THE PROBLEMIST British Chess Problem Society, JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

THE BRITISH CHESS PROBLEM SOCIETY

VOL 20 No 10

JULY 2006

A Volker Gülke, Winus
Müller & Peter Schmidt

Andernach 2006

wdwdwiwI
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dw4wdwdw
wdwhPdwd
dwdwHwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#2 2 solutions
Take&Make chess

B Stephen Emmerson

Andernach 2006

wdwdwdwd
dwdp0p0K
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdk
wdPdwdw)
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#4 Take&Make chess

C Volker Gülke &
Peter Schmidt

Andernach 2006

wdwdn4wd
dwdpIwdw
wGw0Bdwd
dwdwiw0w
wdw$wdwd
dwHwdphw
wdwdwdwg
dwdwdwdw

H#2 (b) Pg5>d2
Take&Make chess

D Stephen Emmerson

Andernach 2006

kdwdwdwd
0wdwdw0w
P0wdpdKg
dwdwGpdp
w0wdN)wd
dwdpdB)n
wdw)wdP4
dwdwdw)b

#2 Take&Make chess

Introducing a new fairy condition: TAKE&MAKE CHESS

square is guarded. A similar thing happens in part
(b), where the bK cannot capture the wB: 1.Se4
Rxe4-g5+ (R plays completion S-move) 2.Rf5 Bxf5-
f4 (B plays completion R-move).

Helpmates are probably easier to compose than

direct-mates with this condition, but D illustrates
what can be done in 2-move form. 1.Kxh5-h4 (K
plays completion P-move) sets up a block position.
Note that White does not threaten a move by the Se4
because on arrival on e.g. c5 it would be captured by
the bP which would then interpose on e4. The
variations are: 1…Sf2+ 2.Sxf2-h3; 1…Sg5+ 2.Sxg5-
h3; 1…b3 2.Sc3; 1…b5 2.Sc5; 1…g5+ 2.Sxg5-g4;
1…g6 2.Sf6. 1…Bg5+ allows several replies:
2.fxg5-d8Q or 2.Sxg5-h6,e7,d8.

JMR

This year’s meeting of fairy chess enthusiasts at Andernach in May (see report

on page 440) was notable mainly for the launch of an ingenious new condition:
Take&Make chess. The invention of Hartmut Laue, this condition is defined as
follows: when one unit has captured another, the capturing unit must immediately,
as part of the move, play a non-capturing move in imitation of the captured unit
from the capture-square. If no such move is available, the capture is illegal.
Promotion by capture occurs only when a pawn arrives on the promotion rank as
the result of a take&make move (so not when the capture occurs on that rank and
the pawn must move away because of the special condition). Checks are as in
normal chess, which means that after the notional capture of the checked K the
checking unit does not play away from the K’s square. To enable testing at
Andernach, Stephen Emmerson had done some very rapid programming with
Popeye – and had produced a few examples of his own.

The chosen examples, all of which appeared on a sheet distributed on the first

day of the meeting, should help to clarify how this condition works. The first
solution to A runs: 1.Sf5 Sxf5-h6 (completion with S-move because S has been
captured) 2.Rd5 exd5-d8Q# (completion with R-move because R has been
captured, and promoting on arrival on d8). The second solution is 1.Rd5 Sxd5-d6
(completion with R-move) 2.Sf5 exf5-e7# (completion with S-move). Notice that
(1) the bK cannot capture the checking P because it would then have to play like a
P to e8, which is guarded, and (2) the white P must check on e7 and not g7,
because 3.Ke7 must be prevented as a non-capturing move.

B solves by 1.d5 cxd5-d4 2.e5 dxe5-e4 3.f5 exf5-f4 4.g5 fxg5-g4. The mating

position is instructive: neither wP can be captured by the bK because in each case
the completed move would take it to a guarded square.

C shows how a K’s mobility can be restricted with this condition. Part (a)

solves by 1.Sf5+ Bxf5-g3+ (B plays completion S-move) 2.Rf4 Rxf4-f5# (R plays
completion R-move, having captured a R) – and the bK cannot capture the wR
because it would have to continue with a R-move and every possible arrival

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

426

THE PROBLEMIST, July 2006

Over the years Sir Jeremy Morse has made an inestimable contribution to the development of the chess

problem through his writings on tasks, which have encouraged many other composers to success in breaking
existing records. This month we bring a further update of his researches, the ninth since the publication of the
second edition of Chess Problems: Tasks and Records. Michael McDowell is another with a passion for
research, and he too contributes an article to this issue, on the well-known column in the Hampshire Telegraph
and Post, which ran in the early years of the last century. Geoff Foster and Bob Meadley turn their attention to
the man who suggested the name “Fairy chess”, Henry Tate. On page 468 Klaus Wenda writes in anticipation
of the publication of a book on Retros by the distinguished German expert Wolfgang Dittmann. All this plus the
usual features make for a very full issue. JMR

SOCIETY MATTERS

New member A very warm welcome to Joaquin

Arriaga, who has joined as a Fellow.

Society meetings The following meetings have

been arranged for the autumn season:

Friday 29th September: Report on the 2006
WCCC and WCSC, with details of results, tourney
awards etc. This will be preceded by a Committee
meeting at 5.00 p.m.

Friday 27th October: Colin Russ will present
“Some problems for pleasure”.

Friday 24th November: A meeting for British
members only at which entries for the 8th WCCT
received by that date will be assessed and a
preliminary selection made.

These meetings will be held at the Society’s usual
venue, the Chadwick Street Recreation Centre,
London SW1, at 6.30 p.m., and all members able to
attend will be very welcome. Come along early and
meet other members in the bar/restaurant on the first
floor for a chat and some refreshment!

Subscriptions Members will no doubt be pleased

to hear that the Committee has decided, following
the Hon.Treasurer’s recommendation, that the rates
should remain unchanged for 2007.

BCPS Residential Weekend 2007 will be held at

the Carlton Hotel, Cheltenham, from Friday 30th
March to Monday 2nd April. Booking information
and further details will appear in the September
issue.

k k k k k

8th WCCT This is just a reminder that the

British entry for this event is being co-ordinated by
Society President Chris Reeves. Details of the
themes were given on page 281 of last November’s
issue. Please send your compositions to Chris at
Gorseacre, West Polberro, St. Agnes, Cornwall TR5
OST (or email reeves.gorseacre@btinternet.com),
indicating whether they have been computer tested.
The Studies entries are being collected and assessed
by the Endgame Study Group and should be sent
directly to David Sedgwick, 23 Tierney Court,

Canning Road, Croydon, CR0 6QA (email
david.sedgwick@amserve.com). Please regard 31st
December as the last date for sending in entries, to
allow time for fine-tuning before submission.

r r r r r

Birthday greetings and congratulations go this

month to Aurél Kárpáti (90 on 24 August), Kurt
Smulders (85 on 15 July), Nikita Plaksin (75 on 9
July), Nikola Veliky (70 on 7 July), Pauli
Perkonoja (65 on 19 July), Bernd Schwarzkopf
(60 on 25 July) and Daniel Joffart (60 on 5 June).
Belatedly, and with apologies for missing the date,
we send greetings to Paul Valois, who celebrated
his 60th birthday on 6 March.

b b b b b

Obituary We have

recently heard the sad
news of the death of the
Italian composer Santi
Pirrone. Predominantly a
2-move specialist with 11
Album points to his
name, he was known for
problems like the one
quoted here. 1.Qg5?
(>2.Rg2) Rc1! 1.Qh4?
(>2.Qh2) Rxe3! 1.Qb7?
(>2.Qg2) Rc1/Rxe3
2.Qd5/Qb2, but 1…Sc6!
1.Qa7? (>2.Rg2) Rc1/

Santi Pirrone

1 Pr L'Italia Scacchistica
1966

whwdwdnd
dwdw!wdw
wdwGwdwd
gwdwHwdw
wdPdwdwd
dw4w)w$w
Ndwiwdwd
$wdBdKdw

Rxe3 2.Qd4/Qxe3; 1…Bb6! 1.Qh7? (>2.Qh2)
Rc1/Rxe3 2.Qd3/Qc2, but 1…Sh6! 1.Bc5! (>2.Rg2)
Rc1/Rxe3 2.Qd6/Bxe3.

Other columns

Thema Danicum An email from editor Leif

Schmidt announces that this well-known and much
respected magazine will cease publication next year.
Sadly, the reason given is that nobody can be found
to take over from Leif as editor. Today’s world has
too much to offer to younger people for chess
problems to stand a chance of universal appeal. All

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

427

the same, it is a matter for great regret when an
established publication cannot find the personnel
necessary to keep it going. That is why it is so vital
that every effort is made to get youngsters interested.

Ideal Mate Review Congratulations to editor

Eugene Albert on producing the 100th issue of his
magazine devoted exclusively to ideal mates! In it
he writes: “Who could have foreseen, back in
January 1983 with issue 1, that such a specialised
magazine as IMR could continue so spectacularly?”
Eugene marks the event by republishing 24 of his
own H#5s, among them the one quoted below, a nice
example of a mousetrap which solves by 1.Rb4 Ke7
2.f2 Ba8 3.Rb7+ Kf6 4.Ke4 Kg5 5.Kf3 Bxb7. In the
same issue are 10 originals by Steven Dowd,
including this H#14: 1.Ka3 Bh2 4.Kxd6 Bg1 5.Ke6
Bh2 6.d5 Bg1 9.c2+ Kxd2 10.c1R Ke3 11.Rg1 Kf4
12.Rxg3 Kg5 13.Ke5 Kg6 14.Kf4 Bxg3.

Obituary

JAMES HETHERINGTON

17.4.1907 – 30.4.2006

We very much regret to record the death of

Jim Hetherington, one of the Society’s oldest
members and until very recently an active solver
and commentator in the Championship section.
His son, Professor Alistair Hetherington, writes:

My father died in Edinburgh shortly after his

99th birthday after a brief illness. He had
continued to take an active interest in chess
problems right up until his death. Solving gave
him great pleasure and provided him with an
important focus especially after the death of my
mother in 1984.

After primary and secondary education in

Glasgow, he entered training as an apprentice
architect. Unfortunately, the end of his
apprenticeship coincided with the depression
when there was no demand for new buildings
and this resulted in his employers being unable
to offer him a position. As a result he joined the
London Midland and Scottish railway company,
initially as a draftsman in the signal and tele-
communications branch but latterly specialising
in the design of mechanical signalling systems.

He developed an interest in chess problems in

the 1960s through the Sunday Times and very
soon afterwards became a member of the British
Chess Problem Society. From a very early age I
can remember being shown “amusing” or
“diabolical” problems and was thoroughly
familiar with the names of his many BCPS
correspondents. Of the composers I seem to
recall Dr Zepler being frequently described as
his “bête noire” because of his ability to devise
the most “devilish” problems. I should add that
descriptions such as “devilish, diabolical,
immensely cunning” etc were intended as great
compliments. Although my father seldom went
to meetings of the Society he derived immense
pleasure from the sense of comradeship he
experienced in being a member (and later
Fellow) of the Society. I am convinced that in no
small way the rigours and discipline associated
with solving kept his mind sharp and, together
with a healthy lifestyle including the regime of a
daily constitutional, contributed significantly to
his longevity.

Eugene Albert

Ideal Mate Review 1986

wdwIwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdriwd
dwdw0p0w
wdwdpdwd
dwdwdwdB

H#5

Steven Dowd

Ideal Mate Review
Oct-Dec 2005

wdwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
wdw)wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdpd
dw0wdp)w
kdP0w)wd
dwdKdwGw

H#14

Eteroscacco Marco Bonavoglia has revived this

fairy chess magazine on the internet and welcomes
originals for these fairy categories: direct (#, =, +
etc), eg, H#, S#, retros and classical retros (no PGs).
Send to Marco at via Giovanni Rotondi 3, 20145
Milano, Italy (marco.bonavoglia@eteroscacco.it).

n n n n n

ZABUNOV THEME

Toma Garai has responded to the article by Diyan

Kostadinov on page 338 of the March issue, sending
an original H#2 (below) and suggesting that the
possibilities for showing this theme in H#3 and more
might merit exploration. He adds that transferring an
idea from one genre to another just to show that it is

Toma Garai

Original

wIbdwdwd
dp)B0pdw
wdwgRdr0
dw)whwdP
wdpdwdwd
dwdpdw)k
wdwdwdp0
dwdwGwdw

H#2 2 solutions

feasible doesn’t make it
original. “Could one
enjoy a funny story heard
in three minutes just
because it’s now told in
four?” he asks. A fair
question, but we all know
that it’s not so much the
joke as the way you tell
it.

Solutions: 1.Sg4 Re3

2.Bf4 gxf4, and 1.Rg4
Rxh6 2.Sg6 hxg6.

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

428

A J.Fulpius

Original

wdRgRdwd
dNdkdwdw
ndwGwdPd

dpdwdpdw
wdwdPdwd
dwdwdwdw
pdwdwdBd
dwdQIwdb

B L.Ceriani

Chemnitzer Tageblatt
1925 (v)

BdwdN$wd
dKdwdwdw
wdrdPdpd
dwdkdwdw
w$wdw)wd
dw)wdwdQ
whwdwdPd
dNdwdwGw

D E.Ferrón
(after W.H.Thompson)

Original

Ndwdwdwd
Hw0w)wdw
B)w)Kdwd
dqdw0wgw
bdkdPdwh
GwdRdwdw
wdwdPdwd
dwdwdQdw

F D.Stojnić

The Problemist

2004

(v E.Ferrón)

NdBdwdwd
dwdwdwdp
wdkdwdwd
dwGwdwdw
Kdw)bHPd
dpdwdwdQ
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

NINTH UPDATE OF CHESS PROBLEMS:

TASKS AND RECORDS

, by C.J.Morse

The first name in this update must be that of Ernesto Ferrón de la Fuente, a

Spanish composer who has recently returned to problems like a giant refreshed

after an interval of nearly 20 years. His main contributions have been (a) to

subject the twomovers in my book and in John Ling’s The Power of the Pieces to

a really rigorous computer analysis, uncovering cooks or other flaws in a number

of established record problems, and (b) where the records are sound, to

economise, or otherwise improve, their settings. In addition he has sent some

interesting tasks from the past.

John Ling included in the November 2005 Problem Observer a second

supplement to The Power of the Pieces with 36 new settings arising from Ferrón’s

work, and has since published further improve-

ments. As to problems in my book – here identified

by Arabic numbers in bold – I listed nine which

Ferrón had shown to be unsound at the end of my

September 2005 update. Six of them (46, 108, 110,
124, 202(B) and 523) are fairly easily corrected; 81,

which purported to show 2 BK + 7 BB variations,

can be replaced by A; 80, which purported to show 1

BK + 10 BR variations, was a step too far, and the

record regresses to 1 + 9 in B. Only 482, a 1st

prizewinner in Die Schwalbe by N.Petrović which

purported to show 7 different mates after flights to,

and self-blocks on, four flight-squares, is irreparable.

Full details of these cooks and corrections can be

found at the end of this article.

The next five diagrams exhibit Ferrón’s

improving skills. C equips Ling’s 8-man WS wheel
15 with a better, check-granting, key and removes an

unprovided set flight. D maintains 133’s double task

(WK6 + BP4, with BP v WK3 duel embedded) but

saves four men by taking out the unrelated by-play,

whereas E simplifies Dragan Stojnić’s remarkable B

in my May 2004 update by forgoing the WS v BP4

duel in order to show the main task of 9 refutations

by promoting BPs with a better key and again four

fewer men. F and G are better, more economic

settings of two other try and refutation duels, XII

and XXIV in my September 2004 update: the

beautiful F shows WQ v BB9 in Meredith with

thematic key and three actual mates, while G shows

WS v BK6 as correction tries in a complete WS

wheel (1.Sg6? being the random try). Finally, Ferrón

demonstrates that the BB v WB7 duel seen in 81,
145 and 175 can be shown (by adapting 175) in

miniature: 16/1K4R1/8/k4B1b/8/P1S5/8 (Original –

1.Rg4).

__________________________________________________

Solutions A: 1.exf5. B: 1.Re4. C: 1.Sd3. D:

1.Qf7. E: 1.Ra3/Sb5/Sb1/Sa4/Sge4/Sd1/Qe3/Qxf2/

d6? b1Q/b1S/cxb1S/c1Q/c1S/cxd1S/fxg1Q/hxg1Q/

h1Q! 1.Sce4! F: 1.Qh5/Qh6+/Qxh7/Qf3/Qd3,Qf1/

Qc3/Qxb3/Qg2/Qh1? Bf5/Bg6/Bxh7/Bxf3/B(x)d3/

Bd5/Bc2/Bxg2/Bxh1! 1.Qe3! G: 1.Sg6/Sf7/Sd7/Sc4/

Sxd3/Sxf3/Sg4? Bd5/Kd5/Kxf5/Kxd4/Kxd3/Kxf3/

Kxf4! 1.Sc6!

C J.F.Ling

The Problemist

1954

(v E.Ferrón)

wdwgBdwd
dKdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
iwdNdRdw
wHwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
4wdwdwdw

E E.Ferron
(after D.Stojnić)

Original

wdwdwdwG
dw0wdwdb
wdKdwdwd
dwdPdwdw
wdkdw)wd
dRHwdQHw
P0p)w0w0
dwdwdw$w

G M.Žigman

5 Pr= Problem TT 1971
(v E.Ferrón)

bdBdwdQd
dwdwdw)K
wdwdwdwd
dwdwHPdw
Rdw)k)w$
dwdpdpdw
wdw0n)wd
dwdwdwdw

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

429

One of the more curious twomove records is H,

sent to me by the composer, showing as many as 8

variations after a self-stalemating key-move by

White. An older record with a modern flavour is J,

which combines a BS wheel of refutations with

another in actual play, and all in Meredith. I showed

the same combination for BP4 in C10132 in the

November 2005 Problemist. Unfortunately both

problems have a simple waiting key, so that solvers

would be unlikely to spot the try pattern without a

hint. The record for the number of changed mates in

a total mutate (where all the set mates are changed)

is 5, and there are three examples of this in my book,

all more than fifty years old (253*-255*). In his

January 2006 column Lu Citeroni quoted a fine

recent example by S.Karnatsky, a prizewinner in

2004. All these four have white force idle in the

actual play – not perhaps a serious blemish, but one

which is avoided in two further examples sent by

Ferrón. K suffers from congestion, but L, with its

light construction, flight-giving key and eleventh

added mate, is probably the best setting yet. Ferrón

has also sent M, a mutate with two set mates

changed to seven, plus one subtracted and one

added. The seven changes are fewer than the 9 in the

similar 256; but M increases the number of different

mates after the key, whereas 256 reduces them from

nine to three. Finally, N with only 16 men wrests the

economy record for four Schiffmann defences from
550.

My final four twomovers cover two related tasks

which are not included in my book, the Vladimirov

reversal theme (Try 1.A? x! Try 1.B? y! Key 1.C x/y

2.A/B) and the double duel (in which the same pair

of white and black men engage in both a try-and-

refutation duel and an actual duel). As John Rice

demonstrated in two articles in the January 1995 and

January 1996 Problemist, Vladimirov records tend

to rely on captures of the try-piece and counter-

captures in the actual variations. Thus O shows 14

such mutual captures, and with the added brutality of

checking tries the record goes up to 16 (N.G.G. van

Dijk, The Problemist 1996 – b4r2/6S1/B3Q3/

1p4K1/1P1R4/q4k2/1PR3ps/3SBrs1 – #2: 1.White

checks? Black captures! 1.Bh4!). Without mutual

captures no more than 3 Vladimirov variations have

been shown, and P matches this record with

technical perfection, White’s moves (tries and

mates) being made from the same starting square.

Brutal Vladimirov examples often feature double

duels: O shows two fivefold ones and one fourfold.

__________________________________________________

Solutions H: 1.d4. J: 1.Qa4,Qa6,Qd8/Qa7/Qb8/

Qa5,Qc8,Qe8/f7/Kg5/Ba7,Bc5,Bd4/Ra1? Sb4/Sb6/

Sc7/Se7/Sf6/Sf4/Se3/Sxc3! 1.g5! K: 1.Re6. L:

1.Qb5. M: 1.Rxg5. N: 1.Rd8. O: 1.Bb2-f6/Rh2-h6,

Rc8-f8? BxB/RxR! 1.g4! P: 1.Sc2/Sd3/Sd5? Qxf2/

Qxf3/f5! 1.Qb1!

H G.Maleika

Probleemblad

1980

wdndw4wi
dw)pdPdp
wdw)wIwd

dwdpGp$p
wdwdp)wg
dwdP)whw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

J G.Jönsson

Schackvärlden

1939

Qdwdwdwd
dRdwdwdw
wdwdw)wd

dwdndwdw
wdwdwdPI
dwHwdkdw
wdwdNdw$
dwdwdwGw

K H.Fröberg

6 HM Göteborgs Posten
1951

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0pdw0wd
gn4kdPdp
w)NdRIp)
dwdB0P!w
wdNdPdwd
dwdRdndw

L S.Turiev

Shakhmaty v SSSR

1962

whwdQdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw)wdwd
dw)kdpdw
N0wdR)w0
dwdw)ndB
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdwdK

M T.Kardos

British Chess Magazine
1952

Ndwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
p)wdwdwd
irdwdw0w
wgwdwdR0
0PdBdpdK
PdwdpGwd
dwdw!w$N

N J.Fulpius

Die Schwalbe

2004

wdRdwdwd
dKdBdNgw
wdwdwdwd
dw0k)wdR
wdwdwdNd
dPdnGn1w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdQdw

O M.McDowell
(after F.Schrüfer)

The Problemist

1996

K$wdwdri
)wdwdwgr
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdPdw)w
wdwdw0Pd
GwdwdQdR

P D.Stojnić

Mezija

2005

wdwdwdbd
dK0wdp4Q
PdRdwdwd
0kdw)wdw
pHw0wdpd
)wdwdPdw
Pdwdw)qd
dwdwhwdw

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

430

With checking and pinning tries, Q shows a 6-fold

double duel between queens, with only one capture-

free variation (1…Qe4 2.Qh5). Again the record for

a double duel without mutual captures appears to be

no more than 3, and R is a beautiful non-Vladimirov

example between bishops, using cyclical rather than

retaliatory mechanisms: each try preempts one

defence and provides for another in rotation, while

in the actual play the WB repairs the damage done

by each defence.

Turning to promotion records, I have two cooks

to report. XVIII in my September 2005 update,

which claimed to show 7 promotions to WR in a

selfstalemate, has been cooked by Unto Heinonen as

follows: 1.a8Q 2.b8R 3.Qa3 4.d8Q 5.e8Q 6.Qa5

7.Qd3 8.Qaa6 9.Qh8 10Qe7 11.Qhf6 12.Qfe6

13.Qh7 14.Qa8 15.Qa6 16.Rb1 17.Qa8 18.Qa7

Kxa7=. I do not know of a lower record to replace it.

Readers may also have seen from the March 2006
Problemist that F2406 was cooked, leaving

Heinonen’s fine XX in my September 2005 update

as the sole example of 7 promotions to BB in series-

helpstalemate. On the positive side, S is a much

better example than 680 of 3 promotions to WR in

helpstalemate, having less force, fewer moves, a

quiet key and a promotion to bR thrown in, while T

adds to the small number of such tasks in series-

mate form, showing 4 promotions to WS in as many

moves.

Finally, the big news on the length-record front

has been a renewed approach to the dual-free

selfmate record by Frank Müller and Karlheinz

Bachmann. In a magisterial article in the June 2005

issue of Die Schwalbe Müller provided a far more

thorough historical analysis of the “Bláthy matrix”

Q C.J.Morse

Original

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdw0w$w$

dwdPdwiw
wdwdwdqd
dwdwdwdw
wdNdpIw!
dwdwHwdw

R D.Stojnić

2 Pr N.Leontyeva-75 JT
2003-4

wdwdwdwd
dwdw0w!w
wdwdpdw)

0w)P)pdw
wGwdwiwg
dwdwHw$w
wdwdwdBd
$wdwdKdw

S E.Minerva & A.Garofalo

Best Problems

2005

wdwdwdwd
dw)niP)w
wdwdw0wd
dwdwdwdw
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw0wdwd
dwdwdwdw

H=3½

T E.Minerva

Best Problems

2005

wdbgr4wd
0Pdw)P)w
wdkdwdwd
dnhpdKdw
wdw1wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

Ser-#4

than is given in Chapter 18 of my book. He showed that the matrix originated not with Bláthy but with a

problem by W.A.Shinkman in New York Clipper, 1903 (6KQ/1s1P4/1Pp5/p7/B1P4p/p5pr/pb4p1/rk5b, S#240

but solving in 223 moves with duals). Nineteen years later Bláthy made his great extension to over 300 moves

(812† in my book), and it now seems right to call it the “Shinkman-Bláthy matrix”. The solution to 812†

contains a number of duals, and the dual-free length record has since 1987 belonged to 754†, Michel Caillaud’s

notable S#242 extracted from the same matrix. But Müller also reported that Bachmann had found a slightly

shorter, dualled solution to 754†, diverging some way back with 198.g4, leading to 222.g8Q 223.Qh8+ or

Qg7+ 224.Q to d-file or 4th rank 225.Qd4+, and ending with the wK mated on a5 by 240.Qxa3+ Rxa3#. The

same defect also invalidates Jacob Mintz’s 851, which by lengthening the introduction sought to raise the

record to 259 moves but now solves in 257 with the same duals.

Bachmann had naturally set to work to find a dual-free version of the new ending, and in the same issue of

Die Schwalbe as Müller’s article he made his bid for the record with a S#223 (6K1/1s5s/2p2B2/p1P1S1p1/

1p2q1pP/bB2QP1p/pk4pr/r6b). Here it is White’s h-pawn that promotes with check, while the WPg4 not only

eliminates the duals but also provides a crucial guard of f5 on the antepenultimate move – a lovely touch.

Unfortunately, Bachmann’s problem also offered a new introduction which, though ingenious, gave White too

much scope, and Olav Jenkner showed (with extensive computer analysis) that selfmate can be forced in about

70 moves. So the throne is temporarily vacant, and the dual-free length record rests with 753*, a S#195 using a

completely different matrix.

Those who would like more detail on the story to date can write to me or, better still, refer to Die Schwalbe

of June and December 2005. In the meantime I offer U and V. U is a basic version of Bachmann’s S#223. I

have simply removed the first 20 moves where the cook originated. Solvers and computer experts are asked to

re-test the last 15 moves for cooks or duals, and if possible the last 33 moves. If the ending survives this testing,

new efforts can then be made to extend the record by adding introductory moves. V jumps a long way down

Solutions Q: 1.Se3. R: 1.Bc3/Bd2/Be1? Bxg3/

Bg5/Bf6! 1.Ra4! S: 1…f8R 2.d1R Rxf6 3.Sf8 gxf8R

4.Rd8 cxd8R=. T: 1.bxc8S 2.gxf8S 3.fxe8S

4.exd8S#.

__________________________________________

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

431

that road. Mintz has taken his 851 and replaced its

dualled ending with Bachmann’s, but his

introduction (moves 1-65) still needs testing for

conventional or Jenkner-type cooks or duals.

As ever, I am pleased to hear from readers at

102a Drayton Gardens, London SW10 9RJ.

Cooks and corrections:

46 Cook: 1.Sg3+. Correction: WPc2>f4 and

BPd4>b2.

80 Cooks: 1.Sb6+, Sf6+, Sd4. Replace with B.

81 Cook: 1.Qe4 – also 4 of the thematic BB-

variations are dualled. Replace with A.

108 Cooks: 1.Rc7, Bf4, Bh6. Composer’s

correction (W.H.Thompson, La Stratégie 1907):

5q2/5P2/p1R3R1/4Q3/rk5r/p2p3p/2P2P1K/S1B1b3.

1.Rg5. But blend of 12WQ + 5BR is better shown in
8*.

110 No solution after 1…Rd1. Composer’s

correction: +WPd2.

124 Cook: 1.Sxg5+. Correction: e8=bS.

202(B) Cook: 1.Qxf3+. Correction: (v) 7R/

Kb4P1/1prp4/4pB2/5S2/4Qs2/7q/7k: 1.Be4.

482 No solution after 1…Rxc8. Irreparable.

523 Cook: 1.Be4. Correction: BPh5>h2, +BPg4

and BPg5.

Solutions U: 1-24.Qf4-f5-xg5-f5-f4-e4-e3-e1-

e4-e5-f5-f6-g6-g7-xb7-h7-h6-g6-g5-f5-f4-e4-e3-g1+

25.fxg4 26.Qd4+ 27-42 = 9-24. 43.Kf8 44-60 = 26-

42. 61.Ke8… 169.Kxa5 170-4.Qd4-b4-e4-e3-g1+

175.h5… 181.h6… 187.h7 188.h8Q+ 189.Qd8

190.Qdd4+ 191-2.Bxc6-e4+ 193.Qd3+ 194.Qf2+

195.Qdxd2+ 196.Qg3+ 197-8.Qdd3-d6+ 199-

201.Bd5-xa2-d5+ 202.Qde5+ 203.Qxa3+ Rxa3#.

V: 1-3.Qb3-d3-e3+ 4-5.Sd2-c4+ 6-8.Qd3-d2-d1+

9.Sba3+ 10-12.Qb3-d3-e3+ 13-14.Sd2-e4+ 15-

19.Qd3-d2-d1-d3-d4+ 20-3.Sc3-xd5-c3-e4+ 24-6.

Qd3-c3-b3+ 27.Rd1+ 28-31.Qxd1-b3-d3-e3+ 32-3.

Sd2-f3+ 38.Qg6+ 39.Bh6+ 40.Qxh6+…47.Qe1+

…54.Qb7+…63.Qe1+ 64.Sxg1 hxg1Q (best)

65.Qxg1…83.Kf8…209.Kxa5 210-4.Qd4-b4-e4-e3-

g1+ 215.h4…221.h5…as in U…249.Qxa3+ Rxa3#.

U K.Bachmann

Die Schwalbe

2005 (v)

wdwdwdKd
dndwdwdw
wdpdwdwd

0w)wdwhw
BdwdQdp)
0wdwdPdp
pgwdwdp4
4wiwdwdb

S#203

V J.Mintz
(after K.Bachmann)

Original

wdw1wGKd
dndwdwdw
wdp$wdwd

0N)pdwdw
B0wdwdP4
dwdw!NdP
pdwdwdp0
4kgwdwhb

S#249

CORRECTIONS TO RECENT BCPS AWARDS

RETROS 2004

(a) The winner of the 3rd prize (R336 by

Aleksandr Kisliak) has a dedication which is

missing: “Dedicated to CCL on his 64th birthday”.

(b) The cooked R342 (by Paul Raïcan) was

“Dedicated to Thierry le Gleuher”. I guess that this

dedication should also be mentioned in conjunction

with the corrected R342v, which received the 4th

honourable mention.

anticipates the 2nd commendation (R332 by S.N.

Ravi Shankar): Willibald Roese, Funkschach 1926

(!!): White: Kd8, Bb7, Pc5; Black: Kb8, Ba7 (3+2),

–2 & #1 Proca. Solution: back 1.Bh1-b7 Kb7xSb8

2.Sc6xBb8+, forward 1.Sb4#. The logic is just the

same as in R332; but the older problem is even

better because it only needs 5 pieces. So the nice

R332 regrettably loses its award, and the problems

below it (R355 and R353) move up one place each.

Bernd Gräfrath

MOREMOVERS 2003

Brian Stephenson reports that the 2nd Prize

(C9963 Tkachenko) had been published in
Probleemblad and Klaus Wenda reports that the 2nd

Commendation (C9940 Pankriatev) had been

honoured in the Grunenwald Memorial Tourney

2002. This is a regrettable state of affairs, but our

thanks to Brian and Klaus for the information.

Our judge Arno Zude has ruled that C9963

should be removed from the Award without

replacement. C9940 should be removed, and the 3rd

& 4th Commendations (C9899 Shavyrin & C9879

Radović) should move up. The judgement is now

final. JGG

__________________________________________

Advance warning

Because of holidays and the date of the WCCC in

Wageningen the September issue may appear rather

later than usual. Apologies if this is the case. JMR

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

432

The Hampshire Telegraph & Post column

by Michael McDowell

In the early years of the twentieth century chess columns were a common

feature of British newspapers. The content ranged from those devoted exclusively

to the game, perhaps publishing local results, through those which contained both

game and problem material in varying degrees, to the small number which

concentrated solely on problems. Of those with problem content, some published

originals and ran informal tourneys while others simply quoted (often without

indicating as such, ignoring their responsibility to future researchers). Some

columns gained international reputations, such as those in the Hampstead and
Highgate Express, Bolton Football and Field, Western Daily Mercury and
Manchester Weekly Times. In the view of many of the leading problemists of that

time the best British newspaper column for problem content was that of the
Hampshire Telegraph and Post, which attracted contributions from numerous

famous names.

The column appeared for the first time in the Portsmouth-based newspaper the

Southern Daily Post on 23rd September 1911. This paper was discontinued in

February 1912 and the column transferred to the Hampshire Post, which was

incorporated with the Hampshire Telegraph in January 1914. The editor of the

new column was 22-year-old Guy Wills Chandler, resident in Southsea. Chandler

was an established name, having published his first problem in 1906. He would

never be a major composer, but had a number of awards to his credit. He had high

standards and an enormous capacity for work, both of which are reflected in the

column. A solving ladder was in place by December 1911, though it was not until

1915 that the first informal tourney was announced.

The column took some time to reach its full glory. In the early years a typical

column featured a diagrammed original and a quoted problem in notation. Tourney

awards would be publicised, and theoretical matters discussed. Although well-

known composers such as Daniel, Westbury and Williams contributed, most

originals were by names that would be unknown to modern problemists. A

reasonable standard was sustained, and it is worth quoting a simple but charming

example, 1, by C.A.Hirst from Leeds. The maximum amount of play is squeezed

from a tiny white force. Starting the BS at h3 would have given a changed mate

after 1…Bf6. Set 1…Sg7 2.Qf6. 1.Se7 (>2.Sg6) 1…Bf6, Sf6 2.Qb8; 1…Sf4

2.Qxh8; 1…Be4 2.d4; 1…Rg2 2.Sxc6.

2 is a joint composition by a well-known and a less well-known name.

H.Strong, from Sydenham, was a solver and occasional composer who died in

1915. The sacrificial key adds a third flight, and all three K-moves discover check.

The knights mate on c5, d5 and e5, and there is a neat by-play mate 2.Sb8. 1.Bf4

(>2.Qxe4) 1…Ke6+ 2.Sc5; 1…Kxf4+ 2.Sd5; 1…Kg6+ 2.Se5; 1…Qxf4 2.Sb8;

1…Qxf6 2.Rxf6.

Selfmates featured infrequently, as they generated little solver reaction. 3 may

have been inspired by the A.C.White Christmas book for 1912, The Theory of
Pawn Promotion. AUW with different continuations was not a new idea, but

Chandler thought that an original touch was added by each promoted piece giving

mate. The black S could be a P, and there was no need to start from a stalemate

position, as many alternative keys could have been incorporated, but it is obvious

that starting the queen at a1 produces the most thematic key! 1.Qe1 (-) 1…a1Q

2.Qd1+ Qxd1 3.Sf3+ Qxf3 4.Rd5+ Qxd5; 1…a1R 2.Ra4+ Rxa4 3.Rb4+ Rxb4;

4.Bxb6+ Rxb6; 1…a1B 2.Rbxb3 Bxb2 3.Qc3+ Bxc3 4.Rb4+ Bxb4; 1…a1S

2.Rxb6 Sc2 3.Qe3+ Sxe3; 4.Sf5+ Sxf5.

The main variations of 4 are reminiscent of the Stocchi block theme which was

developed over 20 years later. The mates which follow moves to f4 are separated

by dual avoidance, but a dummy piece landing on f4 would not defeat the threat,

while the selfblock element only operates after the mating move shuts off the

bishop’s guard. Curiously, there are tries 1.Bc7? Qf4!,and 1.Bd6? f4!, and moving

1 C.A.Hirst

Hampshire Post

24.5.1912

wdwdw!Ng
dwdwdwdw
wdpdpdwd

dwIwiwdn
wdwdwdwd
dw0Pdwdw
wdrdwdwd
dwdwdwdb

2 C.S.Kipping & H.Strong

Hampshire Post

8.11.1912

rdBdw$wh
dQdNdwdP
w0wdwHwg
0KdwGk1w
wdw)pdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdwdwdRd
dwdwdwdw

3 A.Bolus (after E.Eginton)

Hampshire Post

17.1.1913

wdbdwdwd
Gp)p)wdw
whwIwdwd
dRdwdwHw
wdwiwdwd
$pdwdwHw
p)wdw)wd
!wdwdBdw

S#4

4 W.B.Rice

Hampshire Post

21.2.1913

QGwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
KdPdwdw0
dN$wdpdr
wdw0kdwd
dwdwdwdR
wdw)ndwd
gbdwHqdw

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

433

the BBa1 to c3 would add the try 1.Be5? Sf4!. It is doubtful whether these are of

real value, as the latter two lead to multiple threats. 1.Qb7 (>2.Qe7) 1…Qf4 2.c7;

1…f4 2.Sd6; 1…Sf4 2.Re5; 1…Ba2 2.d3; 1…d3 2.Re3.

Examining the column the reader is struck by its vitality. In addition to book

reviews and news from other columns problem issues were robustly debated, and

letters published revealing surprisingly divergent opinions amongst the experts.

Chandler liked to include short biographies of composers, and published two full-

scale articles complete with photographs on C.A.L.Bull and E.E.Westbury. To

help less experienced composers improve their constructional ability he

introduced a synthetics competition. One popular feature was entitled

“Quartettes”, four small diagrams devoted to the work of a specific composer or

problems with a common theme.

Over time the column began to attract originals from more of the world’s

leading composers. It helped that the likes of Blake, Heathcote, Mansfield and

Westbury joined the solving ladder, and regularly offered detailed criticisms of the

published problems.

The name Bull promises model mates, and 5 does not disappoint. An original

touch is added by the trio of white captures on d4, which compensates for the

short threat. The problem was described by Heathcote as “…fresh and

unconventional.” 1.Qa1 (>2.Qxd4) 1…Sf3 2.Sxd4 (>3.Bd6); 2…Kf4 3.Se2;

2…Sxd4 3.Qxd4; 1…Sc6 2.Bxd4+ Kd6 3.Bc5; 2…Sxd4 3.Qxd4; 1…Sxe6

2.Qxd4+ Sxd4 3.Bd6.

6 is an early example of line Theme A. Black defeats a threat involving closure

of a white line of guard by closing a second line of guard. This is shown in the

four variations 1…Se3, 1…Sf5, 1…e5 and 1…Be5, the first two of which lead to

self-interference mates. Harley often reworked his problems. 6 was developed

from BCF Solving Tourney 1910 2R2K2/8/1r2S3/2pk1B2/S1s5/2Pr4/2P1R2B/

1Q4bb #2 1.Ke7. 1.Sg4 (>2.Sd2) 1…Se3 2.Sf2; 1…Sf5 2.Sg5; 1…e5 2.Sf6;

1…Be5, Rd4, Rc3, Bc1 2.Re5; 1…Rc2 2.Qd3; 1…Bc3 2.Qxb1.

Russian composer L.B.Salkind was unlucky with his entry to the Saalzeitung

tourney of 1912, which was provisionally awarded 1st Prize but subsequently

found to be unsound. The correction was enthusiastically received by the HT&P

solvers, although they overlooked a major dual in the by-play. 7 eliminates this

dual. Three queen sacrifices lead to models, and a fourth model follows 1…f4.

1.h3 (>2.Qxf5+ Kxf5 3.Rh5) 1…Sd4 2.Qf4+ Sxf4 3.gxf4; 1…Bxg3, Bf2 2.Qa1+

Sxa1 3.d4; 1…f4 2.Rh5+ Kd4 3.Sxb5; 1…Bxd3 2.Qxd3. Salkind’s version was

8/2S3Kp/r4P2/ppP1kp2/7R/4p1PP/2sP2s1/4bQ1b #3 1.d3. The intended defence

1…Rxf6 followed by 2.Re4+ does not defeat the threat.

The two set checks in 8 help to disguise the key move, which pins two white

pieces. Each knight unpin also unguards a vital square, and the captures of the

pinned pieces result in cross-check mates. Set

1…cxd4+ 2.Bxd4; 1…Sd5+ Sxd5. 1.Kxe4 (>2.Rf3)

1…Sd5 2.Rxd6; 1…Se6 2.Sd5; 1…Qxc6+ 2.d5;

1…either Rxe7+ 2.Se5.

Of 9 Heathcote commented: “A very fine three-er

and surprisingly difficult. At first sight it seems that

1.Qc7 must be more effective than 1.Qb8, and the

key can hardly be found until the play following the

K-moves has been discovered. The two quiet S-

moves after the BS has blocked c2 and b3 are really

beautiful, as also the unexpected threat. This would

certainly have been a prizewinner in any tourney.”.

1.Qb8 (>2.Sa1 axb1Q 3.Qh8) 1…Sb3 2.Sdc4

(>3.Qe5, 3.Qh8, 3.Bb2); 2…Kc3 3.Bb2; 1…Sc2

2.Sed4 (>3.Qe5); 2…Kc3 3.Bb2; 1…Kxe3, Kc3

2.Qb5.

5 C.A.L.Bull

Hampshire Post

4.10.1913

whwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
wdwdNdRd

dwGwiwhr
wdP0wdPd
dwdPdwdw
Kdwdwdbd
dwdQdwdw

6 B.Harley

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

3.7.1914

wdwdwdwd
dwdp0wdw
wdwhwdwd
dQ0wHwdR
wdrdk0wd
0wdwdNdK
wgwdPdnd
dbdRdwGw

7 L.B.Salkind

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

1.1.1915 (v)

wdwdwdwd
dwHpdpIw
wdwdw)wd
db)wipdw
wdwdwdw$
dwdP0w)w
wdndwdn)
dwdwgQdw

8 M.Marble

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

9.4.1915

(4 HM= Jan-June 1915)

qdwdrdwd
dwhpHrdw
wdR0wiN!
dw0wdwdw
wdw)pdwd
dwdpIw$B
wdwdwdwd
Gwdwdwdw

9 C.A.L.Bull

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

7.5.1915

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w)wipdw)
dwdwHwdw
pdwHPdb!
hwGwdwIw

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

434

G.H.Goethart was a composer who sent some of his best problems to the

HT&P. At first glance 10 is a typical English waiter, with an accurate collection

of eight mates, but an unusual touch is added by the fact that the three mates

following captures are all models. An informal tourney for two-movers had been

introduced at the start of 1915, and 10 placed top of the first award. 1.Rb4 (-)

1…Bxb4 2.Sxb6; 1…bxa4 2.c4; 1…cxb4 2.Qb3; 1…c4 2.Rxb5; 1…Sc6 2.Bxf7;

1…Se6 2.Qf3; 1…Se5 2.Sc3; 1…Sf else 2.Qf5.

Chandler described Kubbel’s work as “…remarkable for its sharpness of idea.

His strategic conceptions are invariably presented in a light and artistic manner.”
11 certainly fits the bill. The zugzwang in the sole variation has a curious

counterpart in the try 1.a3?, which fails because after 1…Bd2! White is in

zugzwang! The f4 pawn can be removed if the position is moved two squares to

the right. 1.Bd2 (>2.Qe4+ Kc4 3.Sd6) 1…Bxd2 2.a3 ~ 3.Qa2.

The significance of 12 was summarised by Mansfield: “By far the finest

rendering of the four-fold cross-check task. The bK has a flight, and the mates are

all discoveries – not mere interpositions and captures of the bR as in previous

examples.” The d7 P prevents a dual after the flight, ensuring complete accuracy.

1.Rc3 (>2.Re3) 1…Be5+ 2.d6; 1…Bxf4+ 2.Sde6; 1…Bc7+, Bxb8+ 2.Sc6; 1…B

else+ 2.Sfe6; 1…Ke5 2.Sd3.

Goethart again, this time in the role of pioneer of free change. Solvers

appreciated the unexpected sacrificial key of 13, which converts two prominent

set checks into pins and changes the mates. Set 1…Rc4+ 2.Sc6; 1…Rc3+ 2.Bxc3.

1.Sc5 (>2.Se6) 1…Rc4 2.Sexd3; 1…Rc3 2.Be3; 1…Kxc5 2.Qxa7; 1…Bxc5

2.Qg4.

The originals published on 18th February 1916 turned out to be the last for

some time. The column was suspended, as Chandler had enlisted. He served with

the British Expeditionary Force in Mesopotamia, and on returning simply

resumed the column on 17th October 1919 as if

there had never been a gap, even including the

solvers’ comments to the last published problems!

The informal tourneys were now extended to cover

three-movers.

A large number of Dutch composers supported

the column, the most famous being Goethart,

Hartong, Niemeijer, and Weenink. The lightly-set

mutate, 14, has three set mates replaced by five after

the battery-forming key. Set 1…B~ 2.Qxa6. 1.Qb3

(-) 1…Bb4 2.cxb4; 1…Bxc3 2.Qxc3; 1…B else

2.c4; 1…S~ 2.Qd5 (Set 2.Qe4); 1…e4 2.Rd2 (Set

2.Qd4); 1…f3 2.Re3.

Perhaps Chandler’s most important contribution

to the chess problem world was the guidance and

encouragement he gave to a newcomer from Devon,

Comins Mansfield. A friendship developed which

lasted until Chandler’s death in 1980. Mansfield was

15 when the column started, and within half-a-dozen

years had become one of the premier two-move

composers in the world. Not surprisingly, a number

of his early masterpieces were published in the

HT&P. The key of 15 abandons the battery, and

leads to a pair of variations where one of the half-

pinned pieces selfblocks, allowing a white battery

mate with self-interference. The by-play is of high

quality, especially 1…Se2. 1.Qf5 (>2.Rd4) 1…Sb5

2.Sc5 (Set 2.R on file); 1…Qd3 2.Sd4 (Set 2.Rc5);

1…Se2 2.d3; 1…Sxd5 2.Qxf1; 1…Qxb3 2.Bxb3;

1…Qxd2+ 2.Sxd2; 1…Se~ 2.Rc5. Mansfield

regarded the problem as a personal favourite.

10 G.H.Goethart

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

14.5.1915

(1 Pr Jan-Jun 1915)

wdwhBdwd
dpdwdndw
w0w0wdw0

gp0kdwdP
Ndwdwdw$
dwdwdwdQ
wGPdwHKd

dwdwdwdw

11 K.A.L.Kubbel

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

28.5.1915

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0wdwdwd
dPdkdNdw
pdw)w0wd
dwdwdPdw
PdwdQdwd
dKGwgwdw

12 G.Guidelli

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

24.9.1915 (1 HM

Jul-Dec 1915)

BGwdwdwd
dwdpdw1w
KdRgw4pd
dpdPdPdw
w$wHkHQd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdw)wd
dwdwdwdb

13 G.H.Goethart

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

18.2.1916 (3 Pr 1916-9)

wdK$wdwd
gwdwdw!w
wdwdwdwd
hpdPHwdw
rdwiNdwd
4wdpdw0w
wdwGwdwd
dwdw$wdw

14 H.Weenink

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

17.10.1919

wdwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
pdw)whwd
gwdw0Ndw
Qdwdw0wd
dw)kdwdw
wdwdRdwd
dwdwGKdw

15 C.Mansfield

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

24.10.1919

(1 Pr 1916-9)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdPdQdwd
GwdRdwdw
rdkdndw4
0Nhwdwdp
Bdq)wdwI
Hw$wdbdw

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

435

The British Chess Problem Society had been founded in August 1918, and at its

first AGM on 8th November 1919 it was decided that the HT&P column would

become the official organ of the Society. While four issues of the British Chess
Problem Journal had appeared between April and August 1919, produced by

BCPS Secretary H.W.Butler, it was never officially identified with the Society,

and now ceased publication. Butler was ill, and at the AGM was replaced as

Secretary by Chandler. This new role gave the column increased importance. In

addition to general Society news, results of BCPS composing tourneys were

published, including two complete columns devoted to the award in the Victory

Tourney. Two BCPS solving tourneys were conducted in 1920 and 1921, each

with 12 selected problems published at the rate of one per week. R.G.Thomson

and H.Weenink took the first prizes.

To maintain readers’ interest Chandler continually introduced new features. A

series began in November 1919 called Studies in Construction, in which a selected

problem would be fully dissected, while a judging competition was held in 1920,

solvers being invited to try to anticipate the judge’s top placings in the three-move

award for April – September.

Alfred Challenger, who in the 1950s became the oldest BCPS President, was a

talented composer whose work deserves to be better known. With only a Q and R

to manipulate, the well-keyed 16 yields 5 models. 1.Kg8 (>2.Rd3 Sxd3 3.Qxd3)

1…Bb1 2.Rd3 Bxc2 3.Qh7; 1…Bc4 2.Re3+ fxe3 3.Qg4; 2…Kxd4 3.c3; 1…Sd3

2.cxd3+ Kxd4 3.Qh8; 1…S else 2.Qg4 ~ 3.Qxf4; 1…Kxd4 2.Rxf4+.

Multiple unpinning of a wQ by interference was intensively investigated by the

Good Companions composers, the earliest fivefold settings being published in
Our Folder for May 1919. 17 is a less ambitious rendering, but is notable for its

form, being a block setting whose key introduces a third thematic variation. The

Ra6 is an unfortunate necessity. 1.Kg7 (-) 1…f6 2.Qd7; 1…e5 2.Qd5; 1…c3
2.Qd3; 1…Bb2 2.Qxb2; 1…Bc3 2.Sxc3; 1…Bxd4+

2.Sxd4; 1…S any 2.Rxb6.

Johan Scheel was a composer whose work was

greatly admired by Chandler. Blake summed up the

general view of 18, commenting “Very clever, the

models by 3.Rf7 and 3.Pe5 being uncommon”, while

Heathcote added “Distinguished, like most of the

author’s three-ers, by freshness of combination and

fine construction.” 1.Qd5 (>2. Rxg4+ Kxg4 3.Qd1)

1…Kf6 2.Sg7+ any 3.Rf7; 1…h2 2.Rf2+ Kf6 3.e5;

2…Kh5 3.Rxh2; 1…gxf5 2.Qxf5+

The festive season was the time to entertain

solvers with less serious problems, and the name

Dawson featured prominently. 19, while easily

solved, shows a threefold echo with perfect

economy. 1.Kg5 (-) 1…c5 2.Kh6 c4 3.g4 c3 4.g5

Rh2; 1…h6+ 2.Kh5 c5 3.g4 c4 4.Qg6 Rh2; 1…h5+

2.Kh4 c5 3.g3 c4 4.Qg5 Rh2.

You might expect more models in 20, given the

author, but you would be disappointed! Despite the

triple threat the play is completely accurate, and,

surprisingly, in three of the four lines both knights

are captured. The echo adds a Bohemian touch.

1.Kb4 (>2.Sg4, 2.Sd6+, 2.Qf3+) 1…Kxf5 2.Qg4+

Kxe5 3.Kc5 f5 4.Qd4; 1…Kd5 2.Qf3+ Kxe5 3.Kc5

exf5 4.Qe3; 1…exf5 2.Kc5 fxe5 3.Kc4 f4 4.Qd3;

2…f4 3.Qd3+ Kxe5 4.Qd5; 1…fxe5 2.Se7 Kd4

3.Qf3 e4 4.Qc3.

Traxler was a versatile composer, equally capable

of making monumental Bohemian masterpieces or

16 A.C.Challenger

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

21.11.1919

(4 Pr Oct-Mar 1919-20)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdK
wdw0wdwd

dwdpdw)w
w)w)k0wd
dwdwdRdQ
bhPdwdwd

gwdwdwdw

17 G.Guidelli

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

28.11.1919 (1 Hm

Jan 1916-Dec 1919)

wHndwdwd
dwdwdpdw
R0wdpIw0
0kdwdbdR
pdp!wdwd
Gwdwdwdw
wdwdNdwd
gwdwdwdw

18 J.Scheel

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

12.12.1919

(HM Oct-Mar 1919-20)

wdwdwdn4
dwdwdQdw
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdNiw
wdwdP$pd
Iwdwdwdp
wdwdwdwd
dwGwdwdw

19 T.R.Dawson

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

25.12.1919

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdw!p
wdpdwdwd
dwdwdKdw
wdwdwdwd
Hwdwdwdw
p4wdwdPd
iwdwdwdw

R#4

20 M.Havel

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

9.4.1920

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdp0wd
dwdwHNdw
wdwdkdwd
Iwdwdw!w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

21 K.Traxler

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

21.5.1920

(1 HM Apr-Sep 1920)

wdwdwdwd
dK!wdwdw
w0wdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
w0wHwdwd
dpdwdwdw
wdRdwdwd
dkdwdwgw

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

436

quirky lightweights like 21. Models are delivered from opposite corners, while the

shut-off adds a touch of strategy. 1.Qh7 (>2.Rd2+ any 3.Sxb3) 1…Bxd4 2.Rf2+

any 3.Qh1; 1…b2 2.Rc8+ any 3.Ra8; 1…bxc2 2.Qxc2+ Ka1 3.Sb3; 1…Ka1

2.Sxb3+.

Typical Westbury elegance in 22. The masked half-pin was considered novel

and is enhanced by the interferences on the B. The third interference on f6

completes a Grimshaw, and the check, permitted by the key, serves to prevent a

potential dual. All of the black pieces provide variations. 1.Rg5 (>2.Qf5) 1…Rf6

2.Rb4; 1…Sf6 2.Re7; 1…Bf6 2.Qxh7; 1…Rf8 2.Qxd5; 1…Se7 2.Qf4; 1…Bh3

2.Qf3; 1…Be5+ 2.Rxe5.

No review of the HT&P column would be complete without its most famous

original, 23. C.A.L.Bull had offered a prize of one guinea for the best rendering of

any particular theme that Chandler selected, so a Special Competition was

announced on 4th June 1920 asking for three-movers showing the half-pin theme.

The competition extended to the end of March 1921, but perhaps due to the

demise of the column shortly after no result was published. Only Weenink and

Anderson responded, the latter sending two examples. Chandler reported that 23

produced more reaction than any problem published for years, including this

eulogy from Harley: “I really must write to express my fervent admiration of

Anderson’s No.532. It is quite the best example I have seen of the New Three-

mover School, which combines the model mate theme with the best two-move

strategy. Anderson has got the full half-pin theme (1…Qg2 and 1…Be2)

combined with pin-models and Black interference! Not to mention the numerous

cross-checks. When one sees in addition that the key is thematic, one must admit

that this problem is a masterpiece.” 1.Bb6 (>2.Kc6 ~ 3.S~) 1…Be2 2.Kd7

(>3.Sc7); 2…Kxd5 3.Sxc3; 2…Qxd5+ 3.Sd6; 1…Qe2, Qg2 2.Sd6+ Kxd5 3.Bc4;

1…Kxd5 2.Bb7+ Ke6 3.Sd4; 2…Kc4 3.Sd6.

Hartong’s 24 is not difficult, but is amusing for the obstructions taking place at

a great distance from the black king. 1.Sb6 (>2.Sc8 ~ 3.Sxe7) 1…b3 2.Ra4 ~

3.Ra8; 1…Ba3 2.Be8 ~ 3.Rg1; 1…cxb6 2.c7 ~ 3.c8Q; 1…Bxd5 2.Sxd5 ~ 3.Sxe7.

A.M.Sparke was a regular contributor, and took first prize in the last informal

tourney for two-movers with 25, which presents cross-checks with correction play

and excellent varied by-play. Set 1…Rxc5+ 2.Bxc5. 1.Se5 (>2.Qd7) 1…R

random + 2.Scd7; 1…Rxe5+ 2.Se6; 1…Sf4 2.Sf3; 1…fxe5 2.Rd8; 1…Qg7, Qh7

2.Qd1; 1…c2 2.Qa1; 1…Se4 2.Sb3.

The Meredith 26 was criticised for some duals and short mates, but the four-

fold echoed model was considered to be a record at the time. 1.Bc7 (>2.Be2 >

3.Qe5; 2…Rxe2 3.Qd3; 2…Kf5 3.Qg6) 1…Kf3 2.Qf4+ Kg2 3.Qxf1; 1…Ra3,

Rb3, Rc3, Rg3, Rh3 2.Qe5+ Kf3 3.Qe2; 1…S~ 2.Bd3+ Rxd3 3.Qxd3; 2…Kf3

3.Qg3; 1…c4 2.Qf4+ Kd5 3.Qxc4.

Like many newspaper columns the HT&P

column came to an end because of pressure on

space. The 309th and final column appeared on 29th

April 1921. Chandler thanked all who had

contributed to raising the column to the status it

enjoyed in the chess problem world. Nearly a

thousand originals had been submitted and 429

published. He was justifiably proud that the expert

criticism of solvers had given the column an

educational value, and encouraged most of the

world’s best composers to contribute high-class

problems. He signed off as follows: “Only one who

has conducted a column of this sort week after week

can appreciate the volume of work it entails; but if

our efforts have helped the inexperienced, if we have

done a little for the cause of problem chess, we are

more than repaid.”

25 A.M.Sparke

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

28.1.1921

(1 Pr Jan-Apr 1921)

wdKdRdwd
dpdNdwdw
wGwdw0B1
dwHwdrdn
QdPiwdwd
dw0wdwhb
wdwdw)pd
dwdwdwdw

26 E.Palkoska

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

4.3.1921

bdwGwdwd
dwdpdwdw
Bdw!wdwI
dw0wdwdp
wdwdkdwd
dwdw4wdw
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdndw

22 E.E.Westbury

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

13.8.1920

(3 HM Jul-Dec 1920)

BGw4wdwd
dRdwdQgp
wdrdwdwd

dwdndwdp
wdwdkdwd
dNdw0w$w
wdwdPdbI

dwdwdwdw

23 G.F.Anderson

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

20.8.1920

(1 Pr Apr-Sep 1920)

wdwdwdwd
dwIwdpdw
Bdwdw)wd
dNdPdw)w
wdkdw)pd
)w0bGwdw
PdP1wdwd

dwdR4rdw

24 J.Hartong

Hampshire Telegraph &
Post

21.1.1921

wdwdwdkd
dw0N0wdw
wdPdN0Bd
dPdPdwdw
w0wdwdw$
dw0wdPdw
bgP0wdwI
4ndRdwdw

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

437

Tate composed more than 60 chess problems, mostly #2, #3 and selfmates, but also problems with unusual

stipulations and conditions, which were known as “eccentrics”. In December 1913 The British Chess Magazine

contained an article by Tate, titled Some Australian Novelties, in which he analysed some unusual problems by

Australian composers. One of the featured problems was his own A, with the following stipulation: Black, in
playing last, moved illegally, but made no capture. He moved one piece only, and that his own. Black has to
retract the illegal move, and to make a legal move instead, after which White mates in one move. The solution

is that Black illegally moved his bishop from h5 to h4. With the bishop replaced on h5 Black has the choice of

two moves, either of which lead to a self-block.

Tate wrote chess columns for The Australasian, The Leader and The Herald and Weekly Times. In The

Australasian of 20 June 1914 he introduced the term “fairy chess”:

That region which we think may fitly be called “Fairy Chess” is developing phenomenally … The old form

of the eccentric, built up on illegality and trickery, has given place, curiously enough, to an extremely fanciful

and delicate structure, which is usually based on the strictest logical principles.

A solving tourney for fairy chess problems was also announced. In a letter to A.C. White in 1915, Tate

wrote: I might mention that I am in active correspondence with Mr T.R. Dawson. One of our staples is the
“eccentric”. I am trying to get all the Australian eccentrics I can for him and so far have gathered up all the
loose ends in sight.

Dawson adopted the term “fairy chess” in the columns of The Chess Amateur. When Dawson started a

magazine devoted to the subject he called it Fairy Chess Review, apparently after rejecting other suggestions

such as The Chess Problemist’s Fairy!

Tate befriended the writer Katharine Susannah Prichard, and would frequently escape Melbourne to visit her

and others who had formed a literary coterie at a cottage at Emerald in Victoria’s Dandenong Ranges. Many

years later when Prichard wrote her autobiography, she paid tribute to Tate:

A friend brought Tate to see me. No one I had ever met seemed to me to be the crucible of such rare and

sublime genius as Henry Tate. I still feel that estimation of him was correct though all the years have not

brought him, or his music, the recognition they deserve.

A slight, cadaverous man with great luminous eyes and delicate hands, he was accountant in a fellmonger’s

warehouse when he used to come and play his new compositions to me. He worked all day in the foul odours of
that place, and at night or in any leisure moments created music inspired by the mystery and leafy-stirred
solitudes of the bush through which could be heard rhythms of the bird-calls. …

I remember so well how Tate’s “Dawn Symphony” was conceived. The Essons’ cottage at Emerald was

empty. I had been going there, now and then, for a quiet week of writing. The cottage stood in acres of virgin
forest, and the singing of the birds at dawn was marvellous. I wanted Tate to hear it, so took him and Mother
with me for a weekend.

Tate was so tired, and such a sleepy-head, that for a day or two I couldn’t get him out of bed early enough to

listen to the birds. Then, on the last day of his visit, determined that he should not miss their performance, I
roused him out of bed while it was still dark, Mother protesting: “Oh dear, let the poor man sleep”.

With overcoats over our pyjamas, like unquiet spirits, we went out of the house and sat on a stump at the

edge of the clearing. It was very cold, owls still muttering among the dark trees. But with the first light came

A H.Tate

1 Pr Eccentricity Ty,
Melbourne Leader 1912

wdwdwdwd

dwdwdwdw
wdw!wdPd

dwdwdwiw
wdwdPdNg
dwdwdPdR
Kdwdwdwd

dwdwdwdw

See text

HENRY TATE

by Geoff Foster and Bob Meadley

Henry Tate was born on 27 October 1873 in Melbourne, Australia. He became

interested in music and in 1895 enrolled at the Conservatorium of Music at the

University of Melbourne. His search for musical inspiration led him to collect

aboriginal and bird songs. Tate’s interest in developing a unique Australian sound

resulted in his 1924 volume Australian Musical Possibilities, and in the same year

he became music critic for Melbourne’s The Age newspaper. One of his works,
Dawn, an Australian rhapsody with a melodic and rhythmic foundation based on

Australian birdcalls, was performed by the university symphony orchestra.

Poetry was another of his many interests. His poems were collected and

published in 1928 under the title of The Poems of Henry Tate.

Tate was an excellent chess player. He won the minor championship of

Victoria in 1914 after only three years of chess experience, and represented

Victoria in inter-State matches on six occasions.

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

438

B H.Tate

Good Companions 1920

wdwdwdwd
hw0Ndwdw
N0wdwdKd
$wdpdwdw

Bdk0wdnd
dw1wdwdw
wdw$wdwd

Gw!wdwdw

#2 1.Qa3

After breakfast I settled down to writing as usual, but Tate wandered like a man possessed, through the

trees, along the creek, up and down the clearing. It was a glorious day of early spring. He was “drunk with it”,
he said when he went away by the evening train. …

Single-minded and of an unearthly disinterestedness, Tate strove to express his ideas in music, devoured by

the fire of his creative energy. Sometimes it flared into verse, fiercely ironical, ribald, or delicately lyrical as in
“Lost Love”.

The chess editorship of a weekly newspaper helped him to exist. From the time he was married, in his wife,

herself a chemist and violinist of distinction, he had a brave and loyal helpmate [sic]. … He wrote to me:

“I am more than ever convinced that only one thing matters to the creative artist, and that thing is to sit

down, produce and record your work. Do not move, just start and go on, regardless of this, that or the other,
until all energy is gone. Applause, money, success, prove nothing. Artists … have no death unless they die to
their own ideals. …”

He was my gentle and splendid friend, dear Tatey. When the plaint of a native cuckoo is in the air, I find

myself still grieving for him, resenting his death while he was still a young man, the loss to music and our
country.

Henry Tate died on 6 June 1926.
[Among Tate’s twomovers was B, diagrammed above and quoted in The Good Companion Two-mover

(1922) in a section headed “The changed mate key in non-block form”. – JMR]

Eopsaltria Australis, the psalmist of the dawn, as this yellow robin is called. He
sat on the branch of a wattle-tree near us and tuned his little harp. …

Then the native thrushes awoke. A cuckoo’s quavers flew with their wild

sadness: whipbirds, golden-breasted whistlers, all the warblers, wrens and tree-
creepers, tossed their ripples and runs into the air, while magpies and butcher-
birds fluted and yodelled, kookaburras laughed and hooted away in the back hills.

