Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 645: Hubert Gockel - Twomover
hubert.gockel (12.12.2015) An unusual Twomover by Hubert Gockel showing the Cyclic Arnhem theme.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
645. Hubert Gockel (Germany)
12.12.2015
645
  #2 vvv                       (12+10)
 
 
1.Bh6? (2.Bxf4#)
1...Rxg4 a 2.Sxf3# 1...Rxe4! b

1.d7? (2.Bd6#)
1...Rxe4 b 2.Sxf3# X, 1...Bc7 2.Qxc7#, 1...Rxf5! c

1.Sc5? (2.Sd7#)
1...Rxf5 c 2.Sxf3# X, 1...Rxg4! a

1.g3! (2.gxf4#)
1...Rf~ 2.Sxf3#, 1...dxe4 2.Qc5#
 
Cyclic Arnhem theme.
Pioneer example with bR conducting all 3 thematic defences! (Author) 
 

Comments  

 
+1 #1 Diyan Kostadinov 2015-12-12 13:22
Miodrag Mladenovic: "Nice problem but it looks to me that problem has same content without bRa8 and bPa7. Also it's not good that problem has same solution even without wSe4 (although it does add variation dxe4."
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-12-12 14:55
Quoting Diyan:
Miodrag Mladenovic: "Nice problem but it looks to me that problem has same content without bRa8 and bPa7. Also it's not good that problem has same solution even without wSe4 (although it does add variation dxe4."

True... the Se4 is used for tryplay only. But without it there is no theme. Hopefully someone will find an even better scheme for this theme.
Quote
 
 
+1 #3 Hubert Gockel 2015-12-13 13:23
bRa8, bPa7 are used to prevent the (unthematic) try 1.e7? (2.e8Q/Qe6), which needs the (thematic) refutation 1.- R:g4! a 2nd time.
Quote
 
 
+1 #4 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-12-15 13:37
Luis Gomez suggests the following setting eliminating the need for BRa8, Pa7.

Quote
 
 
+1 #5 Nikola Predrag 2015-12-16 03:25
The set play provides thematic mate after 1...Rxe4/Rxf5 2.Sxf3#
In 2 tries White removes one guard, of d6 or e6, which Black uses for refutation.

But 1...Rxg4 is a strong general defense so the try 1.Sc5? is not very convincing.
The author has at least removed the non-thematic tries which would be refuted by that general defense.

Wouldn't it be better to have the thematic mate already in the set play for all moves 1...R~, with the creation of white weaknesses in all 3 tries?
e.g.:
White Bb8 Be8 Pc6 Pd6 Pe5 Rg5 Sd4 Rf4 Pc3 Sc2 Pf2 Qb1 Kh1
Black Sa8 Sb6 Pe6 Pc5 Kd5 Pc4 Re4 Pe3
1...R~ 2.Sxe3#
1.Qb5? Rxf4!
And wSd4 is needed to guard c6 in case of 1.f3! Sd7?! in the solution.
Quote
 
 
+1 #6 Hubert Gockel 2015-12-16 09:44
Nikola, basically I appreciate your idea that 2.S:f3# follows all R-moves in the setplay. However, another drawback has crept into your version: 1.Qb5? substitutes my thematic try 1.Sc5?. The refutation is the analogous 1.- R:f4!, which is ok. But 1.- R:e5 (followed by 2.S:e3#) does not occur in this phase because it is not a defence against the new threat 2.Sb4#. But this variant is needed to have a proper complete implementation of the Arnhem cycle!
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Seetharaman Kalyan 2015-12-16 11:12
Nikola's version:

While the set play makes the tries convincing...the substitute try 1.Qb5?Rxf4! has the weakness that no other move of the rook defends the threat and hence there is no transferred mate.
Quote
 
 
+1 #8 Nikola Predrag 2015-12-17 03:59
Yes Hubert (and Seetharaman), thanks.
While trying to achieve the complete set-play and some function for wS, I forgot about the most important thing - the original content.

I've reversed the cause and the consequence and then I've carelessly "applied" that mistake in the example. So, I've lost a link for the cycle without even noticing that :-(

But I like the cyclic mechanism in your original very much.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments