tp064 PDF

THE PROBLEMIST
THE BRITISH CHESS PROBLEM SOCIETY

JULY 2006
VOL 20 No 10
Introducing a new fairy condition: TAKE&MAKE CHESS

A Volker Glke, Winus
Mller & 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 Glke &

Peter Schmidt
Andernach 2006
This years 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 Ks 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 Ks 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
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 Bxf5D Stephen Emmerson
f4 (B plays completion R-move).
Andernach 2006
wdwdn4wd
dwdpIwdw
wGw0Bdwd
dwdwiw0w
wdw$wdwd
dwHwdphw
wdwdwdwg
dwdwdwdw
kdwdwdwd
0wdwdw0w
P0wdpdKg
dwdwGpdp
w0wdN)wd
dwdpdB)n
wdw)wdP4
dwdwdw)b
H#2 (b) Pg5>d2

Take&Make chess
#2 Take&Make chess
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: 1Sf2+ 2.Sxf2-h3; 1Sg5+ 2.Sxg5h3; 1b3 2.Sc3; 1b5 2.Sc5; 1g5+ 2.Sxg5-g4;
1g6 2.Sf6. 1Bg5+ allows several replies:
2.fxg5-d8Q or 2.Sxg5-h6,e7,d8.
JMR
THE PROBLEMIST
426
JULY 2006
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 Societys 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.Treasurers 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
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 Novembers
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
Birthday greetings and congratulations go this

month to Aurl Krpti (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
Obituary We have Santi Pirrone

recently heard the sad 1 Pr L'Italia Scacchistica
news of the death of the 1966
Italian composer Santi whwdwdnd
Pirrone. Predominantly a
2-move specialist with 11 dwdw!wdw
Album points to his wdwGwdwd
name, he was known for gwdwHwdw
problems like the one wdPdwdwd
quoted here. 1.Qg5? dw4w)w$w
(>2.Rg2) Rc1! 1.Qh4? Ndwiwdwd
(>2.Qh2) Rxe3! 1.Qb7? $wdBdKdw
(>2.Qg2)
Rc1/Rxe3
#2
2.Qd5/Qb2, but 1Sc6!
1.Qa7? (>2.Rg2) Rc1/
Rxe3 2.Qd4/Qxe3; 1Bb6! 1.Qh7? (>2.Qh2)
Rc1/Rxe3 2.Qd3/Qc2, but 1Sh6! 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. Todays world has
too much to offer to younger people for chess
problems to stand a chance of universal appeal. All
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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.
Obituary
JAMES HETHERINGTON
17.4.1907 30.4.2006
We very much regret to record the death of
Jim Hetherington, one of the Societys 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 telecommunications 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 bte 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.
427
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.
Steven Dowd
Eugene Albert
Ideal Mate Review 1986
Ideal Mate Review

Oct-Dec 2005
wdwIwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdriwd
dwdw0p0w
wdwdpdwd
dwdwdwdB
wdwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
wdw)wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdpd
dw0wdp)w
kdP0w)wd
dwdKdwGw
H#5
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
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
feasible doesnt make it
original. Could one Toma Garai
enjoy a funny story heard Original
in three minutes just wIbdwdwd
because its now told in dp)B0pdw
four? he asks. A fair wdwgRdr0
question, but we all know
dw)whwdP
that its not so much the
joke as the way you tell wdpdwdwd
dwdpdw)k
it.
Solutions: 1.Sg4 Re3
2.Bf4 gxf4, and 1.Rg4
Rxh6 2.Sg6 hxg6.
wdwdwdp0
dwdwGwdw
H#2 2 solutions
THE PROBLEMIST
428
NINTH UPDATE OF CHESS PROBLEMS:

TASKS AND RECORDS, by C.J.Morse
A J.Fulpius
Original
wdRgRdwd
dNdkdwdw
ndwGwdPd
dpdwdpdw
wdwdPdwd
dwdwdwdw
pdwdwdBd
dwdQIwdb
#2
B L.Ceriani
Chemnitzer Tageblatt
1925 (v)
BdwdN$wd
dKdwdwdw
wdrdPdpd
dwdkdwdw
w$wdw)wd
dw)wdwdQ
whwdwdPd
dNdwdwGw
#2
JULY 2006
The first name in this update must be that of Ernesto Ferrn 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 Lings 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 Ferrns
work, and has since published further improveC J.F.Ling
ments. As to problems in my book here identified
The Problemist 1954
by Arabic numbers in bold I listed nine which
(v E.Ferrn)
Ferrn had shown to be unsound at the end of my
wdwgBdwd
September 2005 update. Six of them (46, 108, 110,
dKdwdwdw
124, 202(B) and 523) are fairly easily corrected; 81,
which purported to show 2 BK + 7 BB variations,
wdwdwdwd
can be replaced by A; 80, which purported to show 1
iwdNdRdw
BK + 10 BR variations, was a step too far, and the
wHwdwdwd
record regresses to 1 + 9 in B. Only 482, a 1st
dwdwdwdw
prizewinner in Die Schwalbe by N.Petrovi which
wdwdwdwd
purported to show 7 different mates after flights to,
4wdwdwdw
and self-blocks on, four flight-squares, is irreparable.
#2
Full details of these cooks and corrections can be
found at the end of this article.
D E.Ferrn
(after W.H.Thompson)
E E.Ferron
(after D.Stojni)
Original
Original
Ndwdwdwd
Hw0w)wdw
B)w)Kdwd
dqdw0wgw
bdkdPdwh
GwdRdwdw
wdwdPdwd
dwdwdQdw
wdwdwdwG
dw0wdwdb
wdKdwdwd
dwdPdwdw
wdkdw)wd
dRHwdQHw
P0p)w0w0
dwdwdw$w
#2
#2
F D.Stojni
G M.igman
The Problemist 2004

(v E.Ferrn)
5 Pr= Problem TT 1971

(v E.Ferrn)
NdBdwdwd
dwdwdwdp
wdkdwdwd
dwGwdwdw
Kdw)bHPd
dpdwdwdQ
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
bdBdwdQd
dwdwdw)K
wdwdwdwd
dwdwHPdw
Rdw)k)w$
dwdpdpdw
wdw0n)wd
dwdwdwdw
#2
#2
The next five diagrams exhibit Ferrns

improving skills. C equips Lings 8-man WS wheel
15 with a better, check-granting, key and removes an
unprovided set flight. D maintains 133s 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 Stojnis 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, Ferrn
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!
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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
Ferrn. K suffers from congestion, but L, with its
light construction, flight-giving key and eleventh
added mate, is probably the best setting yet. Ferrn
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-andrefutation 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 countercaptures 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, Whites 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!
429
H G.Maleika
J G.Jnsson
Probleemblad 1980
Schackvrlden 1939
wdndw4wi
dw)pdPdp
wdw)wIwd
dwdpGp$p
wdwdp)wg
dwdP)whw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
Qdwdwdwd
dRdwdwdw
wdwdw)wd
dwdndwdw
wdwdwdPI
dwHwdkdw
wdwdNdw$
dwdwdwGw
#2
#2
K H.Frberg
6 HM Gteborgs Posten
1951
L S.Turiev
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0pdw0wd
gn4kdPdp
w)NdRIp)
dwdB0P!w
wdNdPdwd
dwdRdndw
whwdQdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw)wdwd
dw)kdpdw
N0wdR)w0
dwdw)ndB
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdwdK
#2
#2
M T.Kardos
British Chess Magazine

1952
Shakhmaty v SSSR 1962
N J.Fulpius
Die Schwalbe 2004
Ndwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
p)wdwdwd
irdwdw0w
wgwdwdR0
0PdBdpdK
PdwdpGwd
dwdw!w$N
wdRdwdwd
dKdBdNgw
wdwdwdwd
dw0k)wdR
wdwdwdNd
dPdnGn1w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdQdw
#2
#2
O M.McDowell
(after F.Schrfer)
P D.Stojni
The Problemist 1996
Mezija 2005
K$wdwdri
)wdwdwgr
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdPdw)w
wdwdw0Pd
GwdwdQdR
wdwdwdbd
dK0wdp4Q
PdRdwdwd
0kdw)wdw
pHw0wdpd
)wdwdPdw
Pdwdw)qd
dwdwhwdw
#2
#2
THE PROBLEMIST
430
R D.Stojni
Q C.J.Morse
Original
2 Pr N.Leontyeva-75 JT
2003-4
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdw0w$w$
dwdPdwiw
wdwdwdqd
dwdwdwdw
wdNdpIw!
dwdwHwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdw0w!w
wdwdpdw)
0w)P)pdw
wGwdwiwg
dwdwHw$w
wdwdwdBd
$wdwdKdw
#2
#2
S E.Minerva & A.Garofalo
T E.Minerva
Best Problems 2005
Best Problems 2005
wdwdwdwd
dw)niP)w
wdwdw0wd
dwdwdwdw
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw0wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdbgr4wd
0Pdw)P)w
wdkdwdwd
dnhpdKdw
wdw1wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
H=3
Ser-#4
Solutions Q: 1.Se3. R: 1.Bc3/Bd2/Be1? Bxg3/

Bg5/Bf6! 1.Ra4! S: 1f8R 2.d1R Rxf6 3.Sf8 gxf8R
4.Rd8 cxd8R=. T: 1.bxc8S 2.gxf8S 3.fxe8S
4.exd8S#.
__________________________________________
JULY 2006
With checking and pinning tries, Q shows a 6-fold

double duel between queens, with only one capturefree variation (1Qe4 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
Heinonens fine XX in my September 2005 update
as the sole example of 7 promotions to BB in serieshelpstalemate. 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 seriesmate 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 Mller and Karlheinz
Bachmann. In a magisterial article in the June 2005
issue of Die Schwalbe Mller provided a far more
thorough historical analysis of the Blthy matrix
than is given in Chapter 18 of my book. He showed that the matrix originated not with Blthy 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 Blthy made his great extension to over 300 moves
(812 in my book), and it now seems right to call it the Shinkman-Blthy matrix. The solution to 812
contains a number of duals, and the dual-free length record has since 1987 belonged to 754, Michel Caillauds
notable S#242 extracted from the same matrix. But Mller 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 Mintzs 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 Mllers article he made his bid for the record with a S#223 (6K1/1s5s/2p2B2/p1P1S1p1/
1p2q1pP/bB2QP1p/pk4pr/r6b). Here it is Whites 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, Bachmanns 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 Bachmanns 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
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
that road. Mintz has taken his 851 and replaced its
dualled ending with Bachmanns, 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 BBvariations are dualled. Replace with A.
108 Cooks: 1.Rc7, Bf4, Bh6. Composers
correction (W.H.Thompson, La Stratgie 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 1Rd1. Composers
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 1Rxc8. Irreparable.
523 Cook: 1.Be4. Correction: BPh5>h2, +BPg4
and BPg5.
431
U K.Bachmann
Die Schwalbe 2005 (v)
V J.Mintz
(after K.Bachmann)
Original
wdwdwdKd
dndwdwdw
wdpdwdwd
0w)wdwhw
BdwdQdp)
0wdwdPdp
pgwdwdp4
4wiwdwdb
wdw1wGKd
dndwdwdw
wdp$wdwd
0N)pdwdw
B0wdwdP4
dwdw!NdP
pdwdwdp0
4kgwdwhb
S#203
S#249
Solutions U: 1-24.Qf4-f5-xg5-f5-f4-e4-e3-e1e4-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 = 2642. 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+ 199201.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+ 1519.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.Qxg183.Kf8209.Kxa5 210-4.Qd4-b4-e4-e3g1+ 215.h4221.h5as in U249.Qxa3+ Rxa3#.
CORRECTIONS TO RECENT BCPS AWARDS