We might have been wood-bugs, Tate and I, we sat so still as the bird-music

drifted this way and that, drew to a mighty paean, and subsided.

It was well after seven when Mother came to the back door of the cottage and

called us for breakfast. “You look thoroughly disreputable, out there,” she said,
“a pair of scarecrows.”

275 Jean-Pierre Boyer

Sinf. Scacchistiche 1968

wGNdwdwd
Ipdwdwdw
w!wdwdNd
$wdndk0w
wdwdrdwd
dwdwdb)P
wdqdwdwd
dBdrdRdw

#2 1.Sf8

SYNTHETICS

edited by Zoran Gavrilovski

P.fah 137, Skopje MK-1001, Macedonia

(email mprobl@yahoo.com)

Synthetic 278: Selfmate in two moves: 1.Qe3!

1...Bxg7 2.Sd4+; 1...Sg5 2.Sd5+; 1...Sf6/c6/e6

2.Sg6+; 1...c5 2.Sg5+.

Synthetics 275: No improvement by the solvers.

SYNTHETICS LADDER 2005

Synthetic 269 270 271 272 273 274a274bYear Total
Maximum 12 12 12 12 12 20 20 100

Anonymous

11 -

11 11

A.Bouwes I

11 -

12 11 19 20 80 8

B.Chamberl’n II12 12 -

11 -

15 20 70 88

C.Grassano

11 11

S.Emmerson 12

12 36

R.Ganapathi I 12 11 11 11 12 20 20 97 5

D-I.Nicula

11 20

31 43

A.Kay XIV

12 16 64 123

R.Krätschm’r II 12 12 -

24 180

V.Krivenko III 12 12 12 12 12 -

60 96

K.Muralidharan -

12 -

11 12 20 20 75 75

E.Petite IX

12 12 12 12 12 20 20 100 178

G.Prahl X

12 12 12 12 12 20 20 100 42

M.Schrader VII 12 12 12 11 11 20 19 97 153

G.Yacoubian II -

12 -

12 112

Ladder Ascents (1 ascent = 200 points): Alex Bouwes - I,

R.Ganapathi - I, Gerd Prahl - X.

2005 Championship

Congratulations to

Efrén Petite and Gerd
Prahl on winning the

2005 contest with a

perfect score! Welcome

to new solver C.

Grassano (Argentina),

and an anonymous

solver from Israel. A sad

goodbye to the late

K.Muralidharan.

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

439

KEEPING UP WITH MR JONES

Recent awardwinners selected by John Rice

You might well think Christopher Jones uses a

defective set when composing his splendid 3-move

helpmates: white K, R, B, a few stray pawns, and

hardly ever any other white units. It’s deliberate, of

course. The R and B combine to show echoed effects

(usually orthogonal/diagonal transformation), and the

danger of cooks is substantially reduced. Here are 8

recent awardwinners, selected more or less at random

from among the many that have appeared in the last

few months. No other British composer has achieved

such success.

1 1.Kb4 Rc3 2.Sd3 Bxb5 3.Rc5 Rxb3; 1.Kd5

Bxb5 2.Sd7 Rc3 3.Bd4 Bc6. Anticipatory check-

avoidance, white anticritical move, inversion of W1

and W2.

2 (a) 1.Rf7 Bc1 2.Se2 Rxd5+ 3.Kf6 Bg5; (b)

1.Qg4 Rxa6 2.Se3 Bxd4+ 3.Kf5 Rf6. Unpin of black

Ss to allow anticipatory check-prevention.

3 (a) 1.Sxb5 Bxd5+ 2.Kxd5 Kxb5 3.Se6 Rxd7; (b)

1.Rxc5 Rxe4 2.Kxe4 Kxc5 3.Sf3 Bh7. Square-

vacation sacrifices by both Black and White, with

Zilahi. Shift of BK is not the happiest twinning

mechanism, but there are times when, as here, it can

produce satisfying effects. A pity that, for reasons of

soundness, the bK could not be shifted to d3 for (b).

4 1.Qd4 exd5 2.Bxf5 bxc3 3.Ke4 Rxd4; 1.Rd6 e6

2.Bf6 bxc5 3.Ke5 Bxd6. Unlike some composers,

Christopher is quite happy to include capture of black

force among the many effects he uses. Here the

outcome is a striking ODT.

5 (a) 1.Qa5 (Qb1?) Rb5 2.Kc3 (Qb4?) Rb2 3.Qb4

Rc2; (b) 1.Qb1 (Qb5?) Bc2 2.Sb4 (Qb3?) Ba4 3.Qb3

Bb5. The bQ picks her moves and her timing with

great care. Another attractive ODT.

6 1.Sxe6 Sg5 2.Sxd4 Se6 3.Rb3 Rxd4; 1.Sxf4

fxe3 2.Sxd5 Sf4 3.Rb4 Bxd5. What, a wS on the

board? The ubiquitous R and B are there too, but one

of them is captured in each solution, and the S

provides cover, occupying squares vacated by black

Ss.

7 1.Ke3 fxe5 2.Qf2 Bd5 3.f4 exf6; 1.Kd5 exf3

2.Bd6 Re2 3.Sc4 fxg4. Very rich play: the bK frees a

pinned black unit to allow it to selfblock, and the

second pin-line is transformed into a white battery

which fires after White has closed a black line of

guard.

8 1.Qd4 Rc3 2.Sd3 Rxc4 3.Se5 Rxd4; 1.Rg3 Bg1

2.Sf2 Bxh2 3.Sg4 Bxg3. Black needs to block a

square with a S, and the only route is via the square

initially occupied by the white mating piece, a fact

that neatly determines the move-order. Could this be

set as a twin with just one bS? No: without Sb2 the

problem is sound, but remove h3 and it cooks.

1 Christopher Jones

2 Pr Orbit 2005/II

whwdBdwd
drdwdwgK
wdw0pdw)

0piwdrdw
wdwdw)wd
dpdwdR1w
Pdwdwdwd
dbhwdwdw

H#3 2 solutions

2 Christopher Jones

1 HM Orbit 2005/II

wdwdwdwd
dwdw4w0w
pdwdqdpd

$wdniwdw
w0whwdwd
dbdPdwdw
rGwdwdpd
dwdwIwdw

H#3 (b) Pg7>g5

3 Christopher Jones

3 HM Orbit 2005/I

wdrdwdBd
hwdp$wdw
wIwdwdwd
dP)pdwhw
wdk)p0pd
dwdw0wdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#3 (b) BK>f3

4 Christopher Jones

3 C= Šachová skladba
2003

nGwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
K0wdwdwd
dw1r)Pdw
w)RdPiwd
dwgbdpdw
w)wdw)wd
dwdwdwdw

H#3 2 solutions

5 Christopher Jones

3 C= Šachová skladba
2003

wdwdwdwI
dw0wdpdB
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdqdR
wdk0wdw4
dwdwdbdw
Pdwhwhwd
4wdwdwdw

H#3 (b) Pa2<>Sd2

6 Christopher Jones

1 HM harmonie 2004

wdwdwdKd
dwdwdwdw
wdw0Bdpd
dpdPdphn
wdk)w$wd
dw0w0wdN
wdwdw)wd
drdwdwdw

H#3 2 solutions

7 Christopher Jones

2 HM harmonie 2004

wdwdwdwd
dwdw$pdw
wdwdw0wd
dw4wgpdb
pdw0k)pd
dwdwdqdw
whp4PdBd
dwdwdwdK

H#3 2 solutions

8 Christopher Jones

2 HM Quartz 2001-2

Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdpdwdwd
dw)wdpdp
wdrdqiw)
dwdRdrdn
whwdwGwg
dwdwdwdw

H#3 2 solutions

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

440

A Hans Peter Rehm &
Kjell Widlert

8 pl Andernach QT/2 2006

wdwdwGwd
dwdbdwdw
Kdwdkdwd

dwdndwdP
wdpdbdrd
dwdwdRdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#2 (b) Bd7>e5
Take&Make chess

B Dirk Borst &
Ruud Beugelsdijk

3 pl Andernach QT/2 2006

wdwdwdwd
dwdKdwdw
pdwdwdwd
dwiBdwdw
w0n$wdwd
dr)wdwdw
wdpdwdwd
gqdwdwdw

H#2 2 solutions
Take&Make chess

C Oliver Sick &
Norbert Geissler

v 4 pl Andernach QT/2 2006

wdwdKGwd
dw0pdwdw
wdpdwdwd
dw0wiwdw
wdw1wdwd
gwdwdwdw
wdwdwdrd
dwdwdrdw

H#3 (b) Bf8>g8
Take&Make chess

E Michel Caillaud

v 3 Pl Andernach QT/1 2006

w!wdwdBd
dKHpiPdR
wdwdwdwd
dwdRdw)w
wdw0wdwh
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

#2 Take&Make chess

F Uri Avner, Hans Peter
Rehm & Kjell Widlert

v 4 pl Andernach QT/1 2006

wdbdKdwd
dwdpHPdp
wdwdk)pd
$wdpdwdw
wdwdwdw4
dw!BdwGw
w4wdp)wd
dwgwdwdw

#2 Take&make chess

ANDERNACH & MESSIGNY 2006

Report by John Rice

The newly invented Take&Make chess (see the front page of this issue) kept

people busy at Andernach, and as usual a number of remarkable problems were

composed. If the award seemed to contain some inexplicable placings, it must be

borne in mind that the judging is done in quick time. So is the composing, of

course, but the organisers generously allow new versions to be submitted later,

though the award is not changed as a consequence. We’ll look first at a few of the

helpmates, which tend to be more accessible than the direct-play entries.

A: (a) 1.Rg6 hxg6-g8R 2.Bg6 Rxg6-e4; (b) 1.Bg6 hxg6-e8B 2.Rg6 Bxg6-g4.

Promotion through capture, followed by a further capture on the same square and

mate given on the square initially occupied by the piece captured on move 1. A

very artistic presentation.

B: 1.Qd1 Bxc4-e3 2.Rxc3-c4 Rxd1-h5 (2.Bxc3-c4? … 3.Rxe3-g5!); 1.Qh1

Rxc4-e5 2.Bxc3-c4 Bxh1-g1 (2.Rxc3-c4? … Bxe5-e3!). Reciprocal battery-

creation through capture, and reciprocal dual avoidance on B2, a lovely idea.

C: (a) 1.Qd5 Bxc5-c4 2.Be7 Bxf1-f8 3.Kd6 Kxe7-f6; (b) 1.d6 Bd5 2.Rf7

Bxg2-g8 3.Kd5 Kxf7-f5. A most attractive echo, introduced by a peri-manoeuvre

by the wB and ending in a royal battery mate.

D: 1.Rg6 Rf6 2.Bf1 Se6; 1.Bh5 Bg4 2.Rd7 Sf3. The bK must be denied access

to f1 in the first solution and to d7 in the second, so that the white piece next to

the bK is immune from capture in the mating position. A first-rate problem.

The entries for the direct-mate section varied considerably in quality. Michel

Caillaud, having missed the BCPS Weekend in Derby, was keen to get back to

quick composing and produced a number of entries, of which E was placed

highest. The flight-giving key 1.Sb5 has a T&M

motivation, as the variation-play shows. The threat is

2.Re5, and there follows an Allumwandlung by

White: 1…Ke6 2.f8Q – the presence of the wS on b5

prevents the bK from playing 2…Kxd5-b5,a5, and

promotion to Q rules out 2…Kxd5-c5 and 2…Kxd5-

f5; 1…Sf3 2.f8R (2…Kxf8-f3?); 1…Sg6 2.f8S

(2…Kxf8-g6?); 1…d6 2.f8B (2…Kxf8-b4?). You

can expect something good from a triumvirate such

as Avner/Rehm/Widlert, and they certainly do not

disappoint with F: 1.f8S+? Kxe7-g8! 1.Sxd5-d4+?

Rxd4-~ 2.f8S, but 1…Rxd4-b5! 1.Sxg6-g5+? Bxg5-

~ 2.f8S, but 1…Bxg5-e4! 1.f8Q? (>2.Qg8) Bf4

2.Sxd5-d4; 1…Rf4 2.Sxg6-g5; 1…Rc4/Re4 2.Bxc4-

g4/Bxe4-g4; but 1…Bg5! So 1.f4! (>2.f5) Bxf4-f5

2.Sxg6-g5; 1…Rxf4-f5 2.Sxd5-d4; 1…Kd6 2.Qxb2-

b6. The arrival of a wP on f4 causes the black units

arriving on that square with capture to move on to

f5, thereby relinquishing essential guards. This

effect brings about reciprocal change as compared

with what happens after 1.f8Q?, when there is no wP

on the intersection square f4.

If this fine idea earns only 4th place, what kind of

entry comes top of the pile at Andernach? G needs

28 pieces including an array of Lions to show a

Lačný cyclic shift. 1.b4? Sc5! 1.RLc6+? Bxd6-d7!

1.BLxb5-b4? (>2.RLc6) Sc3 2.Lxf3-f6; 1…Sc5

2.Lxf3-e3; 1…Rd7 2.Lxf3-f5; but 1…Rc3! So

1.RLb4! (>2.RLc6) Sc3 2.Lxf3-e3; 1…Sc5 2.Lxf3-

f5; 1…Rd7 2.Lxf3-f6. To see how all this works,

you should ask why the thematic mates are not

D Thomas Maeder &
Ulrich Ring

v 2 pl Andernach QT/2 2006

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdndp
wdR4wdwg
dwdp0wiw
wdwHPdw0
dwdpIwdp
wdwdbdwd
dwdBdwdw

H#2 2 solutions
Take&Make chess

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

441

G Reto Aschwanden

1 pl Andernach QT/1 2006

wdw4rdwd
$Qgw4pGw
w0w)kdw$

dpdwdwdR
ndP$Rdwd
gPdBdr0B
wdRdpdwd
dwdwHndw

#2 Take&Make chess
No wK

=Lion

R/B

=Rook/Bishop-Lion

H Dirk Borst

2 pl Andernach QT/3 2006

r1bdwgn4
0p0wdpip
whwdwdwd

dwdp0wdB
PdwdwHPd
dwdP)wdK
wdPdw)w)
dNgRdwdw

PG 14.0
Take&Make chess

L Menachem Witztum

HM Messigny QT/2 2006

wdbdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
wdwdwdqd
dp4wdkgw
wdNdwdwd
dwIPdwdp
QGwdwhpd
dwdwhrdw

H#2 (b) WQ>a4

M Maryan Kerhuel

HM Messigny QT/2 2006

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdBdN
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdkdw
wINdwdwd
dwdPGwdw
wdwdwdwd
4wdwdwdw

H#2 2 solutions

threatened, and how it is that the arrival of different

pieces on b4 and their departure from d3/d4 bring

about the shift. It’s an impressive task, but achieved

at considerable cost.

Section 3, for Proof Games and Retros, also

attracted a fair number of entries. Dirk’s H shows

cyclic Platzwechsel of 3 bBs: 1.a4 e5 2.Ra3 Bxa3-h3

3.d3 d5 4.Bh6 gxh6-c1B 5.e3 Sd7 6.Be2 Sb6 7.Bh5

Bcg4 8.Se2 Qb8 9.00 Bxb2-b4 10.Sf4 Bxd1-c1

11.Rd1 Bc8 12.g4 Kf8 13.Kg2 Kg7 14.Kh3 Bf8.

Another cyclic Platzwechsel (Ps a7/d7/e7) in I: 1.b4

a5 2.b5 Ra6 3.bxa6-a8S Sf6 4.Sxc7-c6 dxc6-a7 5.h3

Bg4 6.hxg4-c8Q Sc6 7.Qe6 Qc7 8.Qd6 exd6-d7 9.a3

Bb4 10.axb4-f8B Kd8 11.Bb4 axb4-e7.

Messigny in early June, one weekend after the

Andernach meeting, offered not only a completely

different atmosphere but also a much wider range of

composing tourneys. The best kind of theme for a

direct-mate tourney stipulates what happens on

White’s moves, ideally in the key. When the theme

specifies black moves, as on this occasion, it’s

harder work for composers. Required were two- or

threemovers showing mutual unpins by two black

pieces pinned in the diagram position. Using some

supplementary force, Uri Avner gained a special

prize for J, given here in a later revision. The theme

is extended to a cycle of unpins: 1.Rb1? (>2.Rb6)

Qe5 2.Sf8; 1…Qxc4! (Q unpins Sd5); 1.Qd4?

(>2.Sf8) Sf6! (Sd5 unpins Sg6); 1.Rh5! (>2.Bxf5)

Se5 2.Sf8 (Sg6 unpins Q).

The helpmate theme was a simple one, and

entries consequently ran the risk of anticipation:

unpin or anticipatory unpin of a white unit. As often

happens at these weekend gatherings, Menachem

Witztum competed from Israel by mobile phone,

sending several entries, one of which (K) was

awarded the only prize. (a) 1.Bc6 Qd5 2.Sxg5 Bxe5;

(b) 1.Bb6 Bc5 2.Se8 Qxf5. Complex line-play,

though with a lack of harmony on B2. In his

comments on L – (a) 1.Se4+ Kb4 (Kb3?) 2.Rf4 Sd3;

(b) 1.d5 Kb3 (Kb4?) 2.Be6 Sd6 – judge Yves Tallec

expressed doubts about the Pd3, added by the

composer to make B1 in (a) pure in aim (closure of

f4-b4, not also block of e4). Both solutions work

without this P. The 8-piece M sets the theme with elegance: 1.Rf1 Bd4 2.Rf4 Se3;

1.Rg1 d4 2.Rg4 Sd6. There were several other composing tourneys too: for
Echecs anticipés (a K is in check when the opposing side can capture it on the

following move or in two series moves – won by Michel Caillaud with a Proof

Game), for studies (winner Daniel Keith), and for joke problems (winner Thierry

le Gleuher). The winning entries are unfortunately not to hand.

The annual French solving championship, attracting 23 entrants, resulted in a

win for Michel Caillaud – no surprise there – with 49 points, closely followed by

Garen Yacoubian on 48. 3rd was Alain Villeneuve (39) and 4th Pascal Wassong

(36). Michel also won the now traditional Retro solving contest with a perfect

score in 92 minutes, 17 minutes faster than Pascal, who likewise dropped no

points at all. Also traditional is a Blitz over-the-board contest, this year for

double-move chess in the Galvin version, in which check can be given on the first

of a pair of moves, with capture of the K on the second. Bernard Montangerand

was the winner, with Alain Villeneuve and John Beasley joint 2nd.

I Michel Caillaud

1 pl Andernach QT/3 2006

wdwiwdw4
0p1p0p0p
wdndwhwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdP)P)Pd
$NGQIBHR

PG 11.0
Take&Make chess

J Uri Avner

v Sp Pr Messigny QT
2006

wdwdBdNd
dwdN0wdp
wdwdkdn$
dw)ndrdw
wdQdq0B0
Iwdpdwdp
wdwdwdbd
dwdw$wdb

K Menachem Witztum

Pr Messigny QT/2 2006

wdwdwdwd
dwdw0whw
KdwGQdw4
drdw0p)p
Rdwgbiw0
dwdqHndp
wdw)wdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#2 (b) Pd2>h2

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

442

CHAMPIONSHIP ORIGINALS

TWOMOVERS: David Shire, 25 Palmars Cross Hill, Rough Common, Canterbury CT2 9BL

THREE- and MOREMOVERS: Jim Grevatt, Lazybed, Headley Fields, Headley, Hants GU35 8PS

Judges for 2006: #2 Wieland Bruch; #3 Francesco Simoni; #n George Georgopoulos

Twomovers

The first two problems are not cluttered with tries

and they should prove to be a good starting point for

your solving. C10313 and C10316 are both of a task

nature in their different ways. Herbert rarely features

in British columns so I was delighted to receive his

highly characteristic contributions. Likewise it was a

pleasure to hear from Marcel; at 93 it seems he may

be making his second comeback to composition so

there is hope for us all! Do note that C10317 is a
progressive twin. Marco again presents a pointed

combination of strong themes and Aaron offers a

clear choice between try and key. Finally, do enjoy

analysing the several aspects of constructional

technique displayed in C10320, a model of its kind.

Have fun! DJS

Three- and moremovers

First a demonstration of all the elements that can

go into a mating move, as a precursor to a

forthcoming article. An exercise in black

interference and decoy from the prolific pair.

Another maximum task (what is it?) from Sir

Jeremy, which well excuses the forceful key. A

second unusual offering from Janevski, with pattern

play. Chris Reeves’s problem was developed from a

competition at Derby; more details with the solution.

A most original matrix by Marker, which needed 3

WBs to get sound.

An amusing Tkachenko miniature, but beware of

2 close tries. Vinagre’s 2 solutions are neatly, but

not boringly, matched. Zgerski shows related model

mates. Now into a different league with a difficult

and most welcome exercise in repeated manoeuvres

by Hans Peter Rehm. To close, another miniature –

less difficult but how to avoid BR checks without

stalemating? JGG

SOLUTIONS (January)

C10248

(Lincoln) (a) 1.Qh1! (>2.Qb7)

1...Bg2/b4/axb6 2.Qa1/Qxf1/Qa8. (b) 1.Qg8!

(>2.Qc8) 1...Bf3/b4/axb6. 2.Qa2/Qc4/Qa8. (c)

1.Qe6! (>2.Qc8) 1...Bf3/b4/axb6 2.Qa2/Qc4/Qxb6.

A wealth of WQ activity is apparent in the three

phases in addition to her role in the try-play (DJS).

As usual, the composer extracts the maximum from

his miniature force. 8 WQ mates on 5 different lines

(C.J.Morse). Very active WQ (J.A. Coello Alonso).

C10249 (Kazimov) Set 1...R~/Rxc5+/Re4 2.Sf8/

S7xc5/Qxf5. This correction sequence may distract

attention from the flight-giving key, 1.Se4! (>2.Sg5)

1...Rxc5+/Kd5/f~/Qxe4/Qxd7+ 2.S4xc5/Bb3/Rxe5/

Rd6/Bxd7. A changed mate following the set check

and a satisfying pin-mate (DJS). Excellent sacrificial

flight-giving key, with a variety of strategic

C10311 Robert Lincoln

(USA)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw!wdKd
dNdwdwdw
wdwdkGwd
dw4wdRdw

C10312 Robert Lincoln

(USA)

wdwdwdwd
dwdRdwdw
wdwdpIwd
dp0w0wdw
b0Ndk0wd
dw)Rdwdw
QdwGw4Pd
drdNdwdn

C10313 C.J.Morse

KdBdbdwd
dwdwdQdq
wdpgw)w$
dwdwdNiw
RdwGwdwd
dwdw)P0P
wdwdwdw4
dwdwdrdw

#2 two tries

C10314 Herbert Ahues

(Germany)

RIBdwdwd
0pGwdwdw
kdpdwdwd
)wdwdwdw
wdPdw4wd
!whNdwdw
wdwdwdwd
drdwdwgb

#2 two tries

C10315 Herbert Ahues

(Germany)

w1w$wgwd
dwdwdNdK
wdw)w)w0
dwdkHBdQ
n0wdp)wd
dPdwGwdw
wdrdwdwd
dn$wdwdw

#2 two tries

C10316 Vasyl Markovtsy
& Vyacheslav Pilchenko

(Ukraine/Russia)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0wHpdwd
gwdwdBdq
w0wdPhw0
dR!w)kdr
wdPGwdw)
dwdwdK$w

#2 six tries

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

443

Send solutions by 31 December

and comments by 31 October to

Don Smedley

The Bungalow,

Posey Lane,

Aston on Trent,

Derby DE72 2DT

or by email to

don@caledoniancomputers.com

C10317 Marcel Segers

(Belgium)

Qdwdwdwd
Gw)wdRdw
Kdwdwdwd

dwdwdpdw
wdwdp)wd
dPdwdwdp
wdw$wdw)
dwdwdwdk

#2 (b) WKa6 to b8
(c) + WPc7 to a4
(d) + WRf7 to d8

C10318 Marco Guida

(Italy)

wdRdwhBG
dpdwdwdn
wdw0P4wd

$NHkdwdw
Qdp)wdpd
dw0wdPdw
b)wdwdwd
dwdwdwIw

#2 set play + two tries

C10319 Aaron Hirschenson

(Israel)

w$wdwdwd
!Bdpdwdw
KdwdwdpG

0Ndwdw4w
wiwdNdwd
0Pdpdwdw
Pdwdwdw0
dwdwdwgw

#2 try

C10320 Leopold Szwedowski

(Poland)

wdrdwdwh
dwdwGwdK
wdpdRdw0

dwdBdwdw
wdwiwdwd
dPHwdbdw
pdQdwdwd
dndwdrdw

#2 try

C10321 Tony Lewis

wdw$wdwd
4wdwdwdr
p0wdw)Nd
dwdndwdn
R)Niw0wd
dP0wdP0w
wdpdpdwd
dwGwIwdw

C10322 Leonid Makaronez
& Viktor Volchek

(Israel/Belarus)

wdwdwdwd
dpdwdpdw
w!wdw0wd
dPHkhR)w
wgwdwdwd
dP4pdw$w
Bdr)pdPI
dwdwdwdw

C10323 C.J.Morse

kdNdwdwd
dw)P)P)w
wGphwdw0
dPIBdwdw
w)pdwgwd
dw$wdw4b
wdw$rdwd
dwdw!qdw

C10324 Živko Janevski

(Macedonia)

wdKHw$wd
dBhQ0wdw
wGw)Pdwd
dpdwiw)w
wdwdw0wd
dwdwdPdb
w)w4wHwd
dwdw4wdw

C10325 Chris Reeves
after W.A.Whyatt

wdNdwIwd
dwdwdwdw
wHwdP)wd
iPdw$wdw
w0wdw!pd
dw0wdwdp
r0wdw0Pd
hndwgBdR

#3 tries

C10326 Juri Marker

(Germany)

wdrdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdp4nd
dwdbdRGw
wHwdkdpd
0Rdwdw)p
KdPdw!nd
dwHwGwdB

#3 set play

C10327 Sergei Tkachenko

(Ukraine)

kdwdNdw4
dwdw!wdp
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

#4 tries

C10328 José Vinagre

(Portugal)

wdwdwdwd
dpdwHwdw
w)wdwdwd
dwdwdKdw
wdwdpdwd
dwdwiwdw
w!wdwdPd
dwdwdwdw

#4 2 solutions

C10329 Gennadi Zgerski

(Russia)

wdNHwdwG
dwdwdwdp
wdwdwdw)
dpiwdwdw
w0wdwdw)
dpgKdwdw
w)wdPdwd
dwdwdwdw

C10330 Hans Peter Rehm

(Germany)

wdw$wdKd
dwdwdpdw
bHw)pdwd
0pdPdwdw
wgR)k)Bd
dwdwdw)w
PdPdwGwd
drdwdwdw

C10331 Baldur Kozdon

(Germany)

kdKdwdwd
drdwdwdw
Ndwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdBdpd
dwdwdwGw

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

444

elements (JACA). Splendid problem with 5

prominent set mates and a generous key (CJM).

C10250 (Lewis) Set 1...Bd6/Bc7/Bxd4+/f5/fxg5

2.Qe4/Qe4/Rxd4/Qxe5/Qxe5. 1.Qd8! (-) 1...Bd6/

Bc7/Bxd4+/f5/fxg5 2.Qxd6/Qxc7/Qxd4/Rh4/Qxg5.

Also 1...Bb8+/f1/B4~/Bxe2 2.Qxb8/Rxf1/Sd3/Sxe2.

A well crafted mutate, the trademark of our

Treasurer, with five good changes (DJS). Big

mutate, with 7 set mates. WQ sidestep changes 3 of

them into 4 new ones (CJM). Obtrusive Bg6

(JACA).

C10251 (Hirschenson) Firstly, a pair featuring

reversal play. 1.e4? (>2.Bf1) Rd7 2.Rc3 but 1...Rg3!

1.Bf1? (>2.e4) Rg3 2.e3! but 1...Rd7! Secondly, a

pair featuring BK Schiffmann. 1.Sd3? (>2.Se5)

1...Kc3 2.Sxb2 (2.Se5? Rg3!) and 1...Rg3 2.Rc8 but

1...Rd7! (2.Se5? Kd4!) Rich strategy! 1.Sd7!

(>2.Se5) 1...Kd4 2.Sb6 (2.Se5? Rd7!) and

1...Rxd7/Rg3 2.Rc3/Rc8. The BRg7 and WBh8 are

the main players in this extravaganza of line effects.

The precise relevance of 1.Rhd3? e5! and 1.Sb7?

Ra4! (also signalled by the composer) may be a little

obscure but this fine combination can stand without

the additional phases (DJS). Attractive tries by

WSc5. Defences by the Rg7 open a line for the WB

(JACA).

C10252 (Einat) Set 1...Bxe6/fxe6 2.Qf3/Qg2.

1.Sd3! (>2.Qf5) 1...Bxe6/fxe6/Kxd3/Kd5 2.Qg2/

Qf3/Se5/Sa5. Paz first published a twomover using

this matrix in Al Hamishmar in 1974. Over 30 years

later he has added two flights (granted by a fantastic

key!) to this example of reciprocal change. Would

that we all polished in this way! (DJS) The flight-

giving key allows a neat reciprocal change

(CJM)…and the opening of a W battery after the

flights (JACA).

C10253 (Foster) The diagram position solves by

1.Bc6! (-) with 1...Re7/Re6/Bd7/Be7 2.Sxc5/Qf5/

Bxd5/Qe5. The other variations are readily

discovered. With WKa7, 1...Re7! defeats the

intention. With WKg6, WKa4 and WKh4, 1...Re6!,

1...Bd7! and 1...Be7! spoil the plot. A most

innovative tune on the organ pipes (DJS). The WK

must be on h5 – the other 4 locations allow pinning

refutations (P.le Grand, sim. CJM, JACA).

C10254 (Handloser) 1.Ke3? A (-) 1...bxc2 2.Qb4

but 1...Kxc2! x. 1.c4? B (-) 1...Kxc2 x 2.Qd2 but

1...e3! y. 1.Bd4! (-) 1...x/y 2.A/B. The highlighted

pattern demonstrates the Vladimirov theme. We do

not see many examples in this country so I was

pleased to be able to publish this clean setting (DJS).

C10255 (Mosiashvili) 1.Bxe4? (>2.Qf3) 1...Bb5/

Sf5 2.Qxg3/Bf3 but 1...Sd5! 1.Sxe4! (>2.Qxg3)

1...Bb5/Sf5 2.Qf3/Sf6 and 1...Sd5/Bxe4+ 2.Bc8/

Qxe4. In relation to the threats the play following

1...Bb5 describes the le Grand theme. The associated

pinning and unpinning make this a particularly

happy combination (DJS). Le Grand with pinning

and unpinning of White. Good by-play (JACA).

Attractive self-pinning key and try (L.Belcsak). The

actual play is richer and more accurate than the try-

play (CJM).

C10256 (Subotić) Set... stalemate! 1.Sbc4? Kxb3

2.Sb6 but 1...b6! 1.Sac4? Kxb3 2.Sa3 but 1...Kb1!

1.Rcc4? Kxb3 2.Rc2 but 1...Kxb2! 1.Bxb7? Kxb3

2.Bd5 but 1...d5! Thus 1.Rdc4! Kxb3 2.Rd4 – five

good switchbacks in a construction where all the

white pieces are essential. Note also 1.Ba1+? Kxa1

2.Rd1 but 1...Kxa3! (DJS). Switchback festival by 5

white pieces liberating the BK (JACA).

C10257 (Subotić) 1.Bd6? (>2.Bb4) 1...dxe3/Qb8

2.Be5/Sd5 but 1...Qc4! A random move by WRe3

threatens 2.Bd2... 1.Re2? precloses g2 to d2 to

render 1...Qg2 ineffective and permits 1...Qg5

2.Rxb3 but 1...Sf3! (2.Se2?) refutes. 1.Rf3?

precloses g2 to d5 for 1...Qg2 2.Sd5 but 1...Qg5! has

no answer. 1.Re5! precloses g5 to d5 for 1...Qg5

2.Sd5 whilst 1...Qg2/Sf3 are met by 2.Rc5/Se2. The

foci of the BQ are cleverly controlled in an

attractive, airy setting (DJS). Interesting play by the

WR, which must provide for both BQ defences on

the g-file (JACA, sim.CJM).

