Български (България)English (United Kingdom)
Problem 698: Eugene Rosner - Fairy (MAFF)
eugene.rosner(25.01.2016) Excellent nice fairy twomover with Tertiary threat correction and cyclic pseudo Le Grand by Eugene Rosner.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
698
 
 
   1.Sxh3? (S~) [2.Bxd3(Kxd3)]#, 1…Bxb2, Rg4 2.Sxd6(Kb3), (Kxd4)#, 1…Rxg3!
 
   1.Sg4!? [2.Sxd6(Kxd4)]# (Bxd3?), 1…Kxd4, hxg2 2.Rb4(Kc5), (Kxd5)#
1…Sb~ 2.Bxd3(Kxd3)#, 1…Bxb2 2.Se3(Kb3)#, 1…Rd8!
 
   1.Se4! [2.Rb4(Kxd5)]# (Bxd3?) (Sfxd6?), 1…Sxd5 2.Bxd3(Kxd3)#
1…exd5 2.Sfxd6(Kxd4)#, 1…Kxd5 2.Sc3(Kc4)#, 1…Bxb2 2.Sexd6(Kb3)#
 
Complete tertiary threat correction, white correction, cyclic pseudo Le Grand, 3x1 change for 1…Bxb2, 6 mating flights
Tertiary threat correction sequence: random move of the knight removes a 2nd guard of d3. The first correction closes one White line on arrival, the 2nd correction closes an additional line. (Author)
 
MAFF: mate is given by checking the adverse King and leaving him with exactly one escape square. “Conventional” mate is illegal.
 

Comments  

 
+3 #1 Seetharaman Kalyan 2016-01-25 05:20
MAFF ... quite a funny fairy condition. Black king should have one flight but is prohibited from taking that flight (when checked) !!
Quote
 
 
0 #2 Diyan Kostadinov 2016-01-26 14:36
Are there such variations as MAFF 2, MAFF 3 ... where the oposite King is matted when is under a check with 2, 3 etc. escape squares?

Probably the conditions are with other names, but MAFF 2, MAFF 3 etc. looks logical.
Quote
 
 
+1 #3 Kjell Widlert 2016-01-27 21:24
Yes, it must be implicit in the condition that Black (or White, in a selfmate) is not allowed to use the flight.

It also seems clear that the "one flight" limitation is only in force when the mating move is played: Black cannot stop the capture of his king by giving himself another flight, or no flight. I also assume that a check with no flight is legal if it is no mate. So 1.Sxd6+?? is illegal, but 1. - Rd8 2.Sxd6+ is legal.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 eugene david rosner 2016-01-27 22:58
This is C+ with Popeye 4.67....amazing the number of cooks and duals to get rid of. I wouldn't have had a chance to get this right without Popeye!
Quote
 
 
0 #5 Rauf Aliovsadzade 2016-01-28 20:31
Eugene, well done!
This condition,as I assume,has a lot of possibilities.
Best wishes from cold Nebraska to cold
Pennsylvania!
Quote
 
 
+4 #6 Miro Brada 2016-01-29 12:35
Very interesting to see new MAFF after 22 years I defined it. I know very good cyclic MAFF problems of James Quah. Yes Diyan, you can re-define mate as you want, which opens 'infinite' space of logic. E.g. shortly after I defined MAFF, I realized I could require e.g. One White Unit around black king (otherwise the mate is illegal). It is OWU condition. And you can see #2 OWU in The Problemist, with threat Lacny #2 OWU with 10 pieces - I did this problem very quickly: www.yacpdb.org/#347033
Also combining OWU & MAFF I did (very quickly) total threat of Lacny published in Variant Chess... But you can compose very intricate cycles just using MAFF...
Quote
 
 
+1 #7 Juraj Lorinc 2016-02-01 21:23
In my view this is quite rich MAFF problem, not static schematic one, rather with the variable play using a lot of different "free fields". Needless to say, I like it as a modern fairy direct mate as well. I would like to see more compositions of this kind published.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh


Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/youcult/public_html/chessbul/templates/edenrock/s5_tab_show_ER.php on line 5

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/youcult/public_html/chessbul/templates/edenrock/s5_tab_show_ER.php on line 9

  P1110623

KOBULCHESS.COM

site for chess composition

 General editor:

Diyan Kostadinov

Co-editor:

Seetharaman Kalyan

Recent comments