RETROS 2004
MOREMOVERS 2003
(a) The winner of the 3rd prize (R336 by

Aleksandr Kisliak) has a dedication which is
missing: Dedicated to CCL on his 64th birthday.
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.
(b) The cooked R342 (by Paul Racan) 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.
(c) Thomas Brand has sent me a problem which
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 Grfrath
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
Radovi) 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
432
1 C.A.Hirst
Hampshire Post 24.5.1912
wdwdw!Ng
dwdwdwdw
wdpdpdwd
dwIwiwdn
wdwdwdwd
dw0Pdwdw
wdrdwdwd
dwdwdwdb
#2
2 C.S.Kipping & H.Strong
rdBdw$wh
dQdNdwdP
w0wdwHwg
0KdwGk1w
wdw)pdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdwdwdRd
dwdwdwdw
#2
3 A.Bolus (after E.Eginton)
wdbdwdwd
Gp)p)wdw
whwIwdwd
dRdwdwHw
wdwiwdwd
$pdwdwHw
p)wdw)wd
!wdwdBdw
S#4
4 W.B.Rice
QGwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
KdPdwdw0
dN$wdpdr
wdw0kdwd
dwdwdwdR
wdw)ndwd
gbdwHqdw
#2
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
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 wellknown 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 1Bf6. Set 1Sg7 2.Qf6. 1.Se7 (>2.Sg6) 1Bf6, Sf6 2.Qb8; 1Sf4
2.Qxh8; 1Be4 2.d4; 1Rg2 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) 1Ke6+ 2.Sc5; 1Kxf4+ 2.Sd5; 1Kg6+ 2.Se5; 1Qxf4 2.Sb8;
1Qxf6 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 (-) 1a1Q
2.Qd1+ Qxd1 3.Sf3+ Qxf3 4.Rd5+ Qxd5; 1a1R 2.Ra4+ Rxa4 3.Rb4+ Rxb4;
4.Bxb6+ Rxb6; 1a1B 2.Rbxb3 Bxb2 3.Qc3+ Bxc3 4.Rb4+ Bxb4; 1a1S
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
bishops guard. Curiously, there are tries 1.Bc7? Qf4!,and 1.Bd6? f4!, and moving
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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) 1Qf4 2.c7;
1f4 2.Sd6; 1Sf4 2.Re5; 1Ba2 2.d3; 1d3 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 fullscale 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 worlds
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) 1Sf3 2.Sxd4 (>3.Bd6); 2Kf4 3.Se2;
2Sxd4 3.Qxd4; 1Sc6 2.Bxd4+ Kd6 3.Bc5; 2Sxd4 3.Qxd4; 1Sxe6
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 1Se3, 1Sf5, 1e5 and 1Be5, 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) 1Se3 2.Sf2; 1Sf5 2.Sg5; 1e5 2.Sf6;
1Be5, Rd4, Rc3, Bc1 2.Re5; 1Rc2 2.Qd3; 1Bc3 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 1f4.
1.h3 (>2.Qxf5+ Kxf5 3.Rh5) 1Sd4 2.Qf4+ Sxf4 3.gxf4; 1Bxg3, Bf2 2.Qa1+
Sxa1 3.d4; 1f4 2.Rh5+ Kd4 3.Sxb5; 1Bxd3 2.Qxd3. Salkinds version was
8/2S3Kp/r4P2/ppP1kp2/7R/4p1PP/2sP2s1/4bQ1b #3 1.d3. The intended defence
1Rxf6 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
1cxd4+ 2.Bxd4; 1Sd5+ Sxd5. 1.Kxe4 (>2.Rf3)
1Sd5 2.Rxd6; 1Se6 2.Sd5; 1Qxc6+ 2.d5;
8 M.Marble
1either Rxe7+ 2.Se5.
Hampshire Telegraph &
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 Smoves 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) 1Sb3 2.Sdc4
(>3.Qe5, 3.Qh8, 3.Bb2); 2Kc3 3.Bb2; 1Sc2
2.Sed4 (>3.Qe5); 2Kc3 3.Bb2; 1Kxe3, Kc3
2.Qb5.
433
5 C.A.L.Bull
whwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
wdwdNdRd
dwGwiwhr
wdP0wdPd
dwdPdwdw
Kdwdwdbd
dwdQdwdw
#3
6 B.Harley

Post 3.7.1914
wdwdwdwd
dwdp0wdw
wdwhwdwd
dQ0wHwdR
wdrdk0wd
0wdwdNdK
wgwdPdnd
dbdRdwGw
#2
7 L.B.Salkind

Post 1.1.1915 (v)
wdwdwdwd
dwHpdpIw
wdwdw)wd
db)wipdw
wdwdwdw$
dwdP0w)w
wdndwdn)
dwdwgQdw
#3
9 C.A.L.Bull
Post 9.4.1915
(4 HM= Jan-June 1915)

Post 7.5.1915
qdwdrdwd
dwhpHrdw
wdR0wiN!
dw0wdwdw
wdw)pdwd
dwdpIw$B
wdwdwdwd
Gwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w)wipdw)
dwdwHwdw
pdwHPdb!
hwGwdwIw
#2
#3
THE PROBLEMIST
434
10 G.H.Goethart

Post 14.5.1915
(1 Pr Jan-Jun 1915)
wdwhBdwd
dpdwdndw
w0w0wdw0
gp0kdwdP
Ndwdwdw$
dwdwdwdQ
wGPdwHKd
dwdwdwdw
#2
11 K.A.L.Kubbel

Post 28.5.1915
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0wdwdwd
dPdkdNdw
pdw)w0wd
dwdwdPdw
PdwdQdwd
dKGwgwdw
#3
12 G.Guidelli

Post 24.9.1915 (1 HM
Jul-Dec 1915)
BGwdwdwd
dwdpdw1w
KdRgw4pd
dpdPdPdw
w$wHkHQd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdw)wd
dwdwdwdb
#2
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 (-)
1Bxb4 2.Sxb6; 1bxa4 2.c4; 1cxb4 2.Qb3; 1c4 2.Rxb5; 1Sc6 2.Bxf7;
1Se6 2.Qf3; 1Se5 2.Sc3; 1Sf else 2.Qf5.
Chandler described Kubbels 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 1Bd2! 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) 1Bxd2 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) 1Be5+ 2.d6; 1Bxf4+ 2.Sde6; 1Bc7+, Bxb8+ 2.Sc6; 1B
else+ 2.Sfe6; 1Ke5 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 1Rc4+ 2.Sc6; 1Rc3+ 2.Bxc3.
1.Sc5 (>2.Se6) 1Rc4 2.Sexd3; 1Rc3 2.Be3; 1Kxc5 2.Qxa7; 1Bxc5
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
13 G.H.Goethart
solvers comments to the last published problems!
Post 18.2.1916 (3 Pr 1916-9) The informal tourneys were now extended to cover
three-movers.
wdK$wdwd
gwdwdw!w
wdwdwdwd
hpdPHwdw
rdwiNdwd
4wdpdw0w
wdwGwdwd
dwdw$wdw
#2
15 C.Mansfield
14 H.Weenink
JULY 2006

Post 17.10.1919

Post 24.10.1919
(1 Pr 1916-9)
wdwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
pdw)whwd
gwdw0Ndw
Qdwdw0wd
dw)kdwdw
wdwdRdwd
dwdwGKdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdPdQdwd
GwdRdwdw
rdkdndw4
0Nhwdwdp
Bdq)wdwI
Hw$wdbdw
#2
#2
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 1B~ 2.Qxa6. 1.Qb3
(-) 1Bb4 2.cxb4; 1Bxc3 2.Qxc3; 1B else
2.c4; 1S~ 2.Qd5 (Set 2.Qe4); 1e4 2.Rd2 (Set
2.Qd4); 1f3 2.Re3.
Perhaps Chandlers 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 Chandlers 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 halfpinned pieces selfblocks, allowing a white battery
mate with self-interference. The by-play is of high
quality, especially 1Se2. 1.Qf5 (>2.Rd4) 1Sb5
2.Sc5 (Set 2.R on file); 1Qd3 2.Sd4 (Set 2.Rc5);
1Se2 2.d3; 1Sxd5 2.Qxf1; 1Qxb3 2.Bxb3;
1Qxd2+ 2.Sxd2; 1Se~ 2.Rc5. Mansfield
regarded the problem as a personal favourite.
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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.
435
16 A.C.Challenger

Post 21.11.1919
(4 Pr Oct-Mar 1919-20)
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdK
wdw0wdwd
dwdpdw)w
w)w)k0wd
dwdwdRdQ
bhPdwdwd
gwdwdwdw
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 judges top placings in the three-move
award for April September.
#3
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)
1Bb1 2.Rd3 Bxc2 3.Qh7; 1Bc4 2.Re3+ fxe3 3.Qg4; 2Kxd4 3.c3; 1Sd3
2.cxd3+ Kxd4 3.Qh8; 1S else 2.Qg4 ~ 3.Qxf4; 1Kxd4 2.Rxf4+.
wHndwdwd
dwdwdpdw
R0wdpIw0
0kdwdbdR
pdp!wdwd
Gwdwdwdw
wdwdNdwd
gwdwdwdw
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 (-) 1f6 2.Qd7; 1e5 2.Qd5; 1c3
2.Qd3; 1Bb2 2.Qxb2; 1Bc3 2.Sxc3; 1Bxd4+
2.Sxd4; 1S any 2.Rxb6.
18 J.Scheel
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
authors three-ers, by freshness of combination and
fine construction. 1.Qd5 (>2. Rxg4+ Kxg4 3.Qd1)
1Kf6 2.Sg7+ any 3.Rf7; 1h2 2.Rf2+ Kf6 3.e5;
2Kh5 3.Rxh2; 1gxf5 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 (-) 1c5 2.Kh6 c4 3.g4 c3 4.g5
Rh2; 1h6+ 2.Kh5 c5 3.g4 c4 4.Qg6 Rh2; 1h5+
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+) 1Kxf5 2.Qg4+
Kxe5 3.Kc5 f5 4.Qd4; 1Kd5 2.Qf3+ Kxe5 3.Kc5
exf5 4.Qe3; 1exf5 2.Kc5 fxe5 3.Kc4 f4 4.Qd3;
2f4 3.Qd3+ Kxe5 4.Qd5; 1fxe5 2.Se7 Kd4
3.Qf3 e4 4.Qc3.
Traxler was a versatile composer, equally capable
of making monumental Bohemian masterpieces or
17 G.Guidelli

Post 28.11.1919 (1 Hm
Jan 1916-Dec 1919)
#2

Post 12.12.1919
(HM Oct-Mar 1919-20)
19 T.R.Dawson
wdwdwdn4
dwdwdQdw
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdNiw
wdwdP$pd
Iwdwdwdp
wdwdwdwd
dwGwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdw!p
wdpdwdwd
dwdwdKdw
wdwdwdwd
Hwdwdwdw
p4wdwdPd
iwdwdwdw
#3
R#4

Post 25.12.1919
21 K.Traxler
20 M.Havel

Post 9.4.1920

Post 21.5.1920
(1 HM Apr-Sep 1920)
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdp0wd
dwdwHNdw
wdwdkdwd
Iwdwdw!w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dK!wdwdw
w0wdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
w0wHwdwd
dpdwdwdw
wdRdwdwd
dkdwdwgw
#4
#3
THE PROBLEMIST
436
22 E.E.Westbury

Post 13.8.1920
(3 HM Jul-Dec 1920)
BGw4wdwd
dRdwdQgp
wdrdwdwd
dwdndwdp
wdwdkdwd
dNdw0w$w
wdwdPdbI
dwdwdwdw
#2
23 G.F.Anderson

Post 20.8.1920
(1 Pr Apr-Sep 1920)
wdwdwdwd
dwIwdpdw
Bdwdw)wd
dNdPdw)w
wdkdw)pd
)w0bGwdw
PdP1wdwd
dwdR4rdw
#3
24 J.Hartong

Post 21.1.1921
wdwdwdkd
dw0N0wdw
wdPdN0Bd
dPdPdwdw
w0wdwdw$
dw0wdPdw
bgP0wdwI
4ndRdwdw
JULY 2006
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) 1Bxd4 2.Rf2+
any 3.Qh1; 1b2 2.Rc8+ any 3.Ra8; 1bxc2 2.Qxc2+ Ka1 3.Sb3; 1Ka1
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) 1Rf6
2.Rb4; 1Sf6 2.Re7; 1Bf6 2.Qxh7; 1Rf8 2.Qxd5; 1Se7 2.Qf4; 1Bh3
2.Qf3; 1Be5+ 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
Andersons No.532. It is quite the best example I have seen of the New Threemover School, which combines the model mate theme with the best two-move
strategy. Anderson has got the full half-pin theme (1Qg2 and 1Be2)
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~) 1Be2 2.Kd7
(>3.Sc7); 2Kxd5 3.Sxc3; 2Qxd5+ 3.Sd6; 1Qe2, Qg2 2.Sd6+ Kxd5 3.Bc4;
1Kxd5 2.Bb7+ Ke6 3.Sd4; 2Kc4 3.Sd6.
Hartongs 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) 1b3 2.Ra4 ~
3.Ra8; 1Ba3 2.Be8 ~ 3.Rg1; 1cxb6 2.c7 ~ 3.c8Q; 1Bxd5 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 1Rxc5+ 2.Bxc5. 1.Se5 (>2.Qd7) 1R
random + 2.Scd7; 1Rxe5+ 2.Se6; 1Sf4 2.Sf3; 1fxe5 2.Rd8; 1Qg7, Qh7
2.Qd1; 1c2 2.Qa1; 1Se4 2.Sb3.
The Meredith 26 was criticised for some duals and short mates, but the fourfold echoed model was considered to be a record at the time. 1.Bc7 (>2.Be2 >
3.Qe5; 2Rxe2 3.Qd3; 2Kf5 3.Qg6) 1Kf3 2.Qf4+ Kg2 3.Qxf1; 1Ra3,
Rb3, Rc3, Rg3, Rh3 2.Qe5+ Kf3 3.Qe2; 1S~ 2.Bd3+ Rxd3 3.Qxd3; 2Kf3
3.Qg3; 1c4 2.Qf4+ Kd5 3.Qxc4.
#3
25 A.M.Sparke

Post 28.1.1921
(1 Pr Jan-Apr 1921)
26 E.Palkoska
wdKdRdwd
dpdNdwdw
wGwdw0B1
dwHwdrdn
QdPiwdwd
dw0wdwhb
wdwdw)pd
dwdwdwdw
bdwGwdwd
dwdpdwdw
Bdw!wdwI
dw0wdwdp
wdwdkdwd
dwdw4wdw
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdndw
#2
#3

Post 4.3.1921
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
worlds 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.
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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. Tates 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 Melbournes 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.
437
A H.Tate
1 Pr Eccentricity Ty,
Melbourne Leader 1912
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw!wdPd
dwdwdwiw
wdwdPdNg
dwdwdPdR
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
See text
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 Problemists 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 Victorias 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 fellmongers
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 Tates 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 couldnt 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
THE PROBLEMIST
438
B H.Tate
Good Companions 1920
wdwdwdwd
hw0Ndwdw
N0wdwdKd
$wdpdwdw
Bdk0wdnd
dw1wdwdw
wdw$wdwd
Gw!wdwdw
#2
1.Qa3
JULY 2006
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 cuckoos quavers flew with their wild
sadness: whipbirds, golden-breasted whistlers, all the warblers, wrens and treecreepers, tossed their ripples and runs into the air, while magpies and butcherbirds 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.
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 Tates 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]
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.
275 Jean-Pierre Boyer
Sinf. Scacchistiche 1968
wGNdwdwd
Ipdwdwdw
w!wdwdNd
$wdndk0w
wdwdrdwd
dwdwdb)P
wdqdwdwd
dBdrdRdw
#2
1.Sf8
2005 Championship
Congratulations
to
Efrn 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.
SYNTHETICS LADDER 2005