C10258 (Maydanov) 1.Rd7 (>2.Rxd5+) Sc3

2.Qxc5+ Kxc5/Kxd3 3.Bb6/Qc4. 1...Se3 2.Qxe5+

Kxe5/Kxd3 3.Bf6/Qe4. 1...c4/e4 2.Qb6+/Bf6+ Kxd3

3.Rxd5. Interferences by BS & BPs. A symmetrical

matrix often gives 4 nice variations (JGG).

Symmetrical play after the closing of BR lines by

BP and BS (JACA).

C10259 (Edwards) 1.Sh5 (>2.Sg3 3.Rxf1) Be3

2.Rxe3+ Kxf2/Kd1,Kd2 3.Re2/Ba3. 1...Bxf2 2.Bb4+

axb4 3.Rd1. 1...Bc5 2.Bxc5 3.Rd1. 1...Bxb6 2.Qxb6

3.Qe3. 1...Kxf2 2.Qh4+ Sg3 3.Qxg3. Sweeping

white moves following defences by BB (JGG).

Good key and quiet threat. BB defences lead to

varied strategic effects (JACA).

C10260 (Bakharev) 1.Re1 (>2.Sxd4 3.Qe3) f2

2.Sc5+ Sxc5 3.Qe2. 1...dxc4 2.Sf4+ Sxc4 3.Qe4.

1...bxc4 2.Qxa4 3.Sc5. 1...gxf5 2.Qxh5 3.Sf4. Again

2 pairs of matched variations, after a Bristol key

(JGG). Two sets of well-matched variations. The

well-hidden key makes for enjoyable solving (LB).

C10261 (Burger) Tries 1.Be7? (>2.Rxg4+ 3.Qd4)

Qxh4/Qb4 2.Qxd1+/Qd4 but 1...Bxe3! 1.Qf5?

(>2.Rxg4+ 3.Q/Rxe4) Qxh4/Qb4 2.Qc2+/Qe4 but

1...Sf6! Key 1.Qe6 (>2.Rxg4+ 3.Qc4) Qxh4/Qb4

2.Qb3+/Qc4. Zagorujko, also a Rudenko effect with

threatened mates reappearing as continuations

(JGG). Pelle moves (on pin lines) by the BQ

(JACA). Lovely variations (P.Christoforidis).

C10262 (Bourd) Tries 1.Sb4? (>2.Bxg4+ A Kd6

b 3.Rc6 B) but 1...Kf5! a. 1.Sf2? (>2.Rc6+ B Kf5 a

3.Bxg4 A) f3 2.Rxe4 but 1...Kd6! b. Key 1.Sxe5

(>2.Re7+ Kd6/Kf5 ba 3.Bxa3/Bxg4 -A) Re3 2.Qxf4

3.Rc6 B. 1...Kf5 a 2.Bxg4+ A Kxe5 3.Q,Bxf4.

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

445

1...Kd6 b 2.Rc6+ B Kxe5 3.Qxf4. Dombrovskis

paradox, after 2 tries. 1...f3/Kxe5 2.Sxg4/Qxf4+

(JGG). Complex and difficult strategy (JACA).

C10263 (Rice) Tries 1.Sg~? (>2.Qg6+ Kd5

3.Rc5) d6 2.Rxd4+ exd4 3.Qe6. 1...Rc3 2.Rxc3

(>3.Bd3). 1...Rxf2 2.Qg6+ Ke3 3.Qd3 but

1...Bd6! 1.Sxf4!? (>2.Bd3+ [2.Qg6+?] Rxd3

3.cxd3) gxf4 2.Qg6+ Kd5 3.Rc5. 1...exf4

2.Rxd4+ Ke5 3.Sg4 but 1... Rxf2! Key 1.Sxe5!!

(>2.Rxd4+ [2.Qg6+/Bd3+?] Kxe5 3.Sg4) Bxe5

2.Qg6+ Kd5 3.Rc5. 1...Kxe5 2.Sg4+ K~ 3.Rxd4.

1...Rg3 2.Sxd7 ~/Be5/Rd3 3.Rxd4/Sc5/c,Bxd3.

1...Rd3 2.Sxd3 ~/Be5 3.Rxd4/Sc5. Tertiary threat

correction? Versions of this idea appeared in the

composer's C10077 (#2, Sept 04) and in the 2005

WCSC (JGG). Interesting strategy over 3 phases

(JACA).

C10264 (Liebeck) Tries 1.Bb8/Rc8? b4/g5

2.Rc8/Bb8 b3/g4! Key 1.Se2 b4/g5 2.Rc8/Bb8

3.Bb8/Rc8. White has to reserve his options

(JGG). Attractive Meredith, the key of which

prepares for the right square to be vacated in

response to attacks by the black Pawns (JACA).

Easy solving, but a stellar rendering of the idea

(LB).

C10265 (Kopyl) 1.Se7 (>2.Sxc6 dxc6 3.Qd8+

Bc8 4.Qxc8) Sxe7 2.Qxa5+ Ba6/Kb8

3.Qxa6+/Bd6+ Kb8/Kc8 4.Bd6/Qc7. 1...Sb8/Sa7

2.Qb6/Bd6 Sc6 3.Sxc6 Bxc6 4.Qa7/Qb8. Four

model mates, including 2 slaughter models,

unusual with BK in corner (JGG). White attacks

the BS and then butchers Black on the dark

squares (LB).

C10266 (Retter) Set 1...Rxf5/Rg4 ab

2.Sxe3+/Sb6+ AB Kxd6 3.Sxf5+/Sc8+ Kd5 4.c4.

Key 1.Ba3 (>2.Sf4+ Kd4 3.Sxe2+ Kd5 4.Rd1)

Rxf5/Rg4 ab 2.Sb6+/Sxe3+ BA Ke5 3.Sd7+/

Sxg4+ Kd5 4.c4. Reciprocal change of 2nd

moves followed by different S walks, with a

harmonious threat (JGG). Complicated strategy

of reciprocal continuations leading to the same

mates. The painstaking construction of a master

craftsman (JACA). After an inviting key, one

finds 3 well-matched and attractive lines (LB). A

deep conception, with no short mates (PC).

C10267 (Kakabadze) 1.Kf6 Kh8 2.Be1 Kg8

3.g7 Kh7 4.Kf7 Kh6 5.g8Q Kh5 6.Qg6. 1...Kf8

2.g7+ Ke8 3.g8Q+ Kd7 4.Qc4 Kd6/Kd8/Ke8

5.Ba5(+) 6.Qe6/Qc8/Qf7,Qc8. BK chases on rank

and file. The moves 2.Be1 and 3...Kd7 are

interesting surprises (JGG). The way the WB

guards from opposite edges is attractive (CJM).

C10268 (Kozdon) 1.Rf2 Qc7 2.Rf1 Qh2

3.Rh1 Qh7+ 4.Rxh7+ Kxh7 5.Bf8 Kh8 6.Bg7+

Kh7 7.Be4. 3...Qxh1 4.Bxh1 Kh7 5.Bf8 etc. This

time BK stays put and BQ has to be controlled

(JGG). Aristocratic miniature on the theme of

controlling the BQ (JACA).

CHAMPIONSHIP LADDER 2005

Month

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Year Total

Maxima 95 95 107 95 95 93 580

G.Anyfantis

94 479

B.Barnes I

367

L.Belcsak I

89 63 79 73 58 64 426 720

A.E.J.Bouwes III

54 55 65 50 52 56 332 625

I.Bryuchanov

44 80

P.Christoforidis VII 43 51 36 34 54 39 257 401

B.Clark I

59 60 71 54

244 825

J.Coello Alonso XVIII 83 92 102 95 91 83 546 792

B.Conway

30 30 27 108 108

S.Dowd

G.Ettl

J.Gill XXXII

87 74 95

256 788

J.Grudulis V

91 92 107 95 92 93 570 986

M.Harington XXI

37 44 36 51 42 35 245 461

F.T.Holt XVII

89 88 98 89 85 89 538 750

S.Jensen

D.Johnston

89 79 93 91 87 88 527 1042

V.A.Krivenko VI

91 84 99 91 90 91 546 717

R.Lazowski VIII

91 88 106 95 93 92 565 567

P.le Grand

30 30 42 27 30 30 189 687

R.Lindberg IV

62 51 58 64

48 283 515

J.F.Ling

27 30 30 21 24 21 153 429

G.Lucenti XI

91 91 104 95 94 85 560 768

C.J.Morse V

30 30 36 30 30 30 186 952

G.Murphy

12 61

R.Mylward

485

D-I.Nicula

84 88 99 92 93 90 546 1269

T.van Oosterhout X 81 86 88 87 82 84 508 806

E.Petite X

82 85 103 87 85 83 525 980

F.D.B.Praal XXVI

71 62 91 64 84 81 453 587

V.Sergeev

90 84 96 82 91

443 443

V.Satkus

93 93 107 82 95 92 562 1315

P.Steiner I

30 30 39 30 24 27 180 418

A.Willmott XVI

89 95 107 95 92 90 568 901

G.Yacoubian XV

11 788

During this year about 30 solvers submitted solutions,

some 25 of whom were hard-core recidivists, whereas

the rest were rather more sporadic. Two seasoned

warriors who have retired from the arena in the last year

are Jack Gill and O.Ravaschietto. In particular, Jack’s

epigrammatic comments will be sorely missed.

This year, the Champion Solver is Juris Grudulis,

who headed Arthur Willmott by the narrowest of

margins. Many congratulations to him on his success.

Ladder ascents have been awarded to B.Clark,

J.Grudulis, D.Johnston, C.J.Morse, D-I.Nicula, T van
Oosterhout, E.Petite, V.Satkus and A.Willmott.

Finally, I should like to thank, most warmly, all

solvers for their continued support of this column during

my tenure as Solutions Editor. SC

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

446

E937 Viktor Pasco

(Ukraine)

wdkdwdwd
)wdwdwdp
wdwdwdwd

dwIwdwdw
w0wdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdRdwd
4wdwdwdw

Win

E938 Alexey Sochnev

(Russia)

wdwdwdwd
GwdwdwdB
wdwdwdwi
dwdwdwHw
wdwdwdwd
0wdwdwdK
w0wdwdwd
dwdwgwdw

Win

E939 Vitaly Kovalenko

(Russia)

wdwdwdwd
dKdwdwdw
wdwdkdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw$w0p0
hwdwdwdw
w0wdw)P)
dwdBdwdw

Win

E940 Brian Stephenson
(after L.Mozes)

First published study

wdwdwdwd
)wdwdwdw
Pdwdwiwd
dwdwdpdp
pdwdw0w$
dwdPgwdw
wdwdwdK)
dwdqdwdw

Draw

STUDIES

edited by Yochanan Afek

van Boetzelaerstraat 26/1, 1051 CW Amsterdam, Netherlands

(email: afek26@zonnet.nl)

Judge for 2006-2007:

Oleg Pervakov

Originals There is not much novelty or breathtaking zugzwangs in E937, just

pleasant precision to be appreciated. 1.Re8+ (1.Kb6? b3 2.Re8+ Kd7 3.Re1! Ra3!
4.Re5 b2 5.Rb5 Ra2 6.Kb7 Ke6=) 1…Kb7 2.Re7+ Kc8 3.Kb6! (3.Kc6? Ka6
4.Kb5 Ra3 5.Kb6 b3 6.Rc7+ Kd8 7.Rc5 Ke7 8.Kb7 Kf6 9.a8Q Rxa8 10.Kxa8 b2
11.Rb5 h5 12.Kb7 b1Q 13.Rxb1 Kg5 14.Kc6 h4=) 3…b3 4.Rc7+ Kd8 5.Rc1 b2
6.Rb1! Ra2 7.Kb7 Ke7 8.a8Q Rxa8 9.Kxa8 Kf6 10.Rxb2 Kg5 (10...h5 11.Rb5
Kg6 12.Kb7 Kh6 13.Kc6 Kg6 14.Re5 Kh6 15.Kd5 h4 16.Ke4 h3 17.Kf3+-)
11.Rg2+! Kf5 12.Rh2 and wins.

What are minor pieces to do, being helpless against promoting pawns? Setting

a mate net to the enemy king! And that is exactly what they are doing in masterful
fashion in E938: 1.Be3 a2 2.Bd3!! [2.Be4? Bd2! 3.Bxd2 b1S 4.Be3 a1Q 5.Se6+
Kh5 6.Sf8 Qf6! =; 2.Bf5? Bd2! 3.Bxd2 b1S 4.Be3 a1Q 5.Se6+ Kh5 6.Sf8 Qg7! =;
2.Bc2? Bc3! 3.Se6+ Kh5 4.Sf8? b1Q–+] and now: (a) 2...Bd2 3.Bxd2 b1S!
4.Be3! … [4.Bf4? a1Q 5.Se6+ Kh5 6.Sf8 Qc3!–+] 4...a1Q 5.Se6+ Kh5 6.Sf8!
Sc3 7.Bg6#; (b) 2...Bf2 3.Bf4! b1Q 4.Se6+ Kh5 5.Sg7#.

Another Russian composer is back to our tourney with yet another sharp battle

up to the very last pawn (E939): 1.Bb3+ Ke5! (1…. Kf6 2.Ba2 b1Q+ 3.Bxb1
Sxb1 4.Rxf4+ wins) 2.Rd5+! (2.Rd1? b1Q 3.Rxb1 Sxb1 =) Ke4 3.Rd1! b1Q
(3….h3 4.gxh3 b1Q 5.Rxb1 Sxb1 6.hxg3 Sd2 7.Bc2+ Ke5 8.h4 Sf3 9.h5 Kf6
10.h6 Sg5 11.h7 Kg7 12.Bf5 Kh8 13.Kc7 Sf7 14.Kd7 Sg5 15.Ke7 Kg7 16.h8Q+
Kxh8 17.Kf6 Sf3 18.g5 +-) 4.Rxb1 Sxb1 5.Bc2+ Kd4 6.Bxb1 g3! 7.hxg3!
(7.fxg3? h3! 8.gxh3 f3 9.g4 f2 =) f3! 8.Be4! Kxe4 9.gxf3+ Kxf3 10.gxh4 Kg4
11.Kc6! Kxh4 12.Kd5 Kg4 13.Ke4 wins.

While preparing the problems for the British solving final last year, Brian came

across a study by the Romanian composer Mozes (see diagram below) which
inspired him to compose his own first study (E940). 1.a8Q f3+ 2.Qxf3 Qg1+
3.Kh3 Qg4+ 4.Qxg4 (4.Rxg4? hxg4+ 5.Kg3 gxf3 6.Kxf3 Ba7-+) fxg4 (4...hxg4+
5.Kg3 a3 6.a7 Bxa7 7.Rh6+ Kg5 8.Ra6=) 5.Kg2! (5.Kg3? Kg5 6.h3 Bf4+ 7.Kf2
Bb8 8.hxg4 Kxh4-+) Kg5 6.d4! Bxd4 7.Rh3! gxh3+ 8.Kh1 a3 9.a7 a210.a8Q
a1Q+ 11.Qxa1=.

Mozes: 1.c6+! Qxc6 2.Qb8+ Ka6 3.Qb5+! Qxb5 4.cxb5+ (4.axb5+ Kb65.h6

h2 6.Bxh2 Ra3+ 7.Kb4 Rh3) 4…Kb6 (4…Kb7 5.Kb4 e5 6.Bxe5 Ra6 7.bxa6+
Ka8 8.h6 h2 9.h8Q wins. This line was the source of inspiration for Brian’s debut
effort); 5.Kb4 a6 6.Bc5+ Kc7 7.Bg1 axb5 8.Kxa5 bxa4 9.Kxa4 Kd7 10.h6 wins.

k k k k k

Comments

Vitaly Kovalenko corrects his E912 (March

2005) as shown on the next page. 1.Sf7+! (1.Bf5?
Qd5 2.bxa7 Qd2+ 3.Kb3 Qd1+ 4.Kb4 Qd2+ =)
1…Kxd7 2.c6+! Qxc6 (2….Kxc6 3.Sd8+ Kd7
4.Sxb7 axb6 5.Bf5+ Kc6 [5…Ke7 6.Bg4 +-] 6.Sd8+
Kd6 7.Bg4 c6 8.Kc3 c5 9.Kc4 +-) 3.Se5+ Kd6
4.Sxc6 Kxc6 5.Be4+ Kxb6 6.a5+ Ka6 7.Bc6! (z)
Sh3 8.Bd7! c5+ 9.Ka5 Sf4 10.Bc8#.

q q q

L.Mozes

Magyar Sakkélet 1975

wdwdQdwd
0kdwdwdw
wdwGpdwd
4w)wdwdP
PdPdwdwd
dwIwdwdp
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdq

Win

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

447

Book Review

EG, Vol. X1, edited by John Roycroft. Arves 2006. 565 pages, 1326 diagrams.

Printed and distributed by bernd ellinghoven (e-mail be.fee@t-online.de). Price 40
Euros incl. p&p.

The long awaited “catch-up” volume is out at last and it was indeed worth the

wait. EG was founded by John in 1965 with the main goal of documenting the
developing art of the endgame study. As such, it could hardly hold any longer
within its four annual issues the rapidly growing number of studies awards. It has
become really urgent to take such an “extreme” measure in order to overcome the
pile of material once and for all. This unique opportunity was also used to invite
numerous experts to contribute a broad variety of articles to this special issue,
embracing a large range of topics. Several of the articles were written by the editor
himself.

The outcome is a memorable hardback monumental book containing 565 pages

of diagrams and solutions, articles, photos, illustrations and indexes, a superb
blend that should fill all lovers of the genre with joy and pride.

Many people were involved in this highly appreciated project, but two of them

stand out and should be especially praised for a festivity of form and content: John
Roycroft, for the magnificent editorial work highlighting his lifetime enterprise,
and bernd ellinghoven, for the flawless printing job of yet another fine product
from his highly reputed workshop. Do your best not to miss this one! Until you
get your own must-have copy, enjoy a couple of appetizers from the book:

A 1.f8Q! All other tries are doomed to failure: 1.Sb5+? Kb7 2.Sxa3 Qxa3+

3.Kb5 Qb3+ 4.Kc5 Qb6+ 5.Kd5 Qd6+ wins or 1.e7? Bxd6 2.e8Q Qd5+ 3.Qb5
Qd2 wins and finally 1.Bd4+? Kb8 2.e7 Qd5+ 3.Ka4 Qxd4+ 4.Kb3 Qe3+ 5.K-any
Qxe7 etc. 1…Qxf8 2.e7 Qb8! (2…Bb4+ 3.Ka4 Qf4 4.Bd4+ =; 2…Qh6 3.Bd4+ c5
4.Bxc5+! Bxc5 5.e8Q Qxd6 6.Qd7+! Qxd7 stalemate!) 3.Bd4+ c5 4.Bxc5+! Bxc5
5.Sb5+ Ka8 (5…Kb7 6.e8Q! Qxe8 7.Sd6+! Bxd6 stalemate!) 6.e8Q! Bb6+ 7.Ka6
Qxe8 8.Sc7+! Bxc7 – a model stalemate!

B 1.Qc7!! (1.Qf7+? Kg4 2.Qg6+ Kf3 3.Qxf5+ Kg2 4.Qxe4+ Kf2 =) 1…Qf6

2.g4+! fxg4 3.Sg3+ Kh4 4.Sxe4 Qf5+ 5.Kg7! Qxe4 6.Qh2+ Kg5 7.Qh6+ Kf5
8.Qf6 mate! A model mate following two active self-blocks and two sacrifices.

C 1.00+ Kg8 2.Rf8+ Kxf8 3.gxh7 Rb1+ 4.Kg2 Rb2+ 5.Kg3 Rb3+ 6.Kg4

(6.Kh4? g5+ 7.Kxg5 Kg7) 6…Rb4+ 7.Kg5 Rh4! 8.Kxh4 g5+ 9.Kxg5 Kg7
10.h8Q+ Kxh8 11.Kh6 Kg8 12.Kg6 Kf8 13.Kh7 wins. An original blend of
known motives.

D 1.a8S! (1.a8Q? b1Q+ 2.Ka7 Qxg1+ 3.Kb7 Qg2+ 4.Ka7 Qf2+ 5.Kb7 Qb2+

6.Ka7 Qd4+ 7.Kb7 Qb4+ 8.Ka7 Qc5+ 9.Kb7 Qc7#) 1…b1Q+ 2.Sb6+ Kd6 3.a7
Kc5 4.a8S! (4.a8Q? Qxb6+ 5.Kc8 Qe6+ 6.Kb8 Qd6+ 7.Kc8 Qf8+ 8.Kb7 Qe7+

E912 Vitaly Kovalenko

(correction)

wdwiwdwH
0q0Pdwdw
w)wdwdwd

dw)wdwdw
PIwdwdwd
dwdBdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwhw

Win

A Aleksandr Manvelian

1 Pr Solidarnost 2000

wdwdwdwd
iw0wdPdw
wdwHPdwd
Iwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
gwdwdqdw
wdwdwdwd
Gwdwdwdw

Draw

B Paul Schmidt

1 Pr Schach 2002-3

wdwdwdwd
dQdwdwdK
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdpdk
wdwdpdwd
dwdwdw)w
wdwdNdwd
1wdwdwdw

Win

C Ilham Aliev

2 Pr Suomen Tehtäväniekat
2001-2

wdwdwiwd
dwdw0w0p
wdwdPdPd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w4wdwdwd
dwdwIwdR

Win

D Sergei Didukh

1 HM Moscow Tourney
2004

wdwdwdwd
)Kdkdwdw
Pdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0wdwdwH
dwdwdwHw

Draw

9.Kc8 Qe8+ 10.Kb7 Qd7+ 11.Ka6 Qb5+ 12.Ka7
Qb6#) 4…Qe4+ 5.Kc7 Qe5+ 6.Kb7 Qxh2 7.Sd7+
Kd6 8.Sf3 Qb2+ 9.Sab6 Qg2 10.Sde5 draw.

r r r r r

Readers of The Problemist who are not already

subscribers may like to know that the cost of a
subscription to EG for 2006 is 25 Euros (this does
not include the volume reviewed above). From 2007
onwards EG will be combined with the Dutch
quarterly EBUR, the magazine of ARVES
(Alexander Rueb Vereiniging voor EindspelStudie).

b b b b b

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

448

S2119 Živko Janevski

(Macedonia)

wdwdNdwh
dw$w)pdw
wdwdwIpd

dB0k0w)w
w0p)wdw$
dngwdwdw
wdw0wdNd
dQdwdwdw

S#3

S2120 Valery Surkov

(Russia)

whwdwdwd
0wdpdwdw
pdp)wdwd
)wIw$pdw
wdwdw!wd
dwdkdNdw
Ndndp$wd
dBGwdwdw

S#3

S2121 Diyan Kostadinov

(Bulgaria)

Qdwdwdwd
drdwdwdB
wdwdwdRH
dwdwGRdw
wHwdkdwd
dp0wdw)w
p0r0w)Pd
hqgwdKdw

S#5

S2122 Aleksandr Azhusin

(Russia)

bdwdRIwd
0Ndwdw4q
wdwdwdpg
dpdwHp0w
w$pGwdwd
dwdw!wdw
kdBdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

S#6

S2123 Jan Strydom

(South Africa)

wGwdwdw!
dwhw0wdw
wdBiPdpd
dw0Pdw)w
w0wdwdwd
dP0w)wdw
wdpdwdwd
dwIwdwdw

S#6

S2124 József Pásztor

(Hungary)

BGwdwdwd
0RdwHbgr
Qdw)pdw0
IRdwdwdw
Pdk0Pdwd
dw0wdwdw
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

S#6

S2125R Peter Gvozdják

(Slovakia)

wdbdwdBd
dw0RGwdw
ndPdwdpd
dwdwIwdw
wdr)p4pd
dk0PHw0n
wdwdwdw1
dwdwdwgw

R#2

S2126R Ivan Soroka

(Ukraine)

rdwhwdwd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdwGpd
0wdBdw0w
wdwdRdP$
dwdwHkdK

R#4

S2127 Valery Kirillov &
Mikhail Mishko

(Russia/Ukraine)

wdwdNdwd
dw!wdwdw
w4Rdw)pd
iw0w$w)w
wdwdKdwg
dP)wdP0w
w)wdw0Pd
dwdwdBdw

S#13

SELFMATES AND REFLEXMATES

edited by John Rice, 9 Manor Crescent, Surbiton KT5 8LG

(email: johnrice@freeuk.com)

Solutions to Stephen Taylor, Greenways, Cooling St., Cliffe,

Rochester ME3 7UB (email: sjgt@btinternet.com)

Judge for 2006:

Miodrag Mladenović

For solving this month: S2119-S1226R. There’s a promising-looking masked

battery in S2119: how can it be made to fire? White has to cope with threatened
promotions by Black in S2120. Promotions play a part in S2121 as well, along
with battery creation and a couple of tries with refutations that are thematic
defences after the key. Aleksandr says his S2122 shows the “Rehm mechanism”,

defined in the Album as “play by a battery opening
twice in succession within the same variation, giving
a flight, the front piece moving each time to a
different square”. Jan again shows his partiality for
changed play in a complete-block setting in S2123.
White’s task in S2124 is to get the black Bs and R to
pull their weight. Peter describes S2125R as the
“pioneer example of the Shedey cycle after random
and correction defences in a reflexmate”. You need
to find the thematic try to see how this cycle works.
The BR has a significant role to play in S2126R. Do
have a go at the S#13, with its two variations of
equal length.

Apologies to Saulius Zeringis for a misspelling

of his first name in May. JMR

SOLUTIONS (January)

S2092 (Bryukhanov - not for ladder solving)

1.Re7+ K~ 2. Re8+ Kd7 3.c6+ Kd6 4.Rd8+ Kc5
5.Ra4 Ba7 6.Be4 Bb8 7.Rd3 Ba7 8.b4+ Kc4 9.b5+
Kc5 10.b6 Bb8 11.bxc7 Ba7 12.c8Q Bb8 13.Qc7
Ba7 14.Qb6+ Bxb6.

S2093 (Surkov) 1.Qd8 (>2.Sbd4+ Rxd4 3.Qd5+

Rxd5) Rb4 2.Sxg5+ Kc5 3.Se4+ Qxe4; 1…Rc4
2.Qa8+ Kxb5 3.Sed4+ Qxd4. Two good variations
after the threat with BRg4 pinned in both
(C.C.Frankiss). Key and defences both critical
moves (SJGT). White exploits Black’s defensive
resources once the BQ’s line is clear (JMR).

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

449

S2094 (Cuppini & Karamanits) Set 1…Rxb2

2.Qb5+ Rxb5 3.Rc6+ Kxc6; 1…Rc3 2.Qa5+ Kc4
3.Qd5+ Rxd5. 1.Rb3 (>2.Qa5+ K~ 3.Qd5+ Rxd5)
Bb2+ 2.Rc3+ Rxc3 3.Sxd3+ Rcxd3; 1…e1Q+
2.Se4+ Sxe4 3.Bxd6+ Sxd6. Black upsets White’s
plans by checks that lead to battery creation. Nicely
matched variations (Ladislav Belcsak).

S2095 (Makaronez & Surkov) 1.Rg6? (>2.Sf6+ A

Kf4 3.Qf3+ Sxf3) exd4 2.Sc3+ B Ke5 3.Sf3+ Sxf3;
1…c3! 1.Ra5! (>2.Sc3+ B Kxd4 3.Sf3+ Sxf3) exd4
2.Sf6+ A Kf4 3.Qf3+ Sxf3; 1…c3 2.d3+ Kxd4
3.Sf3+ Sxf3. Quite a subtle key but not a lot of play
(CCF). Try and post-key play show the le Grand
theme: reciprocal change involving the threat and
one variation – a convincing example (JMR).

S2096 (Peretyatko) 1.Sa4+ Bxa4 2.Qd4+ Kb5

3.Ra5+ Kxa5 4.Qa7+ Kb5 5.Bf1 Sb6 6.d4+ Sc4+
7.Kc1 b2. I doubt I could have solved it, but the
clear-cut single line appeals (SJGT).

S2097 (Paradzinski) 1.h8Q+ Ka2 2.Qa8+ Kb3

3.b8Q+ Kc3 4.Qf3+ (3…Kc4 4.Qe4+) Kd4 5.Qb2+
(4…Kc4 5.Qe4+) Kc4 6.Qbb7 Kd4 7.Qfe4+ Kc3
8.Qbb4+ cxb4 9.Qd5 b3 10.Qe4 b2. Another
difficult sequence – always hard with two WQs on
the board (CCF). Now there is a bang-bang selfmate
for everybody! Black has to play the subtler 5.Qb2+
instead of more obvious Qd6+ (LB). Beautiful
miniature with promotion (Romuald Lazowski).

S2098 (Petite) 1.Sb5 (>2.Sxc3 Sxc3) Sd2 2.Qb3

cxb3; 1…Qxg1 2.Qxa3 Rxg2; 1…c2 2.Qxb1 c1S;
1…d2 2.Qc1 dxc1S; 1…axb2+ 2.Kxb1. As is
customary with this composer, very good post-key
play (CCF). Pleasing variety of defences lifting the
2nd-rank pin (SJGT).

Very enjoyable and challenging set of problems!

(Richard Dunn).

Thanks to solvers for the best wishes and problem

comments. It’s always nice for composers to receive
some feedback on their creations. All comments are
most welcome; and if just one problem takes your
fancy, then that’s fine! (SJGT).

b b b b b

SELFMATE SOLVING LADDER 2005

Month

Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Year Total

Maxima 36 53 78 72 51 36 326

L.Belcsak

14 8

21 17 21 22 103 376

A.E.J.Bouwes 3

12 240

I.Bryuchanov

R.J.Dunn II

21 5

20 32

87 409

G.Ettl

C.Frankiss X 35 27

55 43 22 182 474

J.Grudulis V

27 39 59 53 51

229 347

F.T.Holt III

32 27 55 43 42 36 235 524

V.Krivenko IV 36 22 48 41 44

191 552

R.Lazowski V 36 29 62 41 44 22 234 607

G.Lucenti V

34 20 36 41 37 22 190 526

D-I.Nicula

29 20 22 34 30 22 157 356

E.Petite I

19 8

21 24 25 8

105 453

F.D.B.Praal

13 3

37 85

V.Satkus

36 114

V.Sergeev

34 28 19 30

111 111

A.Willmott VIII 36 46 67 62 51 36 298 484

G.Yacoubian X

The select band of selfmate solvers remains

fairly constant at about 15 regulars. It remains to be
seen whether the introduction of the 10-move
maximum dispensation will tempt any new solvers
to try their hand.

Once again the Selfmate Champion is the

evergreen Arthur Willmott – by a considerable
distance. Arthur is probably the only solver who
will regret the passing of the long selfmates! So
congratulations, Arthur, on your well-merited
victory.

Ladder ascents have been achieved by

R.J.Dunn, C.C.Frankiss, F.T.Holt, V.Krivenko,
R.Lazowski, G.Lucenti, E.Petite and A.Willmott.

n n n n n

One particular problem in 2005 deserves further

comment. I refer to S2062 in the May issue, a S#14
by A.Azhusin. In fact, no solver provided the
composer’s solution. The only one to comment on it
was A.Willmott who showed a short solution in 13
as follows. It will be noted that the short solution is
completely different from the composer’s intention.
1.Bc2+ Kxe6 2.Bb3+ Kf5 3.Qf7 e6+ 4.Ke8 e5
5.Qh5+ Bg5 6.Sg3+ Kf6 7.Qh8+ Kg6 8.Kf8 e4
9.Bg8 b3 10.Re8 b2 11.Qh7+ Kf6 12.Rf4+ Bxf4
13.Qh6+ Bxh6. 3…e5+ 4.Ke8 e4 5.Qh5+ Bg5
6.Sg3+ Kf6 7.Qh8+ Kg6 8.Bg8 b3 9.Kf8 b2 10.Re8
b1Q 11.Qh7+ Kf6 12.Rf4+ Qxf4 13.Qh6+ Bxh6.

This is why we need the Arthur Willmotts of this

world! SC

A.F.Mackenzie

1 Pr BCM 1900-1

wgw$Qdwd
dp0KdBdw
NdNdndwd
)Pdkdwdp
wdwdwGwd
dwdPdw0q
ndP)rdp0
dwdw4wdw

S#3

Here’s an attractive

prizewinner from the past.
1.Qh8 (>2.Bxe6+ Rxe6
3.Se7+ Rxe7) 1…Qh4
2.Scb4+ Sxb4 3.Ke8+
Qxd8; 1…bxc6 2.Qd4+
Kxd4 3.Kxc6+ Sxd8;
1…bxa6 2.c4+ Kc5
3.Qf8+ Sxf8; 1…Ba7
2.Sxc7+ Kc5 3.Qf8+
Sxf8; 1…R1~ 2.Bxe6+
Rxe6 3.Qe5+ Rxe5. Fine
battery-play with both Ks
mobile.

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

450

HELPMATES

edited by Christopher Jones

11 Severn Grange, Ison Hill Road, Bristol BS10 7QA

(email:cjajones1@yahoo.co.uk)

Judges for 2006: H#2: Chris Tylor H#3: Petko Petkov H#n: James Quah

J.Bán

Magyar Sakkélet 1961 (v)

k!wdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw)wdwd

dwdwdKdw

H#7

the twinning device. Of the pieces used, only Ra6 is
underused – a huge advance on many duplexes I
have seen (DJS). Distinct problems with similar
mechanisms (JG). Excellent twinning (CCF).
Impressive (because of or despite the twinning?!)
(LB).

H2931 (McDowell) 1.Rxf5 b8R 2.Rd5 Rb6#.

1.Bb3 d8B 2.Bd5 Bde7#. 1.Sc7 d8S 2.Sd5 Sf7#.
Blocks and mates by pieces of like kind – excellent
unity (DJS). White must promote to the same unit
with which Black prepares to block d5 (LB).

H2932 (Zarur) 1.Bc6 dxc6 2.Rd6 cxd6#. 1.Bd6

cxd6 2.Rc6 dxc6#. 1.Rxd5 b7 2.Rd6 cxd6#. 1.Rxc5
e7 2.Rc6 dxc6#. Interesting line play with plenty of
variety (VS). Nicely constructed half-pin problem
(CCF). Very predictable solving (DJS).

H2933 (Zaitsev) (a) 1.Bg5 Be7 2.Kf4 Bd6#. (b)

1.Kf6 Bd6 2.Kg5 Be7#. (c) 1.Kf4 Bg7 2.Kg5 Bh6#.
(d) 1.Bg5 Bh6 2.Bf4 Bg7#. (e) 1.Bg5 Bd2 2.Bf4
Bxc3#. (f) 1.Kf4 Bxc3 2.Be5 Bd2#. Three sets of
reciprocal white moves (L.V.Belcsak). The
stuttering steps of the WB are cleverly achieved, but
eventually I found the repetition tedious (DJS).
White reverses moves in consecutive pairs of phases
but this all feels rather mechanical (LB).

H2934 (Vandemeulebroucke & Joseph) 1.Bxc3

Sf5 2.Ke5 Sg3 3.Re6 Bxc3#. 1.Bd4 Rd8 2.Rd7 cxd4
3.Re7 d5#. The composers point to the WCCT7
theme in the effects of the BB, WP and WB upon
each other through the two solutions (CJAJ).
Wonderful play! (D.P.Bonner) I liked the subtle
pawn mate in the 1.Bd4 line (CCF). Neat delayed
captures with the 1.Bd4 line being the more
attractive (LB).

H2935 (Csák) (a) 1.Bxd2 b4 2.Bxf4 Bb3 3.Be5

Bxg5#. (b) 1.Bxe2 a4 2.Bxg4 Ba3 3.Bd7 Bh5#. A
striking pattern, with the BBs working hard to clear
their diagonals (C.Tylor). Cute line play (VS). A
gentle twin (JG).

H2936 (Kupper) (a) 1.Bf2 e5 2.Qxf3 Rxd2 3.Qc3

Bd5#. (b) 1.Be1 Bc2 2.d1R Rh6 3.Rd4 Rxc6#. A
real puzzle, how to lose tempo? Arresting play (VS).
Rather different lines – as might be expected from
the twinning (CT). BB shields WK from check but
didn’t see much connection between the 2 parts
(CCF). The best 3-mover this month! Brilliant
anticipatory line closures. But why not present (b) as
the diagram? Firstly, it looks more natural to show
WR on its original square. Secondly, I contend that
(b) is harder to solve and solvers always hate having
to solve “(b)” first in order to solve “(a)”!?! (LB)

This month we welcome new contributors Angelo

Smecca, Mikhail Mishko and Vadim Vinokurov. In
H2982 note that in (d) the BQ replaces the Pa4,
reducing the piece-count from (11+8) to (10+8). In
H2984, (a) and (b) both have 4 solutions – you are
looking for 8 in all. In H2989, (a) and (b) both have
2 solutions (i.e., 4 in all), and they are described as
“variants” because (a)’s 2 solutions begin with the
same black move, and (b)’s 2 solutions begin with
the same black move (in each case the notation
would be 1.2;1.1;1.1).

SOLUTIONS (January)

H2927 (Janevski) 1.Ke4 Sb6 2.Be3 Sd6#. 1.Kf6

Sc7 2.Qf7 Bh4#. Pleasant dual avoidance (1...Sc7?;
1...Sd4?) prompted by check prevention (D.J.Shire).
A super example of art – understated almost, lacking
in excessive cookstoppers, clear in its theme,
rewarding to solve...need I say more? (F.Cockerill).
Charming masterpiece with only one pawn
(V.Satkus).

H2928 (Ylijoki) B> 1.Bd4 Bxd4 2.Kxd4 Rxf4#.

W> 1.Rh4 Rxh4 2.Kxh4 Bxf6#. Straightforward but
harmonious (L.Blackstock). Attractive clearances
(J.Gill).

H2929 (Drazkowski) 1.Sf3>e5 Rb3 2.Ke4 Bf3#.

1.Sb6>d7 Bb3+ 2.Kc6 Rb6#. Black vacates the
square on which he is to be mated – nicely done
(DJS). Gorgeous play with charming FML pinmate
(VS). Well done but a fairly heavy setting
(C.C.Frankiss).

H2930 (Molnár) (a) 1.Be1 Sf3 2.Bxc2 Rxe1#. (b)

1.Rf4 Bg4 2.Sxc6 Bxf4#. The mates are ordinary
although there is a nice exchange of function
involving Bd1, Bg3, Rf1 and Se5. However, the
conception is extraordinary and I am won over by

Contrarily, we start

this time with a
postscript. Sir Jeremy
Morse reports that to his
list of H#7s with BK
only has been added the
extended version of
J.Bán’s H#6½ achieved
by Javier Rodriguez
Ibran’s use of the WQ
(see diagram: 1.Kxb8 d3!
2.Kc7 d4 3.Kd6 d5 4.Ke5
d6 5.Kf4 d7 6.Kg3 d8Q
7.Kh2 Qh4#).

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

451

H2977 Christer Jonsson

(Sweden)

wdwdwIwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd

dqdpdwdw
wdk4Rdwd
dwdbdwdR
wdwdBdwd
dNdwdwGw

H#2 2 solutions

H2978 David Shire

wdwdBdbd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd

dwHrdk)N
wdKgwdw1
$wdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwhwdw

H#2 (b) a3=WB

H2979 Vitaly Medintsev

(Russia)

wdwdKdwd
1wdwdwGw
wdPdwdwd

dQgPdwdw
wdpdk)n$
dw0wdbdw
wdwdrdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#2 2 solutions

H2980 Tony Lewis

NdwdwIwd
dwdpdw0w
wdk)wdwd

dpgqdwdR
w0wdwdrd
dwdwdNGw
wdwdwdwd
dwdRdwdr

H#2 2 solutions

H2981 Tode Ilievski

(Macedonia)

Qdwdwdw4
dpdw$wdw
w0wdwGwd
)wdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
Iw)wdqgR
ndwiw0Pd
4wdwdwhw

H#2 2 solutions

H2982 György Bakcsi &
László Zoltán

(Hungary)

wdwhwdw!
dwgwdpdw
pdPdw0wI
Gw)PdPdw
Pdk)whwd
dwdw)wdw
wdqdPdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#2
(b)>(d) BQc2>c3/b4/a4

H2983 Temur Chkhetiani

(Georgia)

wdw4w4qd
dphwdwdw
bdBdwdwd
dwdPdwdp
w$w)Ndwd
dwdwHk)w
wdnIwdwd
gwdwdwdw

H#2 4 solutions

H2984
Aleksandr Pankratiev

(Russia)

wdwdwdwd
dKdpdwdp
wdw)niw0
dwdwdwhP
wdwHwdwd
0wGwdNdw
qdw0w$wd
dwdwdw4w

H#2 4 solutions (b)
e6&g5=WSs, d4&f3=BSs

H2985 Angelo Smecca &
Antonio Garofalo

(Italy)

wdwdwdwd
drgwdwdw
wHkHw0wd
4w0wdPdw
wdPdwIwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#3 (b) Kf4>b1

H2986 Nicolae Popa

(Romania)

wdwdwgqd
dwdKdk4n
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdndp
wdwdw)PG
dwdwdp4b
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdwdw

H#3 2 solutions

H2987 John Nunn

bdwdwdwd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwHP0p
wdwdkdr0
dRdwdwdw
Pdpdwdwd
gwdwdwdK

H#3 2 solutions

H2988 Vadim Vinokurov,
Valery Kirillov & Mikhail
Mishko

(Russia/Ukraine)

ngwdwdwd
Gwdw1wdw
pdwdpdwd
Iwdwdwdw
wdwdkdwd
dwdwdpdw
w0wdrdwd
db4Rdndw

H#3 2 solutions

H2989 Ricardo Vieira

(Brazil)

wdw4Rdwd
dBdbdwdw
wdw)w0wd
dw0q4pgp
wdp0w0wd
dw0wiwdw
nhKdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#3 2 variants
(b) BKe3>f3

H2990 Ivan Antipin

(Russia)

wdwdqdwd
dbdNdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdrdwd
dKdk0wdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#4 3 solutions

H2991 Christer Jonsson
& Rolf Wiehagen

(Sweden/Germany)

wdwdwdwi
dwdwhwdB
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdb
wdwdwdwg
dwdwdwdw
wdwIwdw)
dwdwdwdw

H#5

H2992 Mario Parrinello

(Italy)

wgwdniwd
dwdwhw0w
wdp4Bdpd
dwdqdwdw
rdwdp0wd
dwIwdpdw
bdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#6

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

452

H2937 (Meinking) (a) 1.Bxd7 c8Q 2.Bg4 Qf5

3.Be2 Sg2#. (b) 1.Rxb6 b8Q 2.Rb2 Qb4 3.Re2
Sd1#. This is good; black B/R switchbacks followed
by Grimshaw interferences. Remarkable that all 6
WPs in the array are necessary. Pity that WS blocks
the b-file in (a), so making second line of play
impossible (CT). The black bishop and in turn the
black rook perform a Herculean task: capture to
clear a line, Bristol, Grimshaw and blocking. A
difficult and enjoyable problem (LVB). Not easy to
see the return path of the clearing piece (M.Condon).
Related switchbacks with block on e2 but awful
initial position! (LB).

H2938 (Marks) 1...Rb3 2.Sc3 Ke3 3.Kd5 Rb5+

4.Kc4 Bd3#. 1...Rh3 2.Kf4 Be4 3.Kg4 Rh5 4.Sf4
Bf3#. 1...Bg4 2.Kd4 Rf5 3.Sf4 Rd5+ 4.Ke4 Bf3#.
Beautiful miniature (R.Lazowski). My pick of the
longer H#s; this miniature is a remarkable find
(B.E.Chamberlain).

H2939 (Bales) 1.Kb8 d5 2.g1R d6 3.Ra1 d7

4.Ra7 d8Q#. 1.f1S+ Ke4 2.g1B Kd5 3.Bxd4 Kc6
4.Ba7 Kc7#. Very different lines, with AUW in
attractive miniature setting (CT). Mixed AUW. Less
tricky than Mr.Bales’ usual offerings (LB).

H2940 (Ramaswamy) 1.Qd4 Ka5 2.Bb4+ Ka4

3.Se4 Kb3 4.Bd2 Sf4#. 1.Qc3 Kb7 2.Bc5 Kxc6 3.e2
Kd5 4.Be3 Se1#. Black helps White cross the barrier
without strain. A nice natural flow to this (LB).
Shielding effects with self-blocks. Enjoyable (CCF).

H2941 (Onkoud) 1.cxd6 Kf8 2.Kd7 Kf7 3.Kc7

Ke7 4.e4 cxd6#. 1.Kd5 Bxc7 2.Kxc5 Bd8 3.Kd6 Bf6
4.Kc7 Bxe5#. Charismatic WK and WB wheels
(VS). A successful 4-move Zilahi with minimal
white force. Amazing that even Pe5 serves a purpose
in both phases (LVB). Subtle stuff – I like the
change of function of Pe5 (LB). Unexpected Zilahi,
with neat play and similar mates (CT).

H2942 (Fiebig) 1.b2 Qxd3 2.d1R+ Qf1 3.Rd8

Qxc4 4.b1R+ Qxc1 5.Rb8 Qxc6#. With fancy
patterns of WQ leading to epaulette mate (VS). The
theme of WQ clearing capture, BP R-promotion,
WQ check interception and BR self-block occurs
twice in a single line of play; a lovely surprise! (CT).

n n n n n

HELPMATES SOLVING LADDER 2005

Month:

Jan Mar MayJul Sep Nov Yr Total

Maxima: 92 90 91 98 92 92 555

L.Blackstock III

92 90 91 98 92 92 555 1114

L.V.Belcsak I

86 88 87 89 88 71 509 905

D.P.Bonner XVII 65 41 31 33 33 31 234 331
A.E.J.Bouwes II 27 31 36 24 28 26 172 476

A.W.Bowen XII

17 63 649

B.Chamberlain IX 92 87 87 92 92 92 542 950

B.Clark VII 92 87 91 58

328 381

F.Cockerill VII 41 11 42

59 153 706

M.Condon V

89 58 87 59 72 66 431 510

J.de Boer 89 87 91 94 90 89 540 540

C.C.Frankiss I 92 90

98 92 92 464 847

J.Gill XI

92 90 85 93 92 87 539 776

J.Grudulis VII 92 88 86 98 90 90 544 896
F.T.Holt XV 92 90 89 98 92 90 551 848

V.A.Krivenko X 92 90 91 98 92

463 795

R.Lazowski VIII 92 90 89 98 92 92 553 994

G.Lucenti X

92 90 91 98 88 92 551 608

D.-I.Nicula I 92 87 91 98 88 92 548 622

D.Osterholz IX

82 59 78 23

242 305

E.Petite X

92 90 87 95 92 89 545 1191

F.D.B.Praal XIII 53 36 56 35 63 53 296 854
V.Ramaswamy VI 89 90 87 98

364 656

M.A.Ridley VIII 59 43 46 28 40 58 274 626
V.Satkus VI 92 90 91 98 92 92 555 616

V.Sergeyev VIII 92 90 87 96 90 82 537 1182
D.J.Shire I 35 40 38 35 35 35 218 722

B.G.Steveson VII 89 73 84 83 88 85 502 1190
C.Tylor II

64 70 84 35 63 48 364 402

T.v Oosterhout III

51 59 56 56 43 265 281

A.Willmott IX

92 90 91 98 92 92 555 1261

This year congratulations for 100% scores go

to Les Blackstock, Vilimantas Satkus and
Arthur Willmott. Always a contributor of
interesting notes on the problems, Vilimantas
Satkus follows up his 2004 success by being our
2005 Champion Solver. Congratulations for
achieving ladder ascents (for passing 750) go to:
XVI F.T.Holt; XIV F.D.B.Praal; XIII
B.G.Steveson; XII J.Gill; XI V.A.Krivenko,
E.Petite;

X A.Willmott; IX R.Lazowski,

V.Sergeyev; VIII J.Grudulis; IV L.Blackstock;
and II L.V.Belcsak and C.C.Frankiss.

Last year’s occasional solvers were:

I.Bryukhanov 75 (total 321); C.J.Morse 11 (total
164); and G.Yacoubian 66 (XVII 473).

Re the Solving Ladder:

I'd like to introduce in 2007 a new factor in tie-

breaking 100% scores. Until now (and up to the end
of this year) I’ve accepted some solutions in which
ambiguous notation is used for some moves (usually
where either of 2 Rs/Bs/Ss could go to the same
square). In the World Solving Championships, this is
generally allowed only when the context provides
100% proof (e.g.,illegality in the later play if the
other piece made the move) that the solver must
have intended the correct move. From the January
2007 issue onwards I’ll still adopt my present, more

relaxed approach in marking, but I’ll make a note of
whose solutions satisfy the stricter WCSC standards
for tie-breaking purposes. I hope this meets with
general approval; as ever, feel free to let me have
your comments!

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

453

RETROS,

edited by Cedric Lytton

16 Lime Grove, Sheringham, Norfolk NR26 8NX

Judge for 2005-6: Peter van den Heuvel

Eyjolfur has made his own the theme of Qs and Rs getting packed into the

enemy camps, with interesting play. Aleksandr offers a puzzle: how to give Black
enough retro-tempi before he has to play back Ka5-a4 (which can be written Ka5
for short in backward mode)?

SOLUTIONS (January)

R369 (Jelliss) 1-3.a6 c3 4.a*b7[f3] f*g2[c6] 5.Ra6 Qa5 6.c7 Qa1 7.Ra4

c*d2[h6] 8.h*g7[c3] c*b2[f6] 9.f*e7[a3] a2. Extremely entertaining, with two
chain reactions of reborn P capturing P; avoidance of a check on wK provides a
dual-free solution (F.Moralee). Several changes of move-order possible but for
need to keep a5 empty after black c*d2 (T.Marlow). Very original; diagram
initially sent me cross-eyed, but actually not too difficult (C.C.Frankiss). The
Turton by wR and bQ adds interest. George notes that the idea of interchanging
Antipodean Ps goes back to Chessics no.2 p.7.

R370 (le Gleuher) Last move obviously Pc7-c6. bBh2 is (Pa7) promoted on c1

after 2 captures, and locked in by Pg2-g3 releasing (Bf1) to go to e6 for f7xBe6,
accounting for all 3 missing white units. The wPs account for 4 of the 5 missing
black units. White cannot retract Pd2-d3 until (Bc1) is home, nor Pc2xd3 before
the unpromotion on c1. So we can only open the SE cage by retracting bK home
via f7, then uncapturing (Bf1) which returns home releasing wPg3. bK must return
via b3, then the 1-rank, then via h5; so wPa4 cannot retract to a2 too early, nor
bPh4 to h5 (no further since (Rh8) must also be able to go home). Now, playing
back Pf7xB Bh3; Ph5 Bf1; Black needs another tempo, which can only be made by

R375 Eyjolfur Eyjölfsson

(Iceland)

Qhbdkgn4
0p0w0pdw
wdw0wdwd

dwdwdwdw
wdPdPdwd
dBHwdwdw
P)w)K)P)
dwdwdR4R

PG 12.5

R376 Aleksandr Yarosh

(Russia)

nhbdwdw$
gq4pdwGw
k4pdwdwI
dpdwdwdw
w)Bdwdwd
!wdw)w)w
PdP)N)N)
dRdwdwdw

Last 21 single moves?

bK! So bQ must have been captured earlier on d8 to
give bK room to do this – accounting for the 5th
missing black unit, so wK cannot uncapture. Thus
the last 4 single moves (playing back) were: Pc7
Ka5; Kc5 Pa3.

With so much apparent freedom, many questions

arise; especially pleasing is reason why bQ must
have been captured at home (FM). Very clever
Retro: took quite a while to work out fate of bQ
(CCF). As you said, several plausible possibilities –
then all seems impossible – then bK oscillating gives
the key (TM). So far, Richard Dunn the only other
solver; evidently a difficult set.

b b b b b

The Master Sleuths 2005

1. Frank Moralee

2. Peter Fayers

3. Charles Frankiss

Once again Frank scores what shooting experts

call a “possible”, being the only one to spot the one
cook, in January. Peter achieved his declared aim of
solving everything, and completing his perfect run
of 6s remarked, “Mission accomplished”. J.Grudulis
might have joined him, but no solution received for
July – snail mail might have got there instead. Well
done, gentlemen. Evidently a tough year, with no
one else breaking 30.

RETROS SOLVING LADDER 2005

Month: Jan Mar MayJul Sep NovYr Total

Maxima:

L.Belcsak I

21 41

B.Chamberlain III 3

24 67

F.Cockerill

J.Craig II

24 46

R.J.Dunn

20 58

G.Enslin

P.Fayers IV

26 46

C.C.Frankiss III 6

34 49

J.Grudulis IV

30 30

R.Lazowski III

22 71

P.le Grand II

21 25

T.Marlow XVI

28 54

F.Moralee XIII

37 69

D-I.Nicula

V.Sergeev VI

C.Stockford II

21 26

Klaus Wenda also sent a solution and comment

to R358 (Jan) by his friend Wolfgang Dittmann.

Ascents: XVII T.Marlow; XIV F.Moralee; IV

B.E.Chamberlain, R.Lazowski; and a first to
Richard Dunn.

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

454

FIDE rules. The usual rules of chess should be

well known but it would help readers this month to

make sure they are acquainted with some of the less

usual laws. Also useful is to consider how these may

be applied to various fairy genres, e.g. in Circe

reborn rooks may castle. A couple of problems here

may open up some debate; your opinions would be

welcome.

This month’s problems. = Stalemate. Series-

movers: One side plays a given number of

consecutive moves without moving into check, and

without checking except possibly as the last move.
Seriesstalemate (Ser-=): White plays the series

ending in stalemate. Serieshelp(stale)mate (Ser-H# /
Ser-H=): Black plays the series following which

White may give (stale)mate with a single move.
Seriesselfstalemate (Ser-S=): White plays the series

following which Black is forced to give mate with a

single move. Proca Retractor: In F2494, White and

Black retract, White striving to reach a position with

a forward #1 and Black trying to hinder this. All

retractions must be legal; uncaptured units are

determined by the side retracting the capture.

Grasshopper (G): moves and captures on Q-lines

by hopping over any one unit of either colour and

landing on the next square beyond. Lion (LI): As G

but to any distance beyond. Leo (LE): moves like Q

and captures like LI. Double Grasshopper (DG):

makes a move consisting of two G moves, the first

without capturing, and with change of direction

permitted. In F2481 1…DGd4-f6 (via d6) is

possible. Camel (CA): (1,3)-Leaper.

Circe: a unit (not K) upon capture is reborn on its

original game array square, or removed as normal if

that square is occupied. Pawns are reborn on the

starting square on the same file as the square of

capture; rooks, knights and bishops on the starting

square of the same colour as the square of capture

and fairy pieces on the promotion square on the

same file as the square of capture. In F2487 White

could start 1.Q*c5(bQd8), 1.Q*g5(bGg1) or 1.Qxh1.
AntiCirce: a unit (Ks included) upon capturing is

reborn on its Circe rebirth square, which must be

vacant for the capture to be legal, e.g. 1.R*h4(wRa1)

in F2490.

Couscous Circe: As Circe, but the captured unit

is reborn on the Circe rebirth square of the captor,

e.g. in F2484, 1.S*f1(bSb1) is possible.
PlatzwechselCirce (PWC) a unit (not K) upon

capture is reborn on the square vacated by its captor,

e.g. in F2485 1.Ba5 2.B*b6(bBa5). Equipollents
Circe: a unit (not K) upon capture is reborn after

imitating the move of its captor, if the square moves

to is on the board and vacant; otherwise it disappears

as normal. In F2483, Black could play

h*g5(wkBf4), the wkB ‘move’ g5-f4 imitating the

bP move h6-g5 in length and direction. (In a way,

then, this is the opposite of the PWC rebirth). If

1…Bxg5 the kB disappears as the rebirth square is

off the board. The Kamikaze bishop in this problem

disappears whenever it captures, it is not intended

that it is reborn as it does so, so 1.kB*e3 results in

the bB, not the wkB, being reborn on c1; 1.kBxh6

results in both units disappearing.

Madrasi: a unit (not K), observed by a similar

unit of the opposite colour, is paralysed and may not

move or capture, nor give check, but may in turn

paralyse. Grid chess: the board is divided into 16

2x2 grid squares; only moves between different grid

squares are legal. In F2490, if the bK captured the

wPg7, the wPf6 would check it, but the wK and wB

would not. Imitator: cannot be moved independently

but accompanies the moves of other units, imitating

them in length and direction. If it is blocked from

doing so (it cannot capture), the move is illegal.

Masand: new to these pages, a unit which moves

and actively checks changes the colour of all the

units (not Ks) which it observes after the move. A

checking rear (non-moving) piece of a battery would

not recolour the units it observes. In F2491 White

could start 1.Qe4+ (d4=w, g4=w, b1=b). See Sep.

2001, p.203.

Variables: A Variable can be moved like any

preselected orthodox (or fairy, if any present) unit

belonging to its side and compatible with the play so

far, and retains the powers of that unit throughout

the solution (starting as a P, it may promote).

Checks, mates and any promotions must be

demonstrated a posteriori by showing that only the

substitution of the chosen units for each V in the

written-out solution will make it a legal sequence of

moves. In order for a variable to capture another

variable en passant, the variable to be captured must

have already been shown to be a pawn. In F2493, as

it is Black to move the wVh2 cannot be the K, so the

wVe1 must be, and as this isn’t in check some of the

bVs can be shown not to be certain types.

Protean men: upon capturing, a unit (inc. K)

takes on the powers of the unit captured, but without

changing colour; in the case where a P is captured,

its direction of movement is retained (a white unit

capturing a bP becomes a wP moving down the

board). Kings maintain their royalty, transforming

into royal pieces with other powers. (The composer

believes the rule for pawns capturing on their eighth

rank should be that they transform rather than

promote, though I think it is irrelevant here).

FAIRIES by Stephen Emmerson

2 Sevenoaks Road, Reading, Berks. RG6 7NT

Judge for 2006:

Norbert Geissler

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

455

F2480 Albert Grigorian

(Armenia)

wdwdwdwd
iwGwdwdw
wdR0wdwd

dwdPdwdw
wdPdwdPd
dwdwdw0w
w)wdKdNd
dwdwdwdN

Ser-H=21

F2481 Ken Cameron

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdkdBdwd

dwdQdwdw
wdw!wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
Iwdwdwdw

H#3½ (b) bKc6->f4
2wDG

F2482 Paul Raïcan

(Romania)

wdwdwdwd
dw)wdwdw
wdwdwdw0

)wdwdwdK
wdwdRdwd
dwdwHwdw
pdQdwdwd
$bdwiwdw

S#11 Circe
after G. Koziura

F2483 Kevin Begley

(USA)

wdQdwdwd
dwdN0wdw
w)P0wdP0

dwdkdwtGP
w)wdwdw0
dP)NgwdP
wdB0wdPd
dwdKdwdw

#2 (set, tries)
Equipollents Circe
Kamikaze Bishop g5 9wP

F2484 John Rice

wdwdwdwd
gwdbdwdw
wdpdwdwd
)wiw)pdw
Pdw4wdwd
dBdw!wGw
N)wHwdw0
Iwdwdndr

#2 (set)
Couscous Circe

F2485 Oleg Paradzinski

(Ukraine)

wdKdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wgwdwdw4
dwdwdwdw
wGwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
pdwdwdwd
iwdwdwdw

Ser-S=17
PWC

F2486 Klaus Wenda

(Austria)

w1wdw4wd
)w)w)Q)w
wdwdwIwd
dw)wdwdw
w1w1wdw1
dwdwdwdk
pdpdpdpd
dwdBdw!N

H=4 Circe Madrasi
(1+3) Lions

F2487 Václav Kotĕšovec

(Czech Republic)

r4bdn1qd
)P)P)P)P
Kgwdkdpd
dw1wdw1q
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
1wdwdw!b

Ser-=8 Circe Madrasi
3bG 2bQ 3bB

F2488 Gennadi Zgerski

(Russia)

rdw$wdwd
dwdwdNdw
wdwdwdwd
Hwdw0wdw
wdwdPdwd
)wirHpdp
Pdwdn)w)
$wdwIwdw

=2 (set)
Madrasi (2+1) Camels

F2489 Alessandro Cuppini

(Italy)

wdwdwdwG
iwdw0w)K
wdwdw)wd
dw)p)wdw
pdp)w0wd
dw)wdwdw
w)w0w)wd
dwdwdwdw

Ser-H#30
Grid chess

F2490 Ján Dučák

(Czech Republic)

wdwdQdwd
dqdpdw)w
qdwdBdw)
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwIP0
dwdw0p0w
wdwdQiwd
dwdwdwdR

#2 (try)
AntiCirce (2+2) Leos

F2491 Hubert Gockel

(Germany)

wHwIwdwh
dN0wdpdw
w0wdw)wd
1wdkdwdw
pdr0wdpd
dw0wdwdw
whwdQdwd
dBdwdwdw

#2 (try)
Masand

F2492 Arthur Willmott

(Australia)

wfwdwdwd
dwdKdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwhwdwdw
wdwgwdwd
dbdwiwdw

H=3 Imitator b8
(b) Ib8->d4

F2493 Geoff Foster

(Australia)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdedwjed
dwdedwje
wjwdejqf
dwdwfeje

H=9
Variables

F2494 Wolfgang Dittmann

(Germany)

kdndwdwd
)w0wdwdw
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdpdB
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdwdPdwd
gwdwIwhw

-12 & #1 Proca Retractor
AntiCirce

F2495R Ian Shanahan

(Australia)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0pdwdwd
dwiwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdPdr
w0p)wdwd
4wdRIwdw

Ser-S#19
Protean men

wwewwewweww
fwfwefwfwefwfwefwfw
wwewwewweww
fwfwefwfwefwfwefwfw
wwewwewweww
fwfwefwfwefwfwefwfw
wwewwewweww
wwewwewweww

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

456

Computer testing. I have computer checked all

but F2482, F2486 (which has had some testing by

its composer), F2487 (fully tested by its composer),
F2491 and F2493-95.

Hints. Some harder problems this month

probably merit help. The kings approach each other

along the edge in a fantastic finale to F2482. The

nature of the 16 moves in F2486-7 is fairly obvious

and makes these problems not too difficult. In F2493

6 Black pieces are penned in to fgh12 by bPs and by

White. How can White force Black to take back g6

in F2494? The wK makes his grave on a4 in
F2495R.

SOLUTIONS (January)

F2436 (Fenton) 1.e5 e4 2.Ke7 Se2 3.Kf6 Sg3

4.Kg5 f4+ 5.Kf4 Be2 6.g5 OO; 1.d5 Sa3 2.d4 Sb5

3.dc3 dc3 4.c6 Bf4 5.Rc7 Sxc7+ 6.Kd7 OOO. Quite

difficult, and good to get 2 castling solutions

(F.Moralee). Intriguing conditional helpmate;

remarkable to find in a position so close to the game

array – this is also one time it may be excusable to

‘dress the board’ with units present but not involved

in the play (SE).

F2437 (Šaletič) a) 1.OO b7 2.Kh8 ba8Q 3.Bg8+

Qxg8 b) 1.OOO gh8S 2.Kb7 Sxf7 3.Ka8 Sxd8. Two

attractive variations with promotions to Q and S and

castling on both sides (C.C.Frankiss). Very easy, but

it complements the previous problem in a way (FM).

Castling in both phases. Mission nicely

accomplished (L.Belcsak). Solving difficulties begin

after obvious castles. Tricky pin in (a) (C.C.Lytton).

F2438 (Vinagre) 1…Sf7 2.Sd6 Sd8 3.Sc8 Sc6

4.d6+ Ke6; 1…Se4 2.Sc5 Sxc5 3.Kb8 Sxd7+ 4.Ka8

Ke6. I preferred the 1…Sf7 line with the bS locked

in on c8. Nicely done though (CCF). A very pretty

solution by 1…Sf7 (FM). 1…Sf7 line spectacular

and difficult, despite static bK. WS routes well-

defined in both solutions (CCL).

F2439 (Grigorian) 1.Kxe6 2.Kxf5 3.Kg6 7.f8S

9.Sxb8 10.Sxc6 11.Se7; 1.Kxc6 3.Kxb8 6.Kxe6

7.Kxf5 8.Kg6 11.f7. Two quite different circuits of

captures, even though wK ends up on same square in

both (CCL). Solutions with and without promotions

but not too difficult (CCF).

