Final Award in Quick Composing TT-246 | Окончательные итоги блицконкурса TT-246

Dual avoidance effect | Антидуальный эффект

Theme | Тема

41 entries were received from 23 authors representing 15 countries | На конкурс поступило 41 композиций от 23 авторов из 15 стран

EN <-> RU

Many thanks to Aleksey Oganesjan for the invitation to choose the theme and to judge this quick composing thematic tourney (TT-246), as well as for sending me the entries in anonymous form. Congratulations for the enormous and fantastic work with SuperProblem.

The theme asks for dual avoidance effect at B1 (first black move) without twins, respecting the definition: “In one phase one side appears to have a choice of moves to achieve the required effect but in each such case there is a single reason why every move but one fails. The thematic reason may be introduced at any move, but the thematic choice of moves must occur at B1”.
Only eight helpmates in two moves respecting the theme of this tourney were published in FIDE Album 2010-2012 and 2013-2015 and this is surprising for me, as the three examples show that very interesting ideas can be presented.

The prohibition of twins is simply because I wanted the presentation of dual avoidance in a scheme other than the well-known [X! Y?] and [Y! X?], i. e., two moves (or more in cyclic form) that reciprocally (or cyclically) exchange their condition of correct (!) and wrong (?) between solutions. If such scheme is to be presented in the first black move (B1), this cannot be done in multi-solutions, but only with twins. Therefore, prohibiting twins was enough to eliminate the traditional scheme.

Forty-one originals took part in the tourney and twenty of them were not thematic. According to the definition, one side appears to have a choice of moves to achieve the required effect. The existence of a choice presupposes the possibility of success for all options, i.e., all moves involved in this choice may lead, at first sight, to mate, and all but one will be eliminated by a negative effect introduced during each attempted (and wrong) sequence of moves. If the negative effect already exists in the diagram position, there is no choice, no attempt, no try, and the theme is not respected.

The following entries failed in this aspect because they presented negative effects already in the diagram position:
No 5 (Ke1-Kd5) – guard of f6,
No 21 (Kh6-Kc5) – guard of e3,
No 22 (Kh7-Kd7) – guard of b7 and e7,
No 23 (Kb2-Ke3) – interference over the wQ,
No 33 (Ke8-Kd6) – guard of b6,
No 34 (Kf2-Kd5) – guard of f7
No 40 (Ka4-Kd3) – guard of f2.

Other ten entries were eliminated because the dual avoidance effect was not in the first black move (B1). What impressed me most was the fact that the authors did believe it occurred at B1 and wrongly indicated the dual avoidance in the solutions. The correct solutions follow:
No 2 (Kh3-Kc6) – 1.Re7 Be4 2.Rd7 Sd4#, 1.Rf5 a6! (Be4?) 2.Qd7 Sb4#, 1.Sxf6 Be2! (Be4?) 2.Sd7 Se7# Dual avoidance at W1 in two solutions;
No 10 (Kh6-Ke5) – 1.Se3 Bd5! (Rd4?) 2.Rb7 Sxc6#, 1.Sb6 Rd4! (Bd5?) 2.Bf4 Sf8#. Dual avoidance at W1;
No 12 (Ke1-Kd6) – 1.Se5 Bf3! (Rxc7?) 2.Re6 Rd5#, 1.Be5 Bxd7! (Bf3?, Rxc7?) 2.Rd5 Rc6#, 1.e5 Rxc7! (Bf3?) 2.Bc5 Rxd7#. Dual avoidance at W1;
No 14 (Kh4-Kb6) – 1.Ka5 Qc4! (Rd7?) 2.Sf1! (Sxd5?) Qxa2#. Dual avoidance at W1 and B2. 1.Ka6 Rd7! (Qc4?) 2.Sd5 (Sxf1?) Ra7#
No 18 (Kf7-Ke5) – 1.Qd3 Rxg6! (Be1?) 2.Re4 Rg5#, 1.Qd4 Be1! (Rxg6?) 2.Be4 Bg3#. Dual avoidance at W1;
No 29 (Kc7-Kd4) – 1.Se5 Kb6! (Kc6?) 2.Rd3! (Qd3?) Sf5#, 1.Re5 Kc6! (Kb6?) 2.Qe3 Rc4#. Dual avoidance at W1.
No 30 (Kb6-Kd5) – 1.Se4 Be8! (Rc4?) 2.Sd6 Bc6#, 1.Sf7 Rc4! (Be8?) 2.Sd6 Rc5#. Dual avoidance at W1.
No 32 (Kc2-Ke5) – Dual avoidance at W1. The solutions are correct.
No 39 (Ke3-Kg6) – 1.Ra3 f4! (Bf6?) 2.Bg1+ Sf2#, 1.Bg1 Bf6! (f4?) 2.Ra3+ Sc3#, Dual avoidance at W1;
No 41 (Kh8-Kf4) – 1.Sc3 Sf3! (Sxg4?) 2.Rf5 Rxg4#, 1.Sf6 Sxg4! (Sf3?) 2.Re4 Rf1#. Dual avoidance at W1.

And the following entries were also non-thematic since they presented no dual avoidance at all: No 20 (Kc4 Ke6), No 36 (Kf2-Kd5) and No 37 (Kh3-Ke4). The last two tried to present antidual choice of moves, but they failed since the first black moves had arrival effects – line closing and block, respectively.

Twenty originals were left for analysis. Unfortunately their level was not as good and did not exceed that of the three examples.

And last but not least, I would like to wish you all a wonderful and healthy 2021, and a very peaceful Christmas period, regardless of the religion you embrace, if any.

Award is the following | Отличия распределились следующим образом

Prize - No 28
Mario Parrinello
TT-246, SuperProblem, 30-12-2020
1st Honorable mention - No 11
Menachem Witztum & Emanuel Navon
TT-246, SuperProblem, 30-12-2020
2nd Honorable mention - No 27
Mario Parrinello
TT-246, SuperProblem, 30-12-2020

Prize - No 28, Mario Parrinello (Italy) 1B1R4/5nb1/1r2pp2/2rPP2R/2pkb1qp/3B4/K7/3N4

1.Rb1! (Rb~?, Rxd5?) Bxb1 2.Rxd5 Ba7#
(Q~?, Bxd5?) Bxe2 2.Bxd5 Rxh4#
In the solutions, the author indicated only antidual choice of moves (enabling active sacrifice), but this helpmate combines it with antidual choice of move order, all at B1. Elimination of black pieces and self-pin to free the mating line are shown in both solutions. Reciprocal play between two pair of pieces (wBb8/wRh5 and bRc5/bBe4).
EN <-> RU

1st Honorable mention - No 11, Menachem Witztum & Emanuel Navon (Israel) 8/1pp1B3/p2P1b2/RPk1n3/rn3pp1/2pP2p1/7R/5K1B

1.Sd7! (Se~?) Rh6 2.Bd4 dxc7#
(Sb~?) Rb2 2.Rd4 b6#
The bSs open the line of the blocking black pieces with antidual choice of moves that avoids different negative effects. Ambushes by wRh2 prepare double line opening to guard b6, ending in battery mates.
EN <-> RU

2nd Honorable mention - No 27, Mario Parrinello (Italy) 3K4/2NBBp2/4P3/b3pk2/4Np2/q4P2/2pr2p1/4r3

1.Bc3! (Bb4?) Sd5 2.Qxe7 Sxe7#
(Rde2?) Bc6 2.Rxe4 Bxe4#
Antidual choice of moves (avoiding line closing) is cleverly used as the interfering piece is of the same kind of the interfered one (Q-B and R-R).
EN <-> RU
3rd Honorable mention - No 6
Francesco Simoni
TT-246, SuperProblem, 30-12-2020
1st Commendation - No 8
Menachem Witztum
TT-246, SuperProblem, 30-12-2020
2nd Commendation - No 15
Emanuel Navon
TT-246, SuperProblem, 30-12-2020

3rd Honorable mention - No 6, Francesco Simoni (Italy) 8/1r1q4/1p4K1/2k5/2Pp4/1Qn1b1n1/3B4/8

1.Sb5! (Qb5?) cxb5 2.Qd5 Qb4#
(Sd5?) cxd5 2.Sb5 Bb4#
Wrong active sacrifice at B1 leads to guard of the mating square at B2. Chumakov. Reciprocal play between two pair of pieces (wQ/wB and bQ/bSc3).
EN <-> RU

1st Commendation - No 8, Menachem Witztum (Israel) 8/K3pbp1/3b2pp/3Rnnk1/1P1p4/2Qr2p1/8/3B1rq1

1.Sc4! (Se~?) Qe1 2.Bf4 Qxe7#
(Sf~?) Qc8 2.Rf6 Qg4#
Similar to No 11, the bSs open the line of the blocking black pieces with antidual choice of moves that avoids different negative effects. Here the white play is not so interesting but this is partially offset by a black half-pin.
EN <-> RU

2nd Commendation - No 15, Emanuel Navon (Israel) 2b5/p3P3/p3R1pb/Bp4qr/1nNPn1pp/pP1kp3/2r5/5K2

1.Qd5! (Q~ ?) Bb6 2.Sg5 Rxe3#
(Sb~?) Rd6 2.Bf5 Se5#
Again antidual choice of moves avoiding different negative effects. Unfortunately it is difficult to find some unity in the solutions.
EN <-> RU

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