a la Vladimirov) on the first move results in another variant with the black bishop’s move along the thematic line and mate involving a piece from the half-battery, this time the long-range one:
1.Qc8? – 2.Qc4#, 1...Bc5 2.Qxc5#, 1...Se3/Sb2 2.Qxc3#, 1...Bb3!
The key is an even more unexpected move sacrificing the knight, with the queen playing on the mating move and with one of the mates changed:
1.Sxg3! – 2.Sf5#, 1...fxg3 2.Qh4#, 1...Se3 2.Rxf4#, 1...d2 2.Se2#
Probably it would be quite reasonable to emphasize one more try 1.Sec5? – 2.Se6#, 1...Bb3 2.Rxd3#, 1...Bxc5! with the addition of another pair of reciprocally changing functions of black moves and the completion of the “trilogy” of black bishops’ moves along the same line. Let us, however, not forget again the sense of moderation.
EN <-> RU
Honorable mention - No 1
Pavel Murashev
TT-172, SuperProblem, 16-10-2016
b2K1R1B/3N3p/1p4p1/2p3p1/2B1k1P1/q1Qn4/5PP1/1N1rr3
#2(10+11)
Commendation - No 5
Aleksandr Kostyukov
TT-172, SuperProblem, 16-10-2016
8/R2Bp2P/K1pkpprp/P4b2/1PPB2nn/2p1N3/3N1P2/Q1r2qb1
#2(12+14)
Special Commendation - No 2
Mark Basisty
TT-172, SuperProblem, 16-10-2016
1n2Q1b1/b3r3/3N1p2/8/2PkN3/2p2R2/B5RB/7K
#2(9+7)

Honorable mention - No 1, Pavel Murashev (Russia) b2K1R1B/3N3p/1p4p1/2p3p1/2B1k1P1/q1Qn4/5PP1/1N1rr3

1.Be5? – 2.Sf6# [A], 1...S~ [a] 2.f3# [B], 1...Sxe5 [b] 2.Qxe5#, (1...Qxc3 2.Sxc3#), 1...Sxf2!
1.Qd2? – 2.f3# [B], 1...S~ [a] 2.Re8#, 1...Se5 [b] 2.Sf6# [A], (1... Re3/Rf1 2.Qe3#, 1...Rxd2 2.Sxd2#), 1...Sf4!
1.Rf3! – 2.Sf6#, 1...S~ [a] 2.Qe5#, 1...Qxc3 2.Sxc3#
It seems that it is impossible to find a twomover tourney where in the past six months there have been no entries presenting the 10th WCCT theme. This tourney is no exception either: the said theme is represented in the tries with two thematic defenses in the form of Black Correction, a cross-form of Dombrovskis, and changed mates. Unfortunately, the post-key phase is considerably inferior to the try play, since but a few elements of the complex mechanism are used. This is a typical example of a technical reason for the need to look for a “superfluous key,” the refutations of the thematic phases being incorporated in the Black Correction mechanism itself.
EN <-> RU

Commendation - No 5, Aleksandr Kostyukov (Russia) 8/R2Bp2P/K1pkpprp/P4b2/1PPB2nn/2p1N3/3N1P2/Q1r2qb1

1.h8Q? – 2.Qb8#, 1...Rg8!
1.h8S? – 2.Sf7#, 1...Se5 2.Bc5#, 1...Rg7!

1.Be8? – 2.Rd7#, 1...c5 2.bxc5#, 1...Se5 2.Bc5#, 1...e5!
1.Bc8? – 2.Rd7#, 1...e5/Se5 2.Bc5#, 1...c5!

1.Kb6? – 2.c5# [A], 1...cxd2 2.Bc5# [B], 1...c5 2.bxc5#, 1...Sxe3!
1.f4? – 2.Bc5# [B], 1...Qxf4 2.c5# [A], 1...Bxe3!