F2440 (Pešikan) 1.Sxc4 2.Sd2 4.Sxc1 6.Sxg3

9.Kc3 OOO. Excellent final position with two black

units pinned and castling stalemate (CCF). Castling

seems obvious, but it still took some time to solve

(FM). A raid by bS, and bK walks into castle. Static

pin of bPb4 rather an anticlimax, though initially

deceptive (CCL).

F2441 (Willmott) 2.Rg2 3.Sg3 4.Rg4 5.Bf2

6.Qe3 9.Kf3 10.f4 11.f5 12.Qd2+ Kxd2. Pins

essential, but bQ hesitation nice (CCL). Fairly

obvious that the stalemate square is f3 and the rest is

straightforward (CCF).

F2442 (Cuppini) 1.Qb4+ e7 2.Qb8+ e8S 3.Qe5+

Sg7; 1.Qc5+ e7 2.Qc8+ e8Q 3.Qe6+ Qg6. Black

consecutive checks. Q selfblocks and line closing

(Composer). The black grashoppers repel White's

pieces from e7 and e8, a phenomenon unknown in

orthodox chess. So the black queen comes to help

running interference for the white pawn. All black

moves are thematic checks. A very, very good

problem (LB). Amusing and checking lines of play.

Well composed (CCF). Amusing checking

manoeuvres that allow the wP to promote (FM).

Spectacular checking series, and not easy (CCL).

F2443 (Pachl & Müller) 1.EQe7 Kb3! (Kd2?)

2.EQd6 EQc7 (3.EQe5?, e5?); 1.EQf4 Kd2! (Kb3?)

2.EQg7 EQg1 (3.EQe5?, e5?). Interesting interplay

between Black and white Es to guard and block

squares around bK. It would be wonderful if a cyclic

3rd variation could be worked in (CCL). Nice dual

avoidance on White’s first (LB). Well composed EQ

problem particularly with the wK moves (CCF).

F2444 (Sokka) a) 1.Sc6? Gb7 2.Se5 Ge7 3.Sb5

Ge4+! 1.Se6 Gf7 2.Sc5 Gc7 3.Sf5 Gc4 4.Sd3 Ge2

5.Se3 b) 1.Sc4? Gb3 2.Se2 Gd5 3.Se5 Gf5+! 1.Se4

Gf3 2.Sc2 Gd5 3.Sc5 Gb5 4.Sd3 Ge2 5.Se3. The

wSs guide the bG to self-block on e2. Good timing

(CCF). The tries fail in interesting ways but a slight

pity the twinning couldn’t cause the mate to switch

from e3 to c3 (SE).

F2445 (Cameron) a) 1.Zc3 Z*c3(bZc1) 2.Ze1 Zf5

3.Z*f5(wZf8) Zc6 4.Zd2 Zf4 b) 1.Zgd2 Z*h8(bZh1)

2.Ze3 Z*f5(bZf1) 3.Zh5 Z*d2(bZd1) 4.Zf2 Zg4.

Three bZ self-blocks and wZ mates from f4/g4 – but

how to get there? Well composed with a good twin

(CCF). Good echo, and if the Kings don’t move then

the wZ has to be reborn on a different coloured

square from the capture square, in the first part

(FM). Plenty of Circe in the play (SE).

F2446 (Feather) Set 1…h8nB. 5.nPh1nB 6.nBc6

7.b*c6(nBf1) 8.nPef1nS 9.nSf1*e3(nPe2) 10.nSd1

11.nPe*d1nS(nSb1) 12.ab1R Ra6. Excellent

sequence of Circe captures to create a guard on b2

and a self-block on b1 (CCF). h7 promotes to a B in

both parts but running on different colours; a

cleverly constructed sequence of promotions is

featured (SE).

F2447 (Ylijoki) 1…nSPe8nS(Ia2) 2.nS*g7

(nSPg2, Ic1) nSPg6(Ic5) 3.nSPa3(Ic1) nSPa8nS(Ic6)

4.nSPg1nS(Ic1) nSf3(Ib3) 5.nS*c7(nSPc2, Id2)

nSPc6(Id6) 6.nSPc1nS(Id1) nSd3(Ie3) 7.nSd2(Ic2)

nS*b1(Ke8, Ia1). Checkmate from 2 neutral knights

– I doubt if this could be achieved any other way.

Very difficult solving (CCF). Novel and very good

(FM). A fantastical finale but maybe too far away

for most solvers to find (SE).

F2448 (Paradzinsky) 1.Ka3 6.b8R 7.Rb5 8.Rf5

9.R*f6(Qf5) 10.Ra6 11.Rxg6(Ba6) 13.Ra4 14.R*a6

(Ba4) 16.R*f5(Qa5) 18.Rd1+ B*d1(Ra4). Another

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

457

good sequence (CCF). Precision in the square from

where the wR captures is to be expected in PWC,

but here both pieces are captured twice, which is

worthy of remark (SE).

F2449 (Begley) 1.Se5 2.Sf7 3.Sh8 4.S*g6(bPh8)

6.S*e6(bPf8) 8.S*c6(bPd8) 10.S*a6(bPb8) 11.Sc7

12.Sa8 13.S*b6(bPa8) 15.S*d6(bPc8) 17.S*f6

(+bPe8) 19.S*h6(+bPg8) 20.Sg4. 20-point circuit,

converts a wall of pawns on the 6th to a wall of

dummies on the 8th (Composer). White transfers all

the bPs to their 1st rank where they are immobilised

(CCF). Amusing, and wPg1 stops a cook by denying

wK access to g1 (FM). I’m not quite sure I think that

having Ps motionless on the first rank makes a lot of

sense, but it has become something of a default and

makes for a picturesque problem here (SE).

F2450 (Wenda) 1.R*d2(Rh8) Qa5+ 2.Bd2

g*h8R(Ra1); 1.B*d2(Bf8) Ba5+ 2.Rd2 g*f8R(Ra1);

1.K*d2(Ke8) g8R+ 2.Rh1 Qa4. The problem is C+

in Calvet and Cheylan type. The third phase is a

little bit different, but I think it doesn´t disturb things

since there is sufficient analogy (capture of Sd2,

rook-promotion) (Composer). The composer

manages to respond to three captures on d2 with

three advances of pawn g7. I prefer the problem

without the Kxd2 phase. This would highlight the

beautiful dual avoidance on w1. Strangely in the

extra phase the mate is pure, and consequently the

wB is idle (LB). Very ingenious Anti-Circe strategy,

particularly the white pinning moves (CCF).

Entertaining, and in the last 2 solutions, care is

needed in checking with the appropriate unit (FM).

Great care to match finales where Black cannot go to

the game-array squares to counter pins. 3rd solution

escapes me (CCL).

F2451 (Dittmann) 1.Sg1xPe2! e3-e2 2.Sb1xSd2

Sf3(c4)-d2 3.Sb8xPa6! Be8-d7 (forced, because

otherwise White is retro-stalemated) 4.Sd7-b8 for

1.Sc5# Try-play: 1.Sb8xPa6? Be8-d7 2.Sd7-b8 for

1.Sc5+? Bf2xSc5(f8)! Therefore in the foreplan the

bishop-diagonal is blocked. (1./3.Sb8xBa6? B~-a6!)

Marvellous problem. The first 2 retractions are easy

enough to guess, but the reason why they are

necessary is not clear until one spots the surprising

third retraction (FM). Switchback by the wS before

it makes the rest of the play, and interesting

motivations (SE).

FAIRIES LADDER 2005

Though there was one month in which Charles

Frankiss gained the highest score, it was not enough

to stop Frank Moralee winning overall with a little

to spare. Congratulations to Frank, who now has 9

victories in a row, and also to Charles for his good

showing. Seven problems were cooked this year; as

usual, it may not have been realistically possible to

gain extra points for all of these because it’s often

difficult to spot the intention in a cooked longer

problem.

Month Jan Mar May July Sep Nov Year Total

Maxima 48 50 46 46 48 48 286

L.Belcsak I

33 14

18 35 34 166

202

F Cockerill

B.E.Chamberlain VI

29 35

24 32 30 170

319

R.J.Dunn II

16 14

C.C.Frankiss XX

45 44

40 42 47 253

364

J.A.Grudulis IV

42 39

32 42 44 232

420

R.Lazowski IX

39 39

34 33 41 216

275

G.Lucenti VIII

35 27

107

217

C.C.Lytton IV

24 27

26 24 28 156

335

F.Moralee XXI

47 45

45 46 45 274

417

C.J.Morse I

27 150

D-I.Nicula

33 30

21 27 38 170

334

M.A.Ridley IX

V.Sergeev XIII

38 45

39 45

203

318

A.Willmott VIII

36 21

21 27 26 152

270

Also solved: May: I.Brukhanov 6 (Total 37),

D.P.Lynn 12 (110) Sep: J.Quah 27 (II-64).

Ascents: XXII & XXIII – F.Moralee. XXI -

C.C.Frankiss. XIV – V.Sergeev. X – R.Lazowski.

IX – G.Lucenti, A.Willmott. VII & VIII –

J.Grudulis. VII – B.E.Chamberlain. V – C.C.Lytton.

II – L.Belcsak. I – D-I. Nicula.

50 YEARS AGO

The issue of The Problemist dated July 1956

contains the report of a lecture by Comins Mansfield

entitled “The Work of Brian Harley”. 16 problems

had been shown, and 6 of them were reproduced in

the report, among them a mutate 2-mover (A – set

1…Q~/Qxc8 2.b8S/bxc8S. 1.Qa6 (-) Qa7/Qc7/

Qxc8/Qxd6 2.bxa7/bxc7/dxc8Q/Sa7) and a 3-mover

(B) with a good flight-giving key and some nice

model mates: 1.Sc6 (>2.Qxd1+ Kxe4/Kxc6 3.Qd3/

Qd6) Bxe2 2.Se7+ Kxe4 3.Qxe2; 1…Bc2, Bxb3

2.Sb4+ Kxe4 3.Bg4; 1…Kxe4 2.Bxd1+ Kf5 3.Se7

(duals after 2…Kd3/Kd5); 1…Kxc6 2.Rd4 ~/Sf5

3.Rd6/Qh1; 1…Sxc6 2.Bc4+ bxc4 3.bxc4; 1…Sf5

2.Qh1 Kxc6 3.Rd4; 1…Sf3/f5 2.Sb4+ Kxe4 3.Bd3/

Bxd1; 1…c2 2.Qd2+.

A Brian Harley

The Observer 1944

Q1N$wdwd
dPdPdwdw
w)k)wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdKdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

B Brian Harley

Morning Post 1917

Khwdwdwg
dwdwdwdw
wdwdN0wd
dp)kdwdw
pdwHRdwh
dP0wdwdw
wdwdBdwd
dwdb!wdw

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

458

BRITISH CHESS SOLVING CHAMPIONS, 1980-2006

When Jonathan Mestel won the 2005-6 Winton Capital British Chess Solving Championship last February,

nobody was quite sure how many times he had previously won it. So here are details of all the winners and
runners-up from the year when the Championship began. From 1980 to 1991 the event was sponsored by
Lloyds Bank, and then for three years by East-West Consultants (Michael Ormandy). After that there was no
sponsor until Winton Capital Management came on the scene in 2004.

In 1994 the first place went to Arno Zude, solving hors concours, and in 1998 Arno came second. In each

year since 2004 two solvers from abroad have come in the top three.

Year

1st

2nd

3rd

Hors concours

1980

G.Lee

D.Friedgood

J.Mestel

1981

J.Nunn

I.Sinclair

D.Friedgood/T.Lewis

1982

D.Friedgood

J.Mestel

T.Lewis

1983

J.Mestel T.Lewis

P.Clarke

1984

J.Nunn

J.Mestel

S.Nyman/J.Tymms

1985

D.Friedgood

J.Mestel

J.Roycroft

1986

J.Mestel

N.Macleod

D.Friedgood

1987

J.Mestel

D.Friedgood

N.Macleod

1988

J.Mestel

D.Friedgood

C.Lennox

1989

J.Mestel

G.Lee

M.McDowell

1990

D.Friedgood

J.Mestel

M.McDowell

1991

J.Mestel

M.McDowell

S.Orton

1992

J.Nunn

J.Mestel

M.McDowell

1993

J.Mestel

D.Friedgood

J.Nunn

1994

J.Mestel (2)

J.Nunn (3)

C.McNab (4)

A.Zude (1)

1995

D.Friedgood

J.Mestel

M.McDowell

1996

M.McDowell

I.Watson

R.McKay

1997

M.McDowell

G.Lee

J.Mestel

1998

J.Mestel

R.McKay (3)

I.Watson (4)

A.Zude (2)

1999

J.Mestel

M.McDowell

R.McKay

2000

J.Mestel

G.Lee

D.Friedgood

2001

J.Mestel

C.McNab

M.McDowell

2002

M.McDowell

I.Watson

W.Clark

2003

J.Mestel

M.McDowell

I.Watson

2004

D.Friedgood (3)

J.Mestel (4)

C.McNab (6)

D.Wissmann (1)
J.Paavilainen (2)

2005

J.Mestel

M.McDowell (7)

C.McNab (8)

P.Murdzia (2)
M.Caillaud (3)

2006

J.Mestel (3)

D.Friedgood (5)

C.McNab (6)

P.Murdzia (1)
M.Kovačević (2)

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

459

SELECTED PROBLEMS

TWOMOVERS, by Lu Citeroni

In A1 each WS has four plausible first moves,

giving two sets of four-fold cyclic dual threats. All
seven tries are refuted by the fact that the Ss, in
moving, open the gates of the two BRs in one case
and the WQ in the other. Which of the eight moves
is the key? A stunning, clockwork-like composition
that is not schematic in any way, something almost
impossible to achieve with this theme. 1.Sf4?
(>2.Qxd3 and 2.Qd5) 1…Rd6! 1.Sge7? (>2.Qd5 and
2.Qf5) 1…Rg5! 1.Sh4? (>2.Qf5 and 2.Bxf3) 1…Rf6! 1.Sge5? (>2.Bxf3 and
2.Qxd3) 1…Rxg3! 1.Sb4? (>2.Qxd3 and 2.Qd5) 1…Qd6! 1.Sce7? (>2.Qd5 and
2.Qf5) 1…Qe6! 1.Sd4? (>2.Qf5 and 2.Bxf3) 1…Qf6! 1.Sce5! (>2.Bxf3 and
2.Qxd3) Qd6 2.Bxf3; 1…Qe6,Qf6 2.Qxd3; 1…Se1 2.Rxe3.

I wish to thank Paul Valois for sending me A2, a highly unusual Sushkov

composition. There are two set mates following the Grimshaw on f6. The try and
key give Nowotny first moves on this square. Only one threat is possible as the
squares e6 and c5 are abandoned respectively. Self blocks on e6 and c5 then bring
the pseudo le Grand element into play. All this is not new, but the long-range
open-gate mates that follow the defences 1…Rxf6 in one phase and 1…Bxf6 in
the other are fabulous, and make the problem stand out. Furthermore, it should be
noted that these two new mates occur on the same square as those in the set play,
making the problem a Ruhklis that is split over the three phases! Set 1…Bf6
2.Rxd7; 1…Rf6 2.Rd3. 1.f6? (>2.Rd7 and not 2.Rd3?) 1…Be6 2.Rd3; 1…Rxf6
2.Qd3! but 1…Rb6! 1.Bf6! (>2.Rd3 and not 2.Rd7?) Rc5 2.Rd7; 1…Bxf6
2.Qxd7!; 1…Sc5 2.Re5; 1…Sxf3+ 2.Bxf3.

In A3 there is a half-battery set-up and a flight on e3. Random tries by each

WS to b1 and e1 take the flight but divide the possible double threat by yielding
new flights on c4 or e5. Again we have the Sushkov theme. Using 1st-move /
threat reversal the two WSs occupy these squares, thus cutting out the projected
mating moves and introducing threat correction. There follows an inverted mate-
transference mechanism after BK and BP captures on the flight squares in which
the original threats return as mates. A change after the further defence 1… Rxb2
completes this stunning composition. 1.Sb1? (>2.Qa4 and not 2.Qh8?) 1…Rxa3!
1.Se1? (>2.Qh8 and not 2.Qa4?) 1…h1Q! 1.Sc4!? (>2.Sde5) Kxc4 2.Qa4;
1…dxc4 2.Qh8; 1…Rxb2 2.Sxb2; but 1…Sxf3! 1.Se5! (>2.Sdc4) Kxe5 2.Qh8;
1…dxe5 2.Qa4; 1…Rxb2 2.Bxb2.

The flight in A4 is provided by 2.Rxc6, but there is no reply to a random move

of the BB. Five tries and the key provide six different replies to the bishop move.
Furthermore, the tries are refuted by five different correction moves by this
defending piece. The problem also shows a doubled first-move / mate reversal
mechanism in three of the tries and the key. A dual after the flight in one of the
tries is a small price to pay for such an incredible tour de force! 1.Ke2? (-) B~
2.Sd1; but 1…Bxa4! 1.Qf8? (-) B~ 2.Qf3; but 1…Bxe4! 1.Qh8? (-) B~ 2.d5, but
1…Bd5! 1.d5? (-) B~ 2.Qh8, but 1…Be8! 1.Qa5? (-) B~ 2.b5, but 1…Bb5! 1.b5!
(-) B~ 2.Qa5; 1…Kxc4 2.Rxc6.

THREEMOVERS, by Don Smedley

Efrén Petite recently celebrated his 80th birthday. B1 shows three white

Umnov variations with a nice underlying logic. The key 1.Sf4! threatens 3.Se2#
after the WQ moves, but a quiet Q move will not do, since Black defends by
2…Re3,Rxf3. So the threat is 2.Qe4+ fxe4 3.Se2. Black defends by playing to e3.
1…Re3 blocks e3, permitting 2.Qd3+ cxd3/Rxd3 3.Ra4/Se2. Either Se3 corrects
by guarding c4 and providing new defences to 3.Se2 with d1Q/f1Q,Re1.
However, the BR is now incarcerated, and we have the quiet Umnov variations

A1 Vasyl Dyachuk

1 Pr Wola Gulowska 2005

wGwdwdwd
dwdQdp4w
qdNdwdN4

dpdwdwdp
wdwdkdwd
dw)p0p)w
wdn)RdwI
dwdwdwdB

A2 Valery Shanshin

1 Pr Uralski Problemist
1993-6

wdNdwdb1
Hp$nGwgQ
wdwdwdrd

drdkdPdw
w0wdw)wd
dw)w$Pdw
wdwhBdpd
dwdwdwIw

A3 Valery Shanshin

1 Pr= Shakhmatnaya
kompozitsiya 2001

wdwdQdwd
dpdw)Bdw
wIw0wdwd
0wdpdwdw
wdwiP0wd
)RdNdPdw
r)wHwdw0
dwGRdwhw

A4 Valery Popov

1 Pr= Moscow Ty 2005

wdR!wdwd
Gwdw)wdw
wdbdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
P)N)Pdwd
dwiwdw)w
w$wdwHwd
dwdwdKdw

B1 Efrén Petite

1 HM Probleemblad 2002

wdbdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwIw)Nd
dwdw)pGw
wdpiwdwd
$w0rdP0w
w0w0Q0wd
dwdndn4w

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

460

1…Sde3/Sfe3 2.Qd1/Qf1 3.Se2; also 1…Rxf3 2.Ra4 (>3.Rxc4) Se3,Rd3/Ba6,Be6
3.Q(x)d3/S(x)e6.

The theme tourney from which B2 is taken required two (or more) thematic

groups, each with at least two variations. The key of B2 sets up a royal battery. In
the threat and first variation, the WQ and WB make anti-critical moves which
allow the battery to open on the third move. In the other two variations the
battery opens on the second move. In total, the WK visits 8 different squares.
1.Bc2! (>2.Qe3 ~/Sxf3 3.Kd2/Ke2) 1…bxa3 2.Bd4 ~/b4/Se2 3.Kc3/Kc4/Kxe2;
1…Bxh5 2.Ke3+ Kg5 3.Kf2; 1…Bf7,e8 2.Kd4+ Kf6 3.Ke4.

B3 has two striking variations in which the WRd3 is unpinned. Paradoxically,

it must then check on the square which Black has just guarded, so allowing cross-
checks. There is also some good by-play. The repetition of 3.Re2# is perhaps a
slight drawback. 1.Sf7! (>2.Sxg3+ Kf4 3.Be5) 1…Re2 2.Re3+ [2.Rd4+? Ke3!]
Rxe3+/Kxe3 3.Re2/Qd4; 1…Se2 2.Rd4+ [2.Re3+? Kxe3!] Sxd4+/Ke3
3.Re2/Qd2; 1…Qe1 2.Re3+ Qxe3/Kxe3 3.Re2/Qd4; 1…Qe2 2.Be5 3.Sxg3;
1…Sf6 2.Sxf6+ Kf4 3.Bh6.

MOREMOVERS, by Jörg Kuhlmann

It’s good still to find top quality moremovers in the Austrian over-the-board

magazine Schach-Aktiv, with Wilfried Seehofer (

seehofer@t-online.de

) now in

charge after the mourned demise of Friedrich Chlubna. Though I’ll report on the
latest informal tourney, you could easily think I’d selected the following
blockbusters from a theme tourney asking for pendulum manoeuvres (cf.
January). We see pendular moves in a nutshell in C1: Bd6-f4-b8-f4 and Rb5-b3-
b5. White improves his position (Bb8 instead of Bd6) while Black has to switch
his defender back when the temporary release from some guard duty is revoked.
The try 1.Qf3+? shows that White wants Black to commit a self-block on d3.
Whereas 1.Bf4! Rb3 doesn’t do that job yet, 4.Bf4! Rd3 indeed does: a self-block-
Roman with the Roman decoy 3.d5! Rxd5. If you try to start with this decoy
you’ll trace the WB being in the WQ’s way: 1.d5? Sc6! 2.Qc7?? So a Bristol-
clearance along the diagonal h2-b8 is needed, though not just with the key –
1.Bb8? would be naively weak. After the Antizielelement (cf. May’s C1) and Anti-
Bristol 1.Bf4! Rb3 (2.Qe5??), however, 2.Bb8!! carries a strong short threat,
which is typical of pendulum manoeuvres. To summarize, an Anti-Bristol and a
Bristol-clearance prepare a self-block-Roman – a novelty! Please compare 1.d5?
Rxd5?/Sc6! with 3.d5! Rxd5/Sc6 – what do you think this is? (It begins with the
same letter as White’s opponent…) Set play: 1...Sf4+ 2.Qxf4#; 1.Qf3+? gxf3+
2.exf3+ 3.Kd3!; 1.d5? (>2.Qe5#) Rxd5? 2.Bf4! (>3.Qxe3#) Rd3 3.Qf3+! gxf3
4.exf3#, but 1...Sc6! 2.Bf4 (2.Qc7??) Rb3! 3.Qf3+? – 1.Bf4! Rb3 2.Bb8!!
(>3.Qe5#) 2…Rb5 3.d5! (>4.Qe5# & >4.Qc7 Rxd5 5.Qh7+ Rf5 5.Qxf5#; 3.Qc7?
Rf5!! 4.Qh7 Sf4+!) 3…Rxd5 4.Bf4! (4.Qc7?) Rd3 5.Qf3+! gxf3+ 6.exf3#
(Kd3??); 3...Sc6 4.Qc7! Sxb8 5.Qh7+! (5.Qe5+?) Ke5 6.Sf7#.

The pendular pieces in C2 are Be7 and Ke5. White wants to make the half-pin

b5-e5 a deadly pin of Pc5, which could be managed by provoking dxe4. The gR,
however, is the wrong candidate for a sacrifice on e4 for two reasons: there is also
a guard by the eR – and what about the new flight square f4 then? Therefore the
gR better sacrifices itself on f4 (with the BK on f6), thus exchanging force for
mass. This sacrificial square-vacation in advance enables the WS to threaten a
short mate on g4 (with the BK back to e5) – whereas 1.Sf2? as a start would have
been naively weak again, alone for the reason that the half-pinning bR is always
en prise. After the decoy 4…Rg1 the WS sacrifices itself on e4 (with the BK once
more on f6). Eventually back to e5, the BK is faced with the originally intended
pin-mate. New German logicians lay stress (sometimes in the double sense of the
word) on the purity of purpose of each pendulum manoeuvre. Aha, but doesn’t
6…dxe4 serve a double purpose, line-opening and self-block? Yes, it does, but
the selfblock is mere compensation (the magic word!) for the loss of the gR’s
control, which is necessary to enable 6.Se4+! at all. And what about 2…gxf4 –
doesn’t it serve the double purpose of selfblock and anticipatory interference? No,

B2 Anatoly Stepochkin

2 pl Moscow TT 2005

wdwdwdrd
dw0w0wdr
wdw0Pdbd

dpdPdkdP
w0wdwdw0
)PdKdPdP
wGwdwdwd
dw!Bdwhw

B3 Igor Agapov

2 Pr Zadachi y Etudyi
2003

wdwdwdwd
dw0wdwGn
wdwdwdwd
dwdPHbdN
wdKdkdpd
dw)Rdp0w
wdRdw4pd
dBdQdqhw

C1 Hans Peter Rehm

1 Pr Schach-Aktiv 2005

bdwdwdwd
hwdwdwdw
w0wGNdwH
drdwdw)p
wdP)kdp4
dwdw0w!n
w0wdPdKd
dwdwdwdw

C2 Ralf Krätschmer

2 Pr Schach-Aktiv 2005

wdwdwdwd
dn0KGw0w
wgwdBdpd
4R0piw0w
wdwdwdRd
dw)Pdpdw
wdpdwdwd
dbdw4wdN

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

461

it doesn’t, because 4…Re4 (instead of 4…Rg1) wouldn’t be a refutation even
with, say, WPg3 instead of BPf4 at that stage: 5.Bf8 and either 5…Kf6 6.Sxe4+!
as in the solution or 5…Rf4 6.Bxg7+ / 6.Sg4+ with a short-cut by overload. You
see, to decide the purity of a manoeuvre’s purpose sometimes needs serious
thought – which a quick solver or reader might easily feel to be academic rather
than entertaining. 1.d4+? cxd4! – 1.Bf8! (>2.Bxg7#) Kf6 2.Rf4+!! gxf4 3.Be7+
Ke5 4.Sf2 (>5.Sg4#) Rg1 5.Bf8 Kf6 6.Se4+! dxe4 (Rxe4??) 7.Be7+ Ke5 8.d4#
(cxd4??/Ke4,f4??).

Nope, C3 isn’t a typical moremover by Kozdon – he’s the judge here! White

needs intermeshing pendulum manoeuvres by the WRs and the BK to trigger a
shut-off on the 2nd rank. By the way, 1.Rxe7? Bf3?/Rxg2! vs. 11.Rxe7!
Bf3/Rxg2 should make you think of something. (Its second syllable rhymes with
the Yorkshire pronunciation of the word ‘young’…) 1.Rxe7? (>2.Bxd5#) Bf3?
2.Bxf3!, but 1…Rxg2! 2.Rxd6 (>3.Rd8#) Rb2! – 1.Rcb7! (>2.Rb8+ Ka7
3.R6b7#) a5 2.Rb8+ Ka7 3.R6b7+ Ka6 4.Rb1! (>5.Ra8#) Ka7 5.R8b7+ Ka8!
(Ka6? 6.R1b6#) 6.R7b5! (>7.Rxa5#) Bd2 7.Rb8+ Ka7 8.R1b7+ Ka6 9.Rb6+
Ka7 10.R8b7+ Ka8 11.Rxe7! Rxg2 12.Rxd6 Kb8 (Rb2??) 13.Rd8#, 11…Bf3
12.Bxf3 ~ 13.Bxd5#.

In C4 intermeshing pendulum manoeuvres are needed again – this time under

the command of the white ruler himself following a remarkable zigzag line to get
rid of a WP by annihilation. The other pendular pieces are Sd5, WB and BK. The
alternative disturbing checks by Sd5 are no ‘black duals’ because it’s of no
thematic interest where this S checks. If some of the alternatives were thematic
(e.g. part of a cyclic pattern), the variations would be devastating – here they
aren’t at all. 1.Sb5+? Kc5! (2.Bd6??); 1.Bf2+? Kxe5! – 1.Kc6! (>2.Sb5/Rxd5#)
1…Sb4,e7+! (Sf4? 2.Rd5+ Sxd5 3.Sb5# & 2.Bxf4 gxf4 3.Rd5# [Rxd5??])
2.Kd7! (>3.Bf2#) 2…Sd5! 3.Ke6! (>4.Rxd5# & >4.Bf2+ Se3 5.Rd5/Bxe3#;
3.Bf2+? Kxe5! 4.Bg3+ Kf6!) 3…Sc7+! (Sf4+? 4.Bxf4! gxf4 5.Rd5# [Rxd5??])
4.Kf7! (>5.Bf2#) 4…Sd5! (Sb5? 5.Rxb5! Sf5 6.Bf2+ Se3 7.Bxe3#) 5.Bf2+!
Kxe5 6.Bg3+ Kd4 (Kf6??) 7.Ke6 Sc7,f4+ 8.Kd7 Sd5! (Sb5? 9.Rxb5!, 8…Sh3?
9.Kc6! Sf4 10.Bf2#) 9.Kc6 Sb4,e7+ 10.Kb7 Sd5 11.Sb5+! Kc5 12.Bd6#
(Kd5??), 10…Sc2,f5 / Sg2,f5 11.Bf2+ Se3 12.Bxe3#.

To allay the suspicion that our topic is confined to composers of German

tongue I add the Israeli-Ukrainian joint C5 with another example of intermeshing
pendulum manoeuvres, starring aR, eS and BK. Both central BPs prevent 1.c4??
from mating. 1.Sxc4? plus 2.Se3+ would capture one and decoy the other, if
Black weren’t able to accept the offer already on c4 instead of e3. With Rb6
instead of Ra6 we’d get Kxc4? Rb5!, but 1.Rb6? would again be naively weak –
alone because queening on g1 is always strong. Everything now revolves around
improving the aR’s position while keeping Black on the go. 1.Sg4! Ke4! 2.Rf6?
looks promising, but queening on h1 has still to be suppressed in between. I hope
you noticed 1.Sxc4? Bc3?/Kxc4! vs. 7.Sxc4! Bc3?!/Kxc4? and know a name for
it. (Its vowels are assonant with ‘joyful’, and it’s not of English origin…) 1.c4??;
1.Sxc4? (>2.Se3+ dxe3 3.c4# & [1…g1Q?] >2.d3 Sxd3 3.cxd3 ~ 4.Rd6#)
1…Bc3? 2.Se3+! (2.d3? Sxd3! 3.cxd3 Bb4!) dxe3 3.dxc3! ~ 4.c4#, but 1…Kxc4!
– 1.Sg4! (>2.Sgf6#) 1…Ke4! (d4? 2.Se3#, 1…c4? 2.d3! Sxd3 3.cxd3 ~ 4.Sgf6#)
2.Sxh2+! (2.Rf6? [>3.Se3#] h1Q!) 2…Kd5! (Kf5? 3.Rf6+! Kg5 4.Sf3#) 3.Sg4!
Ke4! 4.Rf6! Kd5! (h1Q??; 4…Be6,h5? / Sd3,e2? 5.Se3+! Bg4/Sf4
6.Rxg4/R~xf4#; 4…Sg6?! 5.Sf2++! Kd5 6.Rh5+! Se5 [Bxh5??] 7.Rxe5#) 5.Rb6!
(>6.Sgf6#) Ke4! 6.Sge5+ Kd5! (Kf5? 7.Rf6+! Kg5 8.Sf3#) 7.Sxc4! Bc3!?
8.Se3+! dxe3 9.dxc3 ~ 10.c4#, 7…g1Q 8.d3 Sxd3 9.cxd3 Q~ 10.Rd6#,
7…Kxc4? 8.Rb5! g1Q 9.Sb6#.

STUDIES, by Paul Valois

Time for another of Vysokosov’s “thematic try” studies, of which D1 is one of

the more easily digestible. The white h-pawns look like the route to win, but not
by 1.h7? c5+ 2.Kd5 Kxh5 3.Bd6 Bh8 and so on; first we must shut out the BR by
1.c5 Ra5 2.c3 (an immediate 2.Be5? is the thematic try; we will only see the

C3 Dieter Kutzborski

4 Pr Schach-Aktiv 2005

kdwdwdwI
dw$whw0p
p$w0wdrd

dwdpdpdb
wdpdwdwd
dwdw0wdw
wdwdwdBd
dwgwdwdw

#13

C4 Wolfgang Bär

5 Pr Schach-Aktiv 2005

wdwdwdwd
dKdwdwdw
wdwHwdpg
$wdn)w0r
wdpiwdph
dwdpdPGw
wdw)wdwd
dwdwdwdw

#12

C5 Leonid Makaronez &
Igor Yarmonov

2 HM Schach-Aktiv 2005

wdwdwdwh
IwdNdbdw
Rdwdwdwd
dwdkHwdw
Pdp0wdw$
dwdwdw0w
wdP)wdp0
gwhwdwdw

#10

D1 Andrei Vysokosov

1 Pr= Mansarliisky-50 JT
2005

wdwdwdwd
0wdwdwdw
rdpdKdw)
dwdwdwdP
pdPgwGwi
dwdwdwdw
BdPdwdPd
dwdwdwdw

Win

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

462

reason why WPc2 must be got rid of ten moves on) Bxc3 (if Black tries 2...Bh8
then 3.Be5 Kxh5 4.Bxh8 Kxh6 5.Kd6 Rb5 6.Kxc6 Rb2 7.Bd5 a3 8.c4 wins)
3.Be5 Bxe5 4.Kxe5 Rxc5+ 5.Kf4 (trapping BK at the board edge) Rxh5 6.Be6
(see diagram) Rxh6 7.g3+ Kh5 8.Bf7+ Rg6 9.Kf5 Kh6 (if 9...a3 10.Bxg6+ Kh6
11.Bf7, so BK plays to prevent WB’s return to f7) 10.Bxg6 Kg7 11.Kg5 a3
12.Bb1 (the removal of WPc2 by 2.c3 has allowed WB to stop the pawns) c5
13.Ba2 and wins. The judge pointed out WB’s switchback to a2. I think the play
flows very naturally in this study.

D2 is by a composer whose studies always deserve attention. White is a piece

down and must use his b-pawn to avoid a straightforward loss. 1.Sf2 Sf4
(guarding BPh3) 2.b6 Kd7 3.Kb5 (the threat of Ka6 encourages BK to play to c8;
the composer’s thematic try is 3.Kc5? Sf1 4.b7 Kc7 5.Sgxh3 Sxh3 6.b8Q+ Kxb8
7.Kd6 and BB can retreat to c8) 3...Kc8 4.Kc5 (now White must and can defend
in a different way) Sf1 (threatening to advance the h-pawn) 5.Sgxf3 Sxh3 6.Kd6.
Now if 6...Sxf2 7.Kxe6 and White has a “Troitzky” draw against the two BSs
because WP is too advanced; if instead 6...Sg5, then 7.Se4 draws. 6...Bf5 7.Ke5
Bd7 8.Kd6 (threatening to win the BB by 9.b7+) Bf5 9.Ke5, and we have a
positional draw because the WK continuously attacks the BB. If Black tries to
protect BBf5 by 9...Sg3, then 10.Sh1 draws, or by 9...Se3, then 10.Sd1 draws.
These WS moves add much to the effect of the study.

Belatedly I quote one of the winners from Pal Benko’s 75th birthday tourney,

also featuring a positional draw (D3). 1.fxg6+ is an obvious start and 1...Kb7 is
necessary otherwise 2.g7, promoting with check. Now WB must do something
about BPf2, because a BQ will quickly force mate. 2.Bf3+ (forces BK to a7, so
that eventually a new WQ can play to c8; the composer gives 2.Be2? Rd1 3.Bb5
Rxd6 4.f5 Rd5 5.g7 Rxb5 6.g8Q f1Q 7.Qh7+ Ka6 8.Qh8 Qd1+ 9.Ka3 Rd5 wins)
Ka7 3.Be2 (3.Bg2? Rxd6 4.f5 b5+ 5.Ka5 Ra6+ 6.Kxb5 Rf6 wins) Rxd6 4.f5 Rd2
5.Bb5 (not 5.Bf1? Rd1 6.Be2 Rg1 wins) Rd5 6.g7 Rxb5 (Black can capture WB
with impunity) 7.g8Q f1Q 8.Qc8!. The downside to Black’s play is that BR is
trapped on b5, with BQ tied to defending it; if here 8...Rxf5 9.Qc7+ with
perpetual check. 8...Qxf5 9.Qc7+ Ka6 (obviously not 9...Ka8 10.Qc6+ winning
the rook) 10.Qc4 Qd7. Now White has a pin on the rook and the possibility of a
stalemate after ....QxQd3, but he must be careful, for example 11.Qd3? Qc6
12.Qe2 Qd5 13.Qf1 Qa2#. All Black’s attempts to wriggle out of this positional
draw fail, the composer giving 11.Qf1 Qc6 12.Qd3 Qd5 13.Qe2 Kb7 14.Qe7+
(14.Qxb5? Qa2#) Ka6 15.Qe2 Qh5 16.Qd3 Qg5 17.Qc4 Qf5 18.Qd3 Qe5
19.Qf1 Qd5 20.Qe2 (clearly White must always counter Qd5 with Qe2) Kb7
21.Qe7+ Ka6 22.Qe2 and so on. It is good that Akobia is active once more.

D4 is by a South African composer now gaining recognition. The obvious

1.g8Q? fails because of 1...Bb7+ 2.Qg2 Be4 3.Qf3+ Bxf3+ 4.exf3 Kf2 and Black
mates after 5.f4 Kg3 6.f5 Kh3 7.f6 Sg3 mate. So we play 1.g8R Bb7+ 2.Rg2
Bxg2+ (otherwise stalemate) 3.Kxg2. Now if 3...Kxe2, 4.Kh1 Kf3 stalemate, so
Black leaves the pawn and tries 3...Kf4. Now not 4.Kh1?? Kg3, nor 4.e3+? Ke4
5.Kh1 Kf3 6.e4 Kg3, mating as before. Instead 4.e4 Ke5 5.Kh1 Kf4 6.Kg2 (6.e5?
Kg3) draws. This final position is known, but the composer has beautifully
extended it with a Rook promotion, in an elegant setting. This is from the first
ever originals tourney of EG. In 1998 John Roycroft bowed to the inevitable and
introduced an originals column (first run by Noam Elkies, now by Gady Costeff).
Issues 159-62 of EG have appeared as a most impressive bound volume (number
XI), containing 128 awards and 20 articles (see review on page 447). The awards
catch up on a big backlog, but also include earlier Soviet tourneys which John’s
persistence has winkled out from various sources. Notable amongst the articles
are AJR himself on Stamma, Russian composing championships and his own
eventful life, some forthright views from John Nunn, and experts Marc
Bourzutschky & Yakov Konoval describing their work on 7-man pawnless
endgame databases (longest win discovered so far – 517 moves, KQS v KRBS,
mentioned in British Endgame Study News). Incidentally, back issues of EG have
been scanned and can be read at www.gadycosteff.com/eg.

D1a

(position after 6.Be6)

wdwdwdwd
0wdwdwdw
wdpdBdw)

dwdwdwdr
pdwdwKwi
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdPd
dwdwdwdw

Win

D2 Sergei Osintsev

1 Pr= Sukharev MT 2005

wdwdwdwd
dwdwiwdw
wdwdbdnd
dPdwdwdw
wIwdwdwd
dwdwdwdp
wdwdwdwh
dwdwdwHN

Draw

D3 David Gurgenidze &
Yury Akobia

1 Pr= Benko-75 JT 2004

wdkdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0w)wdpd
dwdwdPdw
K)w4w)Bd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdw0wd
dwdwdwdw

Draw

D4 Albert van Tets

2 Pr EG 1998-2003

wdbdwdwd
dwdwdw)w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwiwdw
wdwdPdw0
dwdwdndK

Draw

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

463

E1 Viktor Syzonenko

1 Pr=, RIA 2003

w4wdRdKd
dwdw4wdw
w0B1pHw0

dwhwiwdw
wdw0wdpd
dwdwdw0b
wdwdwhpd
dwdwdwgw

H#3 2 solutions

E2 Michal Dragoun

Pr, Vratnica-64, 2002-03

wdbdwdwd
dwdwdrdw
wdpdwdqd

dwdwdw0w
w)khP4NG
dwdwdwIR
PdwdwdP)
dwdwdwhw

H#3 2 solutions

E3 František Sabol

1 Pr Šachová skladba
2005

BGwdwdwd
dwdw0pdw
r0wdw4wd
$wdP0wdw
Kdndwiqd
dwdPHwdp
wdwdwdw0
dwdwdwdw

H#3 2 solutions

E4 Nikolai Chebanov

1 HM Šachová skladba
2003

wdwdwdwi
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
whwdwdPd
dwdPdwdp
w)pdP)w)
db4RIwdR

H#4 2 solutions

solution form. One of the composer’s difficulties must have been that although the
WB/WS must depart from c6/f6 any arrival square would do for the B or for the S.
A pin of the WR is needed to determine that the arrival square for each is e8. There
is a good sense of strategic unity as well as the task achievement. In November
2004 I commented that “sometimes a knowledge of forerunners gives one an
insight into the ‘difficulty tariffs’ of various tasks”; is further progress possible in
the artistic presentation of this task? 1.Qd5 Rc8 2.Kd6 Be8 3.Qe5 Rc6#; 1.Kf5 Rf8
2.e5 Se8+ 3.Ke6 Rf6#.

In E2 we see a familiar motif: in order to enable the WK to open lines for the

WR/WB it is necessary for the squares of the WB/WR to be made available by
capture. But then there is the pleasant complication that in the process the WS will
be pinned. Black must choose to use the piece that now pins the WS to block b5.
This is a most satisfying strategic mix. In an ideal world, it would be nice if
Black’s choice of blocking unit had to be made beforehand, so that the pin was
never created (rather than, less subtly, as the relief of a pin after its creation), and
the dual-avoidance is perhaps not entirely clear-cut because neither BR could block
at b5 when the mate is ...Se5 (the need for 2 different mating moves by the S is
skilfully contrived), but these unavoidable drawbacks do not detract significantly
from enjoyment of the strategic mix. 1.Sxh3 Kxh3 2.Ba6 Be1 3.Bb5 Se5#; 1.gxh4
Kxh4 2.Rf5 Rb3 3.Rb5 Se3#.

I find it difficult to describe E3 in any words other than those of the judge. “A

tremendous construction in which the Pd5 and Pe5 need to be removed (and the
line of the Rf6 must be intercepted). There are just two ways to do this: one way
involves 3 moves by the BS and one involves 3 moves by the WS, in each case
including a switchback. Each time, too, the same pawn makes all 3 of the other
moves. The alternation of roles between White and Black creates the most
strikingly original impression of any problem in the tourney, and the strong white
force is excellently controlled.” I couldn’t have put it better myself. 1.h1B Sxc4
2.Bxd5 Sxe5 3.Be6 Sc4#; 1.Sxe3 d4 2.Sxd5 dxe5 3.Se3 e6#.

From the 2003 award of Šachová Skladba (also recently published) comes E4.

In both solutions, Black will want to play Sxd3, to open the d-file, but cannot do so
immediately as the move would give check. There are two possible preliminaries: a
waiting move (1.Ba2) which however has a disadvantageous consequence that
needs to be negated (2...b3); or a 3-move route to d3 that, with the neat
interposition of 1...f4, also enables the f-file to be opened. Although there is not an
exact move-by-move strategic correspondence between the solutions, there are
enough connecting strands (notably the interchanged roles of the WRs, and their
each being unpinned by the BS on B4) for this to be a richly enjoyable problem.
1.Ba2 00 2.Sxd3 b3 3.Sxf2 Rd7 4.Sd1 Rf8#. 1.Sd5 f4 2.Sxf4 00 3.Sxd3 Rf7 4.Se1
Rd8#.

SELFMATES, by John Rice

The key of F1, 1.Sg3 (>2.Sxc4+ Sxc4) introduces four rich variations: 1…Sc~

2.Rxe6+ Kxe6; 1…Sxe3 2.Rd5+ Kxd5; 1…Sxd6 2.Qf4+ Kxf4; and 1…Rxc7 2.f4+
Kxd6. These variations come in two pairs: play by a white B+R battery with

HELPMATES, by Christopher Jones

In the November 2004 helpmate solutions

(p.524), apropos an original H#3 that had shown the
interchange of squares both of two white units and
of two black units (Platzwechsel) in each of two
phases which however were combined by means of
a zero-position, there was quoted an excellent H#3
by A.Lundström that combined two “double
Platzwechsel” phases by means of an eminently
satisfactory shift of the BK. More recently I was
interested to come across E1, a less economic
construction than Lundstrom’s, but one that
combines two double Platzwechsel phases in multi-

F1 Emanuel Navon &
Uri Avner

3 pl Macedonia v Israel
2005

wdrdwdw1
dwGwdpdb
wdw$pdwd
$pdwiN)w
p)ndpdw!
)wIpHPdw
wdwhw0wd
dwdwgwdw

S#2

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

464

sacrifices by the R and pinning of the B in the first two lines given, and
destruction of that same battery with checks by WQ and WP on the same square
in the last two. This is a fine 2-move example of the theme set for the composing
match between Macedonia and Israel (section won by Israel 47:31), for selfmates
in which the actual play contains at least two thematic groups, each showing a
distinct idea in at least two lines. The quality of the entries suggests that the
theme, proposed by judge Petko Petkov, was well chosen. It gave composers
scope to select their own themes and encouraged them to aim for rich content.

F2 has two nicely contrasted pairs plus an extra variation that adds to the

overall effect. The first pair includes the threat: 1.Sc5 (>2.exf6+ Kxf6 3.Qg5+
Bxg5) fxe5 2.Qxe4+ Kf6 3.Qg6+ hxg6: reciprocal captures by WPe5 and BPf6,
black/white gate-opening and mate with Rg4 pinned. The Dentist theme, with that
same R unpinned, is seen in the second pair: 1…Re2 2.Rg5+ fxg5 3.Qxe4+ Rxe4;
and 1…Se2 2.Rxf4+ Qxf4 3.Sxd4+ Sxd4. Finally there is the further unpinning
defence 1…f3, which allows the quiet continuation 2.Rg6 (>3.Rxf6 Bxf6) fxe5
3.Se7+ Bxe7.

F3, with its three thematic pairs, deservedly came top of the pile. In the first we

see sacrifice of WSs and WQ, with mate given by the black royal battery: 1.Sg6
(>2.Sf4+ gxf4 3.Qe5+ Kxe5) Be6 2.Sf6+ gxf6 3.Qd6+ Kxd6. The second pair
shows half-battery creation by BSs on each side of the royal battery, leading to
capture of the sacrificed Q by the Ss: 1…Sb3 2.Bxc6+ Kxc6 3.Qc5+ Sxc5; and
1…Sf7 2.Rxd4+ Kxd4 3.Qe5+ Sxe5. In the final pair the BK moves along the
battery-line after checks by the WQ, with the Q then sacrificing herself yet again
to force the mate: 1…Sxg4 2.Qc5+ Ke6 3.Qf5+ Kxf5; and 1…Rxd3 2.Qe5+ Kc4
3.Qb5+ Kxb5. All this takes 26 men, but just look at the intricacy and accuracy of
the play! An outstanding piece of work by one of Israel’s newest composers
joining forces with an experienced and practised artist. Budding composers
anxious to hone their skills in the selfmate field would do well to study this
problem in depth. Consider, for example, why 2.Sf6+ is not threatened.

I feel sure you will enjoy F4 as well. Here each part has three variations, with a

BK-battery operating in the first part and a WK-battery in the second. 1.Sfe7
(>2.Qxg5+ Kxg5) Rg8 2.Qxf7+ Kxf7; 1…Kg7 Qh6+ Kxh6; and 1…bxa4 2.Kc4+
Qxc3; 1…R3~ 2.Ke3+ Qxc3; 1…Sb~ 2.Kc5+ Qxc3. Commenting on the three-
fold appearance of 2…Qxc3 in the second part, the judge pointed out that there is
no other possibility in such a scheme. The task is impressive, all the same.

FAIRIES, by John Rice

Here are two more highly-placed items from the strong fairy tourney in Die

Schwalbe 2005. The 4 units of G1 combine to produce a fourfold chameleon echo
in set play and 3 solutions. (In Köko moving units must always end up on a
square adjacent to another unit, and in a maximummer Black must always play
his geometrically longest move.) 1…Kb3 2.Re3 Kc4+ 3.Ke4 Kd5+ 4.Kf4 Kd4
5.Rf3 Ke5+ 6.Kf5 Kf6 7.Kg4 Rh3 8.Kh4 Kg5; 1.Rc5 Kd3+ 2.Ke4 Kc4 3.Rf5
Kd3+ 4.Ke3 Ke2 5.Rf1+ Kd3 6.Kf2 Ke3+ 7.Kf3 Kf4 8.Kg2 Rh1 9.Kh2 Kg3;

F2 Dimitar Janevski

2 pl Macedonia v Israel 2005

wdwdwdwd
dwdNdwdp
wdNdP0wG

dwdQ)kdK
wdP0p0Rg
dwdpdwdw
wdrdw1p4
dwhbdwdw

S#3

F3 Evgeny Bourd & Uri Avner

1 pl Macedonia v Israel 2005

Bdw$NHbd
dwdp!w0p
Pdrdwdwh
dwdkdw0w
w)w0wdRd
dw0P0wdw
KgwdPdwd
hw1rdwdw

S#3

G1 Wilfried Seehofer

2 Pr= Die Schwalbe 2005

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdr
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwIwdwd
dw$wdwdw
wdkdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

S#9 3 solutions
Köko, Maximummer

1.Re3 Kd2 2.Re4 Kc3+ 3.Ke5 Kd3 4.Rd4 Kc4 5.Rf4
Kd5+ 6.Kf5 Ke6+ 7.Kf6 Kf7 8.Kg5 Rh4 9.Kh5
Kg6; and 1.Rb3 Kb2 2.Rd3 Kc2 3.Rd2 Kd1 4.Ke3
Kc2 5.Rf2 Kd3+ 6.Kf3 Ke4+ 7.Kf4 Kf5 8.Kg3 Th2
9.Kh3 Kg4.

Echoed play is seen also in G2. The Mao moves

like the S but via the orthogonally adjacent square,
so that if this is occupied the move is not playable.
1.Md2 Gf1 2.Kd3 Gf3 3.Ge2 Kd5 4.Gc2 Gd1;
1.Me5 Gf1 2.Md3 f3 3.Ge3 Gf4 4.Gc3 Gd2; and
1.Gc5 Ke7 2.Kd5 Kd7 3.Md4 f4 4.Ge4 Gd3. The
Mao is neatly hemmed in all three lines of play, in
which the same mate recurs with the Ks on different
ranks.

F4 Evgeny Bourd

6 pl Macedonia v Israel 2005

wdNdw4wg
dn0Bdpdw
Rdbdwiwd
dpdwdN0Q
P)wIpdwd
dwGwdr0w
wdwdwdwd
1whwdRdw

S#2

G2 Daniel Novomesky

2 Pr= Die Schwalbe 2005

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdqIwdwd
dwdwdQdw
wdqiwdwd
dw1wdndw
wdwdw)wd
dwdwdwdw

H#4 3 solutions
Grasshoppers & Mao

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

465

PROOF GAMES AND RETROS, by Thomas Brand

The latest issues of Die Schwalbe have contained a lot of interesting reading for

retro enthusiasts. Judge Bernd Gräfrath awarded 2nd prize to H1 (1st prize went to
an Anticirce Proca by Wolfgang Dittmann – see page 468 of the main magazine):
in the diagram you can easily see that White needs all of his moves, and so he
could not directly capture missing black pawns coming from d7 and f7, so these
had to promote on e1 and g1 respectively, since they have to capture white e- and
g-pawns on their initial squares. What happens with these promoted pieces is very
spectacular: both promote to Rooks – and then exchange places and are captured
on the companion's promotion square: excellent! 1.h4 d5 2.Rh3 d4 3.Rc3 d3 4.Sh3
dxe2 5.d4 f5 6.Sd2 f4 7.Sb3 f3 8.Bd2 fxg2 9.f4 g1R 10.Kf2 e1R 11.Qh5+ (this is
one part of the motivation for the Platzwechsel...) Rg6 12.Qa5 Sd7 13.h5 Sb6
14.Bb5+ Bd7 15.Ba4 Reg1 (... and this is the second part) 16.Rxg1 Re6 17.Sc1
Re1 18.Bxe1. The judge mentions another problem (G.Wilts, Probleemblad 2004)
showing this theme with two promoted Queens; I leave the problem for solving to
you, as it should be not so hard after indication of the theme. 1kss2r1/p2p3p/b7/
2p5/3p1p1q/4r3/PP2B1PP/RSbQ1KSR. By the way, H1 from November 2004
(Christoph Fieberg) was awarded Special Honourable Mention.

Now let me continue with two not too complicated classical retros. In the 193rd

Theme Tourney of Die Schwalbe Werner Keym had asked for positions with
proven captures of a single white piece, of white pieces of the same kind and
black/white pieces of the same kind. Not only typical “record constructions”
participated in this tournament, but also excellent retro problems. I want to present
the problem showing the maximum of King captures – here with 29 unique last
moves. In H2 Black has to unfire the battery, closing the south cage, and so wK
had to start a big tour to the west to provide Black with retro moves, before White
may retract b2-b3 enabling Black’s b3xc2 to re-open the south cage. The reason
why uncapturing of pawns is forced (while any other man could have retro moves
so easily) is quite simple: black unpromotion is impossible, since there is no
uncapture left for this pawn to return home. After these hints I invite you to solve it
for yourself, before you follow the solution 1... Ke3xBf3+ 2.Be2-f3+ f7-f6
3.Kg5xPh6 h7-h6+ 4.Kf6xPg5 g6-g5 5.Ke5-f6 g7-g6 6.Kd6xPe5 e6-e5 7.Kc5xPd6
d7-d6+ 8.Kb4xPc5 c6-c5+ 9.Ka3-b4 c7-c6 10.Kb4xPa3 a4-a3 11.Kc5-b4 a5-a4
12.Bb2-a1 a6-a5 13.Ba3-b2 a7-a6 14.b2-b3! b3xSc2 15.Sa1-c2+ b4-b3, and now
the position is resolved easily.

Andrei Kornilov picked up an old idea (or should I say “theme”?) of Luigi

Ceriani’s: “chain of uncaptures”, where the order of captured and capturing pieces
is to be determined. A huge number of relevant Ceriani-problems from his books
32 Personaggi e 1 Autore (1955) and La Genesi delle Positioni (1961) are cited in
this article in Forsyth notation with very brief solutions, and Kornilov
demonstrates some new ideas in this context, like transformation of this theme to
shortest proof games, but with H3 I’d like to demonstrate a 66-year-old, very early
example by Ceriani. Not all retro moves are exact, but the sequence is. To open the
south cage Black must retract Kd1-d2, but this is possible only after providing a
protection against check by the white Rook: 1.Ra8xSb8 Sc6-b8 2.Rb8-a8 Sd8-c6
3.Ra8-b8 Sc6xRd8 4.Rh8-d8 Ka1-b1 5.Rh7-h8 Rb1-c1 6.Rh8xBh7 Be4-h7 7.Rb8-
a8 Bd5-e4 8.Ta8-b8 Bb3-d5 9.Rb8-a8 Bd5xSb3 10.Sa5xSb3+ Sc1-b3+ 11.Kd1-d2
etc. So the unique uncapture sequence here is rSrBsS.

H1 Gerd Wilts &
Reto Aschwanden

2 Pr Die Schwalbe 2004

rdw1kgn4
0p0b0w0p
whwdwdwd
!wdwdwdP
Bdw)w)wd
dw$wdwdN
P)PdwIwd
dwHwGw$w

PG 17.5

H2 Michel Caillaud

193rd TT, Die Schwalbe
2004

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdw0wI
dwdwdPdw
wdP)Pdwd
dP$Ndk)w
Pdpgwhr)
Gwhr$b!q

Last 29 single moves?

H3 Luigi Ceriani

Fairy Chess Review
1940

w4bdwdwd
dp0pdp0w
pdwdpdw0
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdw)
dwdPdw)w
P)PiP)RG
dK$wgq!n

Resolve the position

Twomove specialists know all about the le Grand theme, which involves

reciprocal change of mates in threat and one variation. The pattern is attractively
extended in G3, with an additional phase. 1.d3? threatens 2.Qe4 [A], and 1…d5
allows 2.Be6 [B], but 1…Re2! refutes. 1.Qd4? carries the threat of 2.Sxe7 [C],
with 2.Be6 [B] recurring after 1…d6. 1…Gf8+ is answered by 2.gxf8Q, but
1…Gc7! refutes. Correct is 1.Gc8!, which threatens 2.Be6 [B], and now the two
defences by the dP lead to the reappearance of mates A and C: 1…d5 2.Qe4 [A],
and 1…d6 2.Sxe7 [C]. Notice here the Dombrovskis affect: moves defeating a
threatened mate in the try-play allow that mate after the key.

G3 Hubert Gockel

2 Pr Pachl-50 JT,
Rochade-Europa 2002

w!wIQdBd
1Qdp0w)w
wdwdw0Nd

dwdwdk0P
w!wdwdwd
1pdwdwdw
b4w)wdwd
dQdwdwdw

#2 Grasshoppers

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

466

Browsing in the Library,

by Michael McDowell

Are there any? A chess problem book, by G.F.Anderson, Stroud 1959. 150 pages, 44 problems.

Are there any? is a strong candidate for the title of “most original chess problem book ever published”. It

was the first collection of Kriegspiel problems, generated over a period of twenty years from the fertile
imagination of G.F.Anderson. In 1947 T.R.Dawson reckoned that only around 200 Kriegspiel problems existed,
so Anderson had the field almost to himself. Anderson described Kriegspiel problems as conventional problems
interwoven with a kind of detective plot which the solver, as the player of the white pieces, must unravel to find
the solution. He regarded them as the most logical of chess problems.

In the game of Kriegspiel each player can see only his own pieces, while an umpire keeps the whole position

on a third board. A player attempts a move and if it is possible it must be played. If it is not possible, the player
must continue trying until he plays a legal move. The umpire then announces that a move has been played. A
player may ask “Are there any?” meaning “Are there any pawn captures?”. If the umpire indicates that there

are, the player must make at least one attempt to capture. If he succeeds the move
stands, otherwise he can continue making attempts, or attempt a move with
another piece. The umpire announces checks, and the nature of the check, whether
it is on the rank, the file, or with a knight. A check on a diagonal will be
announced as check on the long or short diagonal passing through the checked
king’s square, while in the case of a double check both will be announced. The
arrival square of a capturing piece will be announced, but not the identity of the
capturer or the piece captured.

The way to approach Kriegspiel problems where both sides’ forces appear on

the diagram is to imagine that White is playing a game and has, by luck or skill,
succeeded in deducing the location of the Black pieces. After the key has been
played, checks or captures will be disclosed, otherwise it is understood that Black
has moved, after which White must attempt to detect Black’s moves in such a
manner as to cover all possibilities. Anderson felt that Kriegspiel problems needed
a stricter set of rules than the game in order to clarify the reasoning process and
make the solutions more orderly. He proposed that an individual move could only
be attempted once during the player’s turn, and that an attempted pawn capture
must be made straight away.

A is a simple illustration of the difference between orthodox chess and

Kriegspiel. As an orthodox two-mover 1.Qe3 or 1.Qe5, threatening 2.Qxe2 or
2.Qg3 would solve easily, but in Kriegspiel White could not safely try either
threat, because he would be unable to tell if a R had moved to e6 or g6. The key is
1.Qe7. After Black moves he attempts 2.Qxe2, which will be mate if playable. If it
is not, a R has moved to e6, so he attempts 2.Qxh4. Again this will be mate if
playable, because the f6 R has moved. If not, the other R has moved, and 2.Qb4
mates.

B again shows how the key move can help the solver gain necessary

information. Captures on d6 and h8 will be announced and met by 2.Bxf5 and
2.Qh6 respectively. If White asks “Are there any?” and the answer is “No”, the R
has moved to e6 and 2.Bxf5 again mates. If the answer is “Yes” then Black has
played either 1...Bh6 or 1…Bf8, but how can White respond? As the position
stands 2.gxf6 will fail, because Black may have played 1…Bh6, while 2.Qh6 will
fail if 1…Bf8 was played. The key is 1.Kc1, and after asking “Are there any?” if
the answer is “Yes”, White attempts 2.gxf6, which will be mate if 1…Bf8 was
played. If it is not playable, the B has moved to h6 and 2.Qxh6 mates.

In the mutate C White is ready to meet an announced check with 2.exf3 and any

other move with 2.Bxg2; however he has no waiting move. The key is 1.Rg8, and
if no check is announced he asks “Are there any?”. If the answer is “No” Black has
played 1…Sf5, and 2.Bxf5 mates. If the answer is ”Yes” White must distinguish
between 1…f3 and 1…Sg6. He rejects the pawn capture with 2.hxg7, then
attempts 2.Rg4. If this is playable Black has played 1…f3. If not, he has played
1…Sg6, and 2.Bf5 mate follows. Using a wS to guard d3 instead of a wPc2 stops a
cook by 1.Rg7, when the pawn capture could be rejected with cxb3.

A G.F.Anderson

Are there any? 1959

wdwdwdwd
Gwdwdwdw
w4wdw4wd
dw!wdpdw
wdwdwdwh
dwdRdwdB
w0wdpdwd
dwdwiwHK

#2 Kriegspiel

B G.F.Anderson

Are there any? 1959

wdwdwdwG
dwdwdpgw
wdwHw4kd
dwdwdp)w
wdwdwdwd
dwdBdwdQ
wdKdwdwd
dwdwdw$w

#2 Kriegspiel

C G.F.Anderson

Are there any? 1959

wdwdwdwd
dwdwHwdp
wdwdwdw)
dwdw0wdP
wdwdk0Rh
dwdRdwdB
wHwdPdpd
dwdwdwIw

#2 Kriegspiel

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

467

In the 3-mover D White’s plan is simply to attack e3 with the d4 R and play

Bxe3 mate. The problem is how to deal with the defence 1…e5. The key, 1.Rd1,
threatens 2.Re1. After Black moves White asks “Are there any?” and if the answer
is “No” continues with the threat. If the answer is “Yes” 1…e6 or 1..e5 has been
played. White rejects the pawn capture with dxc6 and plays 2.Rf1+. After the R is
captured he again asks “Are there any?”. This time if the answer is “Yes” the bP
must be on e6, and after again rejecting with dxc6 3.Qf7 mates. If the answer is
“No” the P is on e5, and 3.Rg4 mates. A clever splitting of the en passant capture.

Anderson described E as a tremendous constructional challenge. It illustrates

how a pawn which can capture can be a handicap. Without the wPb2 there would
be two solutions in two moves, by 1.Qh6 or 1.Qxc3. These moves occur as
continuations, after the pawn has been captured. The key is 1.b4, which obstructs
the bB. The threat is 2.Qb6, followed by 3.Qd4. If 3.Qd4 is not possible 2..c5 has
been played and 3.Sd6 mates (naturally it also follows 2…cxb6). 2.Qc5 is not a
threat, as Black may play 1…h5 followed by 2…hxg4. The Q needs to stay on the
sixth rank to play 3.Qg6, should a capture be announced on g4. If a capture is
announced on f1 2.Qc5 is played. If no capture is announced White asks “Are
there any?”. He needs to do this in order to discover if Black has played 1…Ra6,
so if the answer is “No” the R has vacated a5 and 2.Qc5 follows. The two main
variations follow captures of the b4 pawn. If 1…Bxb4 is played White continues
with 2.Qh6, threatening 3.Qf4. He needs, however, to discover whether Black has
played 2…d4, so after Black’s reply he asks “Are there any?”. If the answer is
“Yes” he knows that Black has played either 2…Bd6 or 2…d4, and after rejecting
the pawn capture with, for example, 3.gxh5, he tries 3.Qc6. This will be mate if
playable, and if not (because 2…Bd6 was played) 3.Qf4 mates. Note that 2.Qf6
would fail, because after 2…h5 it would be impossible to detect 2…d4 (If this
sounds odd remember that all White knows is that Black has moved; 2…h5 and
2…d4 are simply two possibilities which have to be covered). If on his first move
Black captures en passant (the capture being announced on b3) 2.Qh6 will fail
because of 2…bxc2, but White can play 2.Qxc3, threatening mates on d4 and d3.
Captures on c2 or f1 are met by 3.Qd4, and 2…d4, the only other move which
defends against 3.Q/Bxd3, can be detected by asking “Are there any?”. If the
answer is “Yes” (Black has played 2…d4, 2…Bd6 or 2…h5), 3.Qd4 mates,
otherwise 3.Q/Bxd3 mates.