1.Qa4! – 2.Qxc6#, 1...Qg2 2.c5# [A], 1...Se5 2.Bc5# [B], 1...Be4 2.Sxe4#, 1…Qxc4 2.Sdxc4#.
There are three thematic pairs of tries here: the first one features two promotions with similar refutations; the second, reciprocal vacation of squares by White on the first move of the tries and by Black in the refutations; and in the third, Pseudo Le Grand in same-square mechanisms. Again, the key is a purely formal one, with choice of defenses and preservation of set mates. As regards the very idea of combining several different systems within a single multi-phase problem such concepts have lost the flair of unusualness long ago and can be found among the creative works of many composers, even though this type of change is yet to be theoretically underpinned. I recall a comparable example of my own creation (see B in the Appendix).
EN <-> RU

Special Commendation - No 2, Mark Basisty (Ukraine) 1n2Q1b1/b3r3/3N1p2/8/2PkN3/2p2R2/B5RB/7K

*1...Rh7 [c] 2.Sb5# [A] / f5# [B], 1...Re5 2.Bg1# [C]
1.Rg4? – 2.Sb5# [A] / Sf5# [B], 1... Rxe4 [a] 2.Bg1# [C], 1... Bxc4! [b]
1.Qh5? – 2.Bg1# [C], 1...Rxe4 [a] 2.Sb5# [A], 1...f5!
1.Qb5? – 2.Bg1# [C], 1...Rxe4 [a] 2.Sf5# [B], 1...Bd5 2.Qxd5#, 1...Bc5 2.Qxc5#, 1...Rh7! [c] 1.Qa4! – 2.Qd1#, 1...Rxe4 [a] 2.Qxa7#, 1...Bxc4 [b] 2.Qxc4#, 1...c2 2.Rd2#.
The first three phases (let the set play shown by the author remain on his conscience) present Burmistrov theme with thematic mates from the set play. The post-key play includes an extra change of mate after a thematic defense.
This problem is sort of a reminder to the judge about his own “sins.” The point is that one of my problems (see C in the Appendix) has a rather serious defect: the rook g4 is uninvolved in post-key play. The author has proposed a more economical way to implement the same concept without any “superfluous” pieces in the form of a “superfluous” solution. But is that really a remedy? In essence, the bishop a2 plays a “non-speaking part” in the solution: it is there only to eliminate the dual 2.Qa1# in the variant 1…с2 2.Rd2#. If, however, both Ba2 and Rg2 are removed, then the queen mate becomes the only one. Thus two white pieces can be claimed to be “simultaneously superfluous.” Which is the better alternative? I think there is no unambiguous answer to that question. One thing I can say for sure is that it is desirable to avoid both.
EN <-> RU

Appendix | Приложение

A - S. Tkatschenko & A. Vasilenko
1st Commendation
MT Vagidov-70, 2016
B2K4/1N1pp3/1P1P2p1/NrPk1P2/1r3Rp1/B6b/3pQ3/2R5
#2(12+9)
B - M. Basisty & A. Vasilenko
2nd Honorable Mention
Olympic Tourney, 2008
qn3RB1/1P2p3/2p5/1p2pP2/3bkN2/2ppP2b/1Q4PK/3N1RB1
#2(12+11)
C - A. Vasilenko
4th Prize
2nd FIDE World Cup, 2011
1b1Q4/3r2pb/p1p1N3/8/3NkPR1/R5p1/Bp2KP1n/5n2
#2(9+11)

A - Sergey I. Tkatschenko & Anatoly Vasilenko (Ukraine) B2K4/1N1pp3/1P1P2p1/NrPk1P2/1r3Rp1/B6b/3pQ3/2R5

1.S5~? – 2.S7a5# [A], 1...Rxc5 2.Rxc5#, 1...Re4 2.Qxe4# (1...Kc6 2.S7a5#), 1...Rxb6!
1.Sc6? – 2.Sxe7# (2.S7a5#? [A]), 1...Kxc6 2.S7a5# [A], 1...dxc6 2.Qe6#, 1...Re4 2.Qxe4#, 1...Rxf4!
1.Sc4? – 2.Qe4# [B] (2.S7a5#? [A]), 1...Rxc4 2.S7a5#, 1...Bg2 2.Qxg2# (1...Kc6 2.Qe4#), 1...gxf5!
1.Bb2! – 2.Qe5#, 1...Rxa5 2.Sxa5# [A], 1...exd6 2.Sxd6#, 1…Rd4 2.Rxd4#, 1...Re4/Rxb2 2.Q(x)e4# [B]
The tries feature White Correction, double Threat Correction, and Pseudo Le Grand.
The post-key phase presents a change of playing plan with the white bishop unexpectedly coming from the ambush.
EN <-> RU

B - Mark Basisty & Anatoly Vasilenko (Ukraine) qn3RB1/1P2p3/2p5/1p2pP2/3bkN2/2ppP2b/1Q4PK/3N1RB1

*1...Bd~ 2.Sxc3# [A], 1...c5 2.Bd5# [B]
1.Se2? – 2.Sg3#, 1...Bxe3 [a] 2.Sdc3# [A] (1...dxe2/d2 2.Qc2#), 1…e6! [b]
1.Sh5? – 2.Sg3#, 1...e6 [b] 2.Sf6# (1...d2 2.Qc2#), 1...Bxe3! [a]
1.Qxc3? – 2.Qxd3#, 1...exf4 [c] 2.Qxd4#, 1...Bxc3 2.Sxc3# [A], 1...Qa3!
1.Qxb5? – 2.Qxd3#, 1...exf4 [c] 2.Rxf4#, 1...cxb2 2.Bd5# [B], 1...Qa6!
1.Qf2? – 2.Qf3#, 1...Bxe3 [a] 2.Qxe3#, 1...exf4 [c] 2.Qxf4# (1...Bxg2 2.Qxg2#), 1...Bg4!
1.Re1! – 2.Sf2#, 1...Bxe3 [a] 2.Qb4#, 1...exf4 [c] 2.exd4# (1...Bxg2 2.Qxg2#)
The first pair of phases includes correction of white knight’s moves with interchange of defense and refutation.
The second pair shows correction of white queen’s moves with changed mate, change of set defenses, and black queen’s ambush refutations.
The last try and the solution present a change of mates in two variants.
EN <-> RU

C - Anatoly Vasilenko (Ukraine) 1b1Q4/3r2pb/p1p1N3/8/3NkPR1/R5p1/Bp2KP1n/5n2

1.Ra4? – 2.Sg5# [A] / 2.Sc5# [B], 1...Rxd4 [a] 2.Bb1# [C], 1...Sxg4 2.f3#, 1...Bxf4!
1.Qa5? – 2.Bb1# [C], 1...Rxd4 [a] 2.Sg5# [A], 1...Sd2 2.Re3#, 1...c5!
1.Rg5? – 2.Bb1# [C], 1...Rxd4 [a] 2.Qxd4#, 1...Be5 [b] 2.Rxe5#, 1...Bf5! [c]
1.Qg5! – 2.Bb1# [C], 1...Rxd4 [a] 2.Sc5# [B], 1...Be5 [b] 2.Qxe5#, 1...Bf5 [c] 2.Qxf5# (1...Sd2 2.Re3#)
Burmistrov theme is supplemented with a phase featuring change of play.
EN <-> RU


COMMENTS (real-time mode) | КОММЕНТАРИИ посетителей
comments powered by HyperComments

Sections | Разделы

#2 (twomovers | двухходовки)

Participants | Участники

Basisty M. – No 2, 4
Frolkin A. – No 7
Kostyukov A. – No 5
Kovačević M. – No 12
Lind I. – No 8, 9
Müller D. – No 6, 10, 11
Murashev P. – No 1
Novitsky P. – No 3

The Winner Is | Победитель

Marjan Kovačević
Congratulations! | Поздравляем!

Judge | Арбитр

Anatoly Vasilenko

Director and editor
Директор и редактор

Aleksey Oganesjan
e-mail: alexeioganesyan@gmail.com

Comments | Комментарии

show | показать