F contains one of the most subtle ideas in the book. White’s only possible

approach is to organize a double check with the S, so the R must vacate f3 for the
Q. There is a close try, 1.Rh3?. Black may play 1…e4, so the threat is a “long”
one, 2.Qe4, 3.Qf3 and 4.Sxf6. This is too slow if Black plays 1…Ra8 for 2...Ra4
or 2…Ra3, but as a R move means that Black has not played 1…e4 White can
continue with 2.Qf3, if he can determine that Black has not played 1…e4. He can
ask “Are there any?” on his second move, intending to play 2.Qe4 if the answer is
“No” and 2.Qf3 if the answer is “Yes”. The drawback is that he may find himself
having to capture the R somewhere between a8 and f8, and there is no possible
capture which can be followed up with a mate in two. The key is 1.Re3, with a
similar threat, 2.Re4 and 3.Qf3. White proceeds as before, but this time if a pawn
capture is possible he attempts 2.cxb8B!! If it is playable White can relieve
stalemate after 2…e4 by 3.Bh2, with 4.Bg3 mate to follow. If not, he continues
2.Qf3 and 3.Sxf6. If the latter is not announced as “mate”, the black B has moved,
the K is on h4 and 4.Qg4 mates.

It is a pity that Anderson decided to omit source details, though he mentioned

that most of the problems were originals. This, however, is a very minor criticism
of a quite fascinating book.

100 YEARS AGO

This Hoeg #4 has a modern feel to it, with everything in the try-play. 1.Bd4?
a1Q! (2.f6? Qxd4 3.Bh3? Qxf4!). 1.Bb2? a1S! (2.f6? a2 3.Bh3 stalemate!). 1.Ba1?
b2! (2.f6? b1B! 3.Bh3 stalemate!). 1.Bc3! (>2.f6 ~ 3.Bh3 ~ 4.Bg2).

D G.F.Anderson

Are there any? 1959

wdBdwgwd
0w!w0w0w
wdw4wdwd

dwIPdw$w
wdw$piw)
0wdwhwdw
wdwdwdpd
dwGwdwHw

#3 Kriegspiel

E G.F.Anderson

Are there any? 1959

wdNdwdR4
dw0wdwGp
wdQdwdwd
4pdp)wdw
pdwdkdPd
gw0n)p$p
w)BdwdbI
dwdwdNdw

#3 Kriegspiel

F G.F.Anderson

Are there any? 1959

wdwdwdw4
dP)P)w0p
wdwdw0r1
dRdw0K0k
wdwdwdNg
dwdwdRdw
wdpdwdwd
dwGwdwdQ

#4 Kriegspiel

Niels Hoeg

Deutsches Wochenschach
1906 (v)

wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdBGwd
dwdwdP)K
wdwdwHwd
0pdw0Ndw
pdpdPdwd

dw$ndwdk

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

468

Defensive retractors with forward defence

by Klaus Wenda (Vienna)

For many problem-lovers who are not retro-specialists the very title of this article may be like a book with

seven seals. If the fairy condition “Anticirce” is added, the reader may quickly decide to move on. To any
sceptics it must be admitted that there is as yet in chess problem literature no systematic introduction to the
complex and recondite world of retro-analysis. But this state of affairs is about to change. As writer of the
preface to it, I have had the pleasure of reading and studying the proofs of the next book to appear in the
Editions feenschach-phénix. Entitled Der Blick zurück (Looking backwards), this is a reference work of
around 500 pages by Wolfgang Dittmann which leaves hardly a single question on this wide-ranging subject
unanswered.

Without wishing to anticipate what reviewers may have to say, I should like to share with readers of The

Problemist my personal impressions, in the hope of arousing some curiosity about this book. A theoretical
section of over 200 pages deals with the historical development of retro-analysis and its constructional and
artistic features, in language which, despite the complexity of the content, remains clear and intelligible
throughout. A description of the most important retro-genres (position resolutions, shortest proof games, illegal
clusters, last-move records, help-retractors, defensive retractors and various special forms) leads into the highly
enjoyable practical section, consisting of more than 200 problems from the author’s own workshop, all with
expert and detailed commentary. Even if I count myself as one of the initiated I’ll admit that I gained a fresh
insight into the subject through the author’s perceptive presentation of crosscurrents and interdependent
features. Arising from this, here are some thoughts on the theme outlined in the title of this article.

“In a defensive retractor White and Black alternately retract legal moves until White, despite counter-play by

Black, can fulfil the stipulation within the required number of retro-moves.” (Dittmann, p.140).

As regards uncaptures, a distinction can be drawn between the Proca-type (the side to move decides whether

an uncapture is playable and if so which piece may be legally uncaptured) and the Hoeg-type (the opposing side
determines the uncapture). Both types date back to the 1920s, but this article treats only the type named after
the Romanian Zeno Proca.

In a defensive retractor interest lies in the inherent conflict. With the most

common stipulations, #1 and S#1, White aims to reach a position where, after
retraction of the required number of moves, he can mate in one or force selfmate
in one. Black tries to thwart this aim by all means at his disposal, which include
forward defence. If after a white retraction a position arises where Black can
achieve the forward aim (i.e. can mate in one or force selfmate in one), the white
attack has been successfully parried. Therefore White must prevent such
positions from arising. It used to be questionable whether the possibility of a
forward defence belonged to standard parrying procedure and, if it was not
intended, whether it should be excluded by means of the formula “no forward
defence” beneath the diagram. The differing historical origins and development
for the Hoeg- and Proca-types are clarified in detail by Dittmann (p.152 ff.) and
would go beyond the bounds of this brief article. Today it is the established
convention that forward defensive play, unless specifically excluded, must
always be taken into account by the solver.

In the orthodox retractor of the 20th century the forward defence played a

rather modest role and was generally utilised only to prevent cooks, or to justify
more economical settings. The only problem known to me (and quoted by
Dittmann) with a forward defence in a logical connection is by A.Frolkin, –12 &
#1 Proca-retractor, Die Schwalbe 1991, no.7306 (see diagram). Mainplan: 1.Kd6-
d5? Ba7-b8+ 2.Rg5-h5 & 1.Rxg8#, but the forward defence 1…Ba7-b8 & 1.000#
refutes. Solution: 1.Re1xRd1 Rc1-d1+ 2.Kc4-d5 Rd1-c1+ 3.Kd4-c4 Rc1-d1+
4.Kc3-d4 Rd1-c1+ 5.Kd2-c3 Rc1-d1+ 6.Se3xSf1 Sh2-f1+! and now White
returns to the initial square d5, while the bR is forced to move from d1 to c1 to
d1 etc…10.Kd5-c4 Rc1-d1+ (here we are!) and the mainplan 11.Kd6-d5 is
successful. All 16 black units are on the board, the black pawns have captured all
the 9 missing white pieces including the a-pawn after promotion on a8. That
means Black’s castling is illegal!

It was not until the Proca-retractor was combined with the fairy condition

Anticirce (a process which I myself set in motion nearly 5 years ago – see my

Andrey Frolkin

Die Schwalbe 1991

rgwdkdnd
dwdwdpdp
w0Pdw0wd
dwdKdwdR
wdwdwdwd
dpdwdp0p
b)wdPdwd
dqdRdNdw

-12 & #1 Proca Retractor

A Wolfgang Dittmann

Probleemblad 2005

wdwdwdwd
gw)wdwdw
kdwdwdwd
0wdwHwdw
wdwdwdpd
dwdbdw0p
w)w0wdwd
dwhwdwdK

-5 & #1 Proca Retractor
Anticirce

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

469

article “Beckmesser v. Stolzing”, feenschach no.144, 2001, p.275) that new
possibilities emerged for the defensive retractor in terms of construction and
thematic content, providing fresh inspiration for the forward defence, as Dittmann
was the first to recognise. As proof of this, here are three pioneering examples by
the master, all of them to be found among the problems selected for his book.

A The basic plan 1.c5xb6 ep[b2]? & 1.c8B+ is invalidated by 1…Bf1. It seems

easy to decoy the bB by means of 1.Kh2-h1 Bh7-d3+, in order to continue with
2.c5xb6 ep[b2], but Black has the forward defence 1.Be4# in his pocket. So White
shifts the black pawns one rank higher: 1.Kg2-h1! h4-h3+ 2.Kh3-g2 g5-g4+
3.Kh2-h3 g4-g3 4.Kh3-h2 Bh7-d3+ 5.c5xb6 ep[b2] and then 1.c8B#. Now the
analogous forward defence Be4# is no longer effective, because the check is given
by the bPg4 (instead of bPg3), which can be simply captured by Sxg4[Sb1]! A
strategically uncomplicated but very striking logical setting of the theme.

B To mate with the R the try 1.g2xSh3[h2]? Sf2-h3+ 2.00 &1.Rh8# suggests

itself, but the forward defence Sf3#, which disallows 2.00, brings a rude
awakening. White must therefore provide a guard for the square f3: 1.f5xe6
ep[e2]! e7-e5 2.Sd4xSe2[Sb1] Sc3/c1-e2+, after which 3.g2xSh3[h2] will work.
An attractive addition is the option 1.d5xe6 ep[e2]?, the disadvantage of which is
revealed only in the forward play, when the bS is brought back to c3, because
1.Rh8+ is not mate owing to 1…Sxd5[Sg8]!

C This problem, which points the way for future settings, I judge to be of the

highest quality. Even locating a possible mating position requires the practised eye
of one familiar with Anticirce. 1.Kb6xBa7[Ke1] Bb8-a7+ 2.a8-a8B &
1.axb8R[Ra1]# is the main aim, which Black thwarts with the forward defence
Bd4#. With 1.c5xd6 ep[d2] d7-d5 the bB would certainly be shut off, but the p-
block on c5 allows a new forward defence in Bd8#. So what is needed – and this
is absolutely new – is two successive preparatory manoeuvres: 1.Ke1xRd1[Ke1]!
Bh8-f6+ 2.c5xd6 ep[d2] d7-d5 and now the main aim 3.Kb6xBa7[Ke1] Bb8-a7+
etc. leads to success without disturbance from Black.

All three of these problems have the forward aim of “mate in one”. According

to Dittmann’s researches there are no examples in existence of other stipulations
involving forward defensive play, such as “selfmate in one”, and the author leaves
it to the reader of his book to investigate whatever possibilities there are (p.161).
This rang a bell with me, as I have long had some promising schemes of this kind
lurking in my “work-in-progress” file. One finished product is shown in the final
diagram (D), with the stipulation –4 & S#1. Here the main aim fails only to a
forward defence that is eliminated by the preparatory manoeuvre. The solution
will appear in the next issue, to give readers time to solve it and, I hope, some
pleasure in the process.

Editor’s note: This article was written in German for feenschach 2006 and is

published here in an English version by JMR, at the suggestion of Klaus Wenda
and with the approval of feenschach editor bernd ellinghoven. Problem D has
been specially contributed by the composer as an original for The Problemist.

B Wolfgang Dittmann

König&Turm 2005

wdNdwiwd
dwdwdp0w
wdwdwdwd

dbdwdwhw
wdwdw)wd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdPdw)
dNdwdRIw

-4 & #1 Proca Retractor
Anticirce

C Wolfgang Dittmann

1 Pr Die Schwalbe 2004

Bdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
Pdwdwgwd
dwdwdwdw
k0wdbdwd
dpdw0pdw
whw)wdwd
dwdwIwhw

-4 & #1 Proca Retractor
Anticirce

D Klaus Wenda

Original

wdwdB!wd
dPdwdbdw
wdRhwdwd
drdwdwdw
pGwdwdwd
0wdwdwdw
wIw0r0wd
dwgwiw1w

-4 & S#1 Proca Retractor
Anticirce

TOURNEY ANNOUNCEMENTS

Jubilee Tourney Horst Böttger 70 and Reinhardt Fiebig 70

To celebrate the 70th birthday of Horst Böttger on 23.5.2007 and that of Reinhardt Fiebig on 1.9.2007, a

common tourney is being held in two parts, both with free choice of theme.

(a) Helpmates in 3 moves; (b) Helpmate moremovers of any length. No fairy pieces or conditions.

The tourney will be judged by Messrs Böttger and Fiebig. There will be a prize fund of 200 Euros, to be

divided according to the judges’ decision. Send entries by 30.6.2007 to Mirko Degenkolbe, PF 11 12, 08393
Meerane, Germany (email Pontius_Pilatus@T-Online.de). The tourney results will appear in Harmonie issue 93
(March 2008), and every participant will receive a copy.

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

470

Chess Olympics in Dresden, 2008

In collaboration with the organising committee of the Chess Olympics to be

held in Dresden, Die Schwalbe announces the Olympic Chess Composition
Tournament Dresden 2008. The tournament is in 5 sections, for #2, #n. studies,
S#3 and H#, and there are set themes, as shown below, for #n, S#3 and H#. Each
composer may participate with a maximum of 3 entries in each section. Judges and
directors are:

Judge

Director

#2 Wieland Bruch

Udo Degener, Stephensonstr. 47, D-14482 Potsdam

#n Wilfried Neef

Frank Reinhold, Weidenstr.22, D-01458 Ottendorf-Okrilla

Yochanan Afek

Martin Minski, Dolziger Str.1a, D-10247 Berlin

S#3 Hemmo Axt

Volker Gülke, Leimsiede 13, D-23558 Lübeck

H# Hans Peter Rehm Sven Trommler, Voglerstr.14, D-01277 Dresden

The closing date for entries is 31.08.2007. It is intended to present the awards
during the Chess Olympics in Dresden. A prize fund of 1250 Euros is available.

Section 1: mate in 2 – no set theme.

Section 2: mate in 4 or more. Theme: Square-vacation sacrifice by Black. In a
thematic try and/or the solution a black piece A vacates a square; thus this square
is unblocked or a black line is opened for a subsequent defensive action by Black.
On the next move the black piece A is captured. Example 1: 1.Be1? d2 2.Bxd2 c3
3.Bxc3 Sc6 4.Bb4+ Sxb4 5.c4 Bxc4! In the solution the black square-vacation
sacrifice on d2 is prevented: 1.Bg1! g4 2.Be3 g5 3.Bd2 c3 4.Bxc3 Sc6 5.Bb4+
Sxb4 6.c4 bxc4 7.Sb5+ Kd5 8.Sf6.

Section 3: studies – no set theme.

Section 4: selfmate in 3. Theme: A try (1.X?) fails because white move X closes
or opens the line of a black piece (including double pawn-move), giving Black a
refutation 1…a! After a preparatory manoeuvre 1.Y! and defence b, however, the
closing/opening of the line by 2.X! followed by 2…a can be exploited by White.
The thematic line may also be a pin-line. Example 2: 1.Be3? X [thematic closure
of line e2-e4] (>2.Bxg4+ hxg4) Rxg5! a (Black exploits the closure of the line).
1.Bf4! Y (>2.Sd4+ Bxd4 3.Bxg4+ hxg4) c3 b 2.Be3 X (>3.Bxg4+) Rxg5 a
3.Rxd5+ (White exploits closure of e2-e4) Qxd5.

Section 5: Helpmates. Theme: a line-piece passes over a critical square which is
subsequently occupied by a unit of the opposite colour. (This allows, inter alia, bi-
colour Indians, Maslar theme, Rehm theme, and combinations of these.) Example
3: 1.Bxb6 Rh1 2.Bg1 Bd1+ 3.Kf1 Rxg1; and 1.Rgxb6 Bh7 2.Rg6 Rc2+ 3.Kd3
Bxg6.

1 Frank Reinhold

Pr Freie Presse 1991

rdwdwgNd
hwHBdwdK
w)wiPdp0

dpdwdw0w
wdp)wdw0
dwdpdwdw
wdPdwGwd
dwdwdbdw

2 Hartmut Laue

Schach-Aktiv 2006

wdwdwdrd
dwdwdwdw
wdN$wdw$
dwdpdkHp
wdpdwdn0
dwdpdKdB
qdwdP)pd
gwGwdw4b

S#3

3 Zdravko Maslar

v feenschach 1986

wdwdwdwd
GndwdKdw
w)wdwdrd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdPd
drdwdwdw
bdBdkdwd
dq$wdwgw

H#3 2 solutions

Azerbaijan tourneys

(1) Olimpiya dunyasi 2006 (newspaper). Sections: studies, #2, #3, H#2 . Free themes. Columnist: Ilham

Aliev. Judges: #2 – E.Bogdanov (Ukraine), #3 – Rauf Aliovsadzade (USA), studies – I.Aliev, H#2 (tba).
Address: ilhamaliev@mail.ru Closing date: 20.10.2006. The publication (max 3 per author) and award will be
sent to participants by e-mail.

(2) Kaspiy 2006 (newspaper). Sections: #2, #3, studies, H#2 . Free themes. Columnist : Elmar Abdullayev.

Judges: #2 Rauf Aliovsadzade (USA), #3 Yuri Gordian (Ukraine), Studies Araz Almammadov (Azerbaijan),
H#2 tba. The publication and award will be sent to participants by e-mail. Prizes: books. Original compositions
should be sent (max 3 per author) by 1.10.2006 to: abdullaev-elmar@bk.ru.

(3) Salman Javadzade 70 JT. Sections: #2, #3 Miniatures. Free theme. Judge: S.Javadzade. Director: Elmar

Abdullayev. Address: abdullaev-elmar@bk.ru (max 3 per author). Closing date: 31.09.2006. Prizes: Problem
magazines.

(4) Mejnun Vahidov 60 JT, for #3. Judge: M.Vahidov. Address: abdullaev-elmar@bk.ru (max 3 per author).

Tourney Director: Ilham Aliev. Closing date: 31.09.2006. Prizes: books by M.Vahidov.

JULY 2006

THE PROBLEMIST

471

A Peter Harris

The Problemist 2006

wdwdwdwd
dwIwdwdw
wdw0w!wd

dwdkdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw

#12 Koeko

B Peter Harris

The Problemist 2006

kdw$rdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw0wdwd
dwdwdwdw

H#7 Koeko
No WK

C Peter Harris

The Problemist 2006

Kdwdwdwd
)wdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwHwdw
wdwdwdw1
dwdwdwdk

H#3 2 solutions
Koeko + Transmuting Ks

D Peter Harris

The Problemist 2006

kdwdwdwd
Iwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdn$w
wdqdwdwg
dwdwdw)w

(a) H#4 (b) H=4
Koeko; Orphan g1

KOEKO PROBLEMS (January 2006):

SOLUTIONS AND COMMENTS

Only two readers responded to the challenge set on page 294 in January,

Michael Grushko and Eric Huber. Does this mean the problems were too hard,
or is Koeko (Kölner Kontaktschach) a genre that excites little interest? Michael’s
contribution consisted of solutions and alternative versions (and an original for the
Supplement), while Eric sent an analysis of each item as seen from the solver’s
angle and earns himself the book prize. Here are the solutions, together with
extracts from Eric’s submission and a version of B from Michael.

A There are not so many possible moves for White: 1.Qe7? Kc5 2.Qe6 Kb6!

and the bK escapes. 2.Kd7 looks better but after 2.Kd5 3.Qe4/Qe6+ Kc5 we still
have to make the bK go southwards. So 1.Kd7! Z Kc5 2.Qe6! Z forces 2…d5, the
first step to d2. White adopts a mechanical manoeuvre: 3.Qe5 Kc4 4.Kd6 d4
5.Qe4 Kc3 6.Kd5 d3 7.Qe3 Kc2 8.Kd4 d2 9.Qe2 Kc1 and now let’s pay some
attention, because 10.Kd3 d1Q+ is not at all what we wish to happen. A check will
fix things: 10.Qc4+ Kd1 11.Ke3 Ke1 12.Qf1# (EH).

B Black only has four possible moves: 1.Re7/Re3/Re2/Re1. A promotion by

Black is obvious, the only possible mate position is wRc8 / bKa8 bRa7 bS/Bb7, or
symmetrically wRa6/bKa8 bRb8 bS/Bb7. A bS will need 4 moves to get to b7, a
bB only 2: this arithmetical reason makes us give our vote to the Bishop
promotion. 1.Re1 is our first try, because the Rook will not obstruct the d1-f3
diagonal. 1.Rd3 2.d1B Rd2 (white moves are forced) 3.Re3 Rd4 4.Bf3 Rd3 5.Bb7
Rd2 6.Rc3 Rb2 7.Rc8 Rb6 8.Rb8 Ra6# is too long. If the bR were at c1 instead of
e1, we could play something smart, choosing another path to b7 for bB : 3.Be2!
Rb2 4.Ra1 Rb7 5.Ba6 Rb6 6.Bb7 Rc6 7.Ra7 Rc8#. That’d be nice. By the way,
we’ve noticed that we must play 3.Re3 before we can play 4.Bf3. So 1.Re2 might
be better, giving new squares for the wR. 1.Re2 Rd3 2.d1=B Re3 3.Rf2 Re1 4.Bf3
Re3 5.Rd2 Rc3 6.Bb7 Rc7 7.Rd8 Rc6 8.Rb8 Ra6# faces us with exactly the same
problem. Having arrived at that point I started to worry. Then, and unfortunately
not the same day, it came to me that 1.Re2 Rd2 2.d1B Rf3! was possible too,
because anyway bB can’t move now to f3 and wR will leave it on the next move.
3.Rd2 Re3 (not Rc3 immediately: White has to lose a tempo) 4.Bf3 Rc3 5.Bb7
Rc7 6.Rd8 Rc6 7.Rb8 Ra6#. A tough nut! We notice with pleasure the existence
of what Germans call Anti-Ziel-Element: 1.Re2 preventively interferes with the
bBd1 and 2.Rf3 even occupies the square aimed at by bB at move 4. There are
also agreeable tempo losses (EH). MG suggests a version: 3Rr2k/40/4p3/8: H#5½,
(b) BK>a8 – (a) 1…Rd2 2.e1B Re2 3.Bd2 Re7 4.Rg8 Rg7 5.Bh6 Rg6 6.Bg7 Rh6;
(b) 1…Rd2 2.e1S Re2 3.Sd3 Re4 4.Rb8 Rd4 5.Sc5 Rd6 6.Bg7 Rh6.

C 1.Qg1! Kb7! (tempo) 2.Kh2 Sf1+ 3.Qb6+ Kh1#; and 1.Kg1 Kb7! (same

tempo again) 2.Qb8+ axb8B 3.Kf2 Bg3#. Having found the first solution given,
EH wrote: If the pawn is promoted, that means only one thing: it will take an
active part in the mate position. Promotions to R or S appear inadvisable, for we
need too many moves to get the newly promoted piece near the bK. There remains
Queen and Bishop. The Queen will give the bK too much mobility; a Bishop
promotion is more likely. With wPa7 and bKh1, a mate with wBa8 immediately
comes to mind. Is it possible? No, the bQ will move to g2, or if wK leaves the
NW corner the transmuted bK will move to b7 to parry the check. Another try:
a8B followed by Bg2, but then we realise that we need a unit at h2 or g1 to make
the check real in Koeko and it doesn't look feasible. The only mate position with
wS and wB is wSe3 wBg3/bKf2. And it's easy to reach.

D (a) 1.Rg4 Kb7 2.Ka7 Oxf3 3.Bc7+ Ka6 4.Qg2 Oa8; (b) 1.Sd2 Oc1 2.Qc3

Oxc3 3.Sc4 Oxg3 4.Sb6+ Ka6. (b) is more solver-friendly than (a). We have to
get rid of some powerful black pieces, ideally bQ and bR and maybe even bB. We
must also drastically limit bK’s mobility (he has access to both b7 and b8): that
suggests that we move wK to a6, b6, c8 or c7, with a little help like an Orphan
beside him. An attacked Orphan can be captured, therefore the Orphan will play
no active role in the stalemate position. It might only assist the wK (EH).

472

THE PROBLEMIST

JULY 2006

THE BRITISH CHESS PROBLEM SOCIETY

President

Christopher Reeves

Past Presidents

Barry Barnes, Jim Grevatt, Tony Lewis, Michael Lipton, Robin Matthews, Sir Jeremy Morse, John
Rice, Colin Russ, Don Smedley, Adam Sobey, Brian Stephenson, Colin Sydenham, Paul Valois

Vice-President

Christopher Jones

Secretary

Christopher Jones, 11 Severn Grange, Ison Hill Road, Bristol BS10 7QA (cjajones1@yahoo.co.uk)

Treasurer

Tony Lewis, 16 Cranford Close, Woodmancote, Cheltenham, Glos GL52 9QA; tel. (0)1242 672865

Assistant Treasurer

Stephen Taylor, Greenways, Cooling St., Cliffe, Rochester ME3 7UB (sjgt@btinternet.com)

General Editor & FIDE PCCC Delegate John Rice, 9 Manor Crescent, Surbiton KT5 8LG (

johnrice@freeuk.com

)

Librarian & Archivist John Beasley, 7 St James Road, Harpenden, Herts AL5 4NX (johnbeasley@mail.com)
Lectures Secretary

Colin Russ, 30 Welson Road, Folkestone, Kent CT20 2NP

Book sales

Peter Fayers, 2 Beechwood Avenue, Coulsdon, Surrey CR5 2PA (

fayers@freeuk.com

)

Solving Co-ordinator Brian Stephenson, 9 Roydfield Drive, Waterthorpe, Sheffield S20 7ND (bstephen@freeuk.com)

Originals and solutions go to the appropriate sub-editor.
Articles, books for review, and other items for publication
go to the General Editor. Send subscriptions, membership
enquiries, notification of change of address, resignation, or
claim for issue not received to the Assistant Treasurer.

The British Chess Problem Society exists to promote the
knowledge and enjoyment of chess compositions.
Membership, by calendar year, is open to chess
enthusiasts in all countries.

Membership renewal

(due 1st January): Fellows £25,

Members £18

(under 21s £9). New members first year £15

(£7.50 for second half-year or if under 21). Airmail
magazine delivery extra: £1 Europe, £3.50 elsewhere.

Payments in £ sterling to BCPS, Send to Assistant
Treasurer. Bank drafts to be drawn on a bank in GB.
Alternatively pay by transfer or standing order to BCPS
Acc. with (a) Nat.West Bank, 31 Promenade, Cheltenham
GL50 1LH (Bank Identifier Code [BIC]: NWBK GB 2L,
International Bank Account No. (IBAN): GB 23 NWBK 6005
1624 3225 20, or (b) Alliance and Leicester Bank, Bootle,
GIR 0AA (BIC: GIRBGB22, IBAN: GB57 GIRB 7200 0003
3701 51. Payment receipt date will be on label of envelope
containing magazines, after last two digits of year for which
member has subscribed.

Members can subscribe by payment to BCPS, per
calendar year with airmail delivery, to:
US quarterly magazine StrateGems: £19, Fellows £25.
Membership of the German Society Die Schwalbe: £19

CONTENTS

New Fairy condition: Take&Make chess
Society Matters
Obituary: Santi Pirrone, Jim Hetherington
Zabunov theme
Ninth update of Chess Problems: Tasks and
Records

, by C.J.Morse

Awards corrected: Retros 04, Moremovers 03
The Hampshire Telegraph & Post column
by Michael McDowell
Henry Tate, by Geoff Foster & Bob Meadley
Synthetics
Keeping up with Mr Jones, by John Rice
Andernach & Messigny 2006, by John Rice
ORIGINALS and solutions
#2 442 #3 442; #n 442; Studies 446; S# & R#
448; H# 450; Retros 453; Fairies 454
Book Review: EG Vol.XI, by Yochanan Afek
50 years ago
British Chess Solving Champions 1980-2006
SELECTED PROBLEMS
#2 459; #3 459; #n 460; Studies 461; H# 463;
S# 463; Fairies 464; Proof games/Retros 465
Browsing in the Library, by Michael McDowell
100 years ago
Defensive retractors with forward defence,
by Klaus Wenda
Tourney announcements
Koeko problems (Jan 06): solutions & comments

HONORARY LIFE

VICE-PRESIDENTS

L.C.Citeroni
Dr C.C.Lytton
M.J.Ormandy

HONORARY LIFE

MEMBERS

Jonathan Mestel
Klaus Wenda

FELLOWS

Bill Anderson
Eric Anderson
George Anyfantis
Joaquin Arriaga
Roland Baier
Nils Bakke
P.A.Bakker
R.J.Bales
B.P.Barnes
Prof.R.A.Bachelor

BCPS Website

www.bcps.knightsfield.co.uk

425
426

426, 427

427
428

431
432

437
438

439

440

442-457

447

457
458

459-465

466
467
468

469
471

J.D.Beasley
Allan Bell
Romano Bellucci
Ilkka Blom
Marco Bonavoglia
D.P.Bonner
drs A.J.Bouwes
Thomas Brand
David Brotherton
M.J.Burden
R.E.Burger
Michel Caillaud
Brian Chamberlain
Yves Cheylan
P.Christoforidis
Lu Citeroni
Bill Clark
S.Colsaët
Pat Constant
Stewart Crow
D.de Mol

Gianni Donati
Eugene Dugas
Brian Edwards
Dr S.Eisert
M.A.Elan
Thomas Fischer
G.R.Foster
Dr J.H.Foster
Kelly Fostervold
David Friedgood
Dr Jaques Fulpius
Elisabeth Gamsjäger
Jack Gill
Alan F.Goulty
J.G.Grevatt
Marco Guida
Peter Harris
G.K.Hicks
Michael Holbrook
H.R.T.Holmes
Bernard Ivanov

I.C.Jackson
M.Janakiraman
Jiři Jelínek
Jörn Johansson
Christopher Jones
Andrew Kalotay
Maryan Kerhuel
C.P.King-Farlow
Jörg Kuhlmann
Roland Lecomte
Jonathan Levitt
R.T.Lewis
Dr Hans Liebeck
Torsten Linß
Michael Lipton
P.Lunn
Dr C.C.Lytton
Michael McDowell
Thomas Maeder
Gabriel Mariz
Udo Marks

Prof R.C.O.Matthews
Dan Meinking
René J.Millour
Giorgio Mirri
Jean Morice
David Morse
Sir Jeremy Morse
J.Mostert
Ing P.Moutecidis
R.C.Nascimento
E.Onyschuk
Reb Orrell
M.Parthasarathy
Dr Rhodes Peele
Omer Pingot
Christian Poisson
Romolo Ravarini
Hans Peter Rehm
John Rice
Mark Ridley
Ulrich Ring

Dan Roitman
Jan C.Roosendaal
C.A.H.Russ
Ivor Sanders
Gerold Schaffner
Ian Shanahan
Iain Sinclair
D.A.Smedley
Adam Sobey
Kenneth Solja
M.B.Squires
G.F.Steele
Axel Steinbrink
Brian Stephenson
W.G.Stevenson
John Sturgess
Hanspeter Suwe
C.P.Sydenham
Ljubomir Ugren
A.C.Villeneuve
Sir Brian Young

Wyszukiwarka

Podobne podstrony:
The Wangling Wizards Michael McDowell (British Chess Problem Society), 2005
The Problem Of Order In Society, And The Program Of An Analytical Sociology Talcott Parsons,
Husserl; The basic problems of phenomenology [2006]
Foucault Discourse and Truth The Problematization of Parrhesia (Berkeley,1983)
Futrelle, Jacques Thinking Machine The Problem Of?ll
Gambling in the United States A Quick Look at the Problem
Does the problem of evil disprove Gods existence
The problems in the?scription and classification of vovels
The Problem of Evil
the problem of china
Taylor & Francis The Problems of the Poor in Tudor and Early Stuart England (1983)
Tilman Karl Mannheim Max Weber ant the Problem of Social Rationality in Theorstein Veblen(1)
Russell, Bertrand The Problems Of Philosophy ebook
The Problem of American Cultural Studies
Hume; The Problem of Induction
The Problem of Democracy Alain de Benoist (1985)
carlson The problem of Karl Polanyi

więcej podobnych podstron