Synthetic 269
Maximum 12
Anonymous
A.Bouwes I
11
B.Chamberln II12
C.Grassano
S.Emmerson 12
R.Ganapathi I 12
D-I.Nicula
A.Kay XIV
9
R.Krtschmr II 12
V.Krivenko III 12
K.Muralidharan E.Petite IX
12
G.Prahl X
12
M.Schrader VII 12
G.Yacoubian II -
270
12
12
11
7
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
271
12
7
11
6
12
12
12
12
-
272
12
12
11
11
8
12
11
12
12
11
-
273
12
11
11
11
12
11
6
12
12
12
12
11
-
274a274bYear Total
20 20 100
- 11 11
19 20 80 8
15 20 70 88
- 11 11
- 12 36
20 20 97 5
20 - 31 43
12 16 64 123
- 24 180
- 60 96
20 20 75 75
20 20 100 178
20 20 100 42
20 19 97 153
- 12 112
Ladder Ascents (1 ascent = 200 points): Alex Bouwes - I,

R.Ganapathi - I, Gerd Prahl - X.
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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. Its 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 checkavoidance, 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. Squarevacation 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.
439
1 Christopher Jones
2 Christopher Jones
2 Pr Orbit 2005/II
1 HM Orbit 2005/II
whwdBdwd
drdwdwgK
wdw0pdw)
0piwdrdw
wdwdw)wd
dpdwdR1w
Pdwdwdwd
dbhwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdw4w0w
pdwdqdpd
$wdniwdw
w0whwdwd
dbdPdwdw
rGwdwdpd
dwdwIwdw
H#3 2 solutions
H#3 (b) Pg7>g5
4 Christopher Jones
3 Christopher Jones
3 HM Orbit 2005/I
3 C= achov skladba
2003
wdrdwdBd
hwdp$wdw
wIwdwdwd
dP)pdwhw
wdk)p0pd
dwdw0wdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
nGwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
K0wdwdwd
dw1r)Pdw
w)RdPiwd
dwgbdpdw
w)wdw)wd
dwdwdwdw
H#3 (b) BK>f3
H#3 2 solutions
5 Christopher Jones
3 C= achov skladba
2003
6 Christopher Jones
wdwdwdwI
dw0wdpdB
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdqdR
wdk0wdw4
dwdwdbdw
Pdwhwhwd
4wdwdwdw
wdwdwdKd
dwdwdwdw
wdw0Bdpd
dpdPdphn
wdk)w$wd
dw0w0wdN
wdwdw)wd
drdwdwdw
H#3 (b) Pa2<>Sd2
H#3 2 solutions
7 Christopher Jones
8 Christopher Jones
2 HM harmonie 2004
2 HM Quartz 2001-2
wdwdwdwd
dwdw$pdw
wdwdw0wd
dw4wgpdb
pdw0k)pd
dwdwdqdw
whp4PdBd
dwdwdwdK
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdpdwdwd
dw)wdpdp
wdrdqiw)
dwdRdrdn
whwdwGwg
dwdwdwdw
H#3 2 solutions
H#3 2 solutions
1 HM harmonie 2004
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
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
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
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. Well 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 batterycreation 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
D Thomas Maeder &
2.Re5, and there follows an Allumwandlung by
Ulrich Ring
White: 1Ke6 2.f8Q the presence of the wS on b5
prevents the bK from playing 2Kxd5-b5,a5, and
wdwdwdwd
promotion to Q rules out 2Kxd5-c5 and 2Kxd5dwdwdndp
f5; 1Sf3 2.f8R (2Kxf8-f3?); 1Sg6 2.f8S
wdR4wdwg
(2Kxf8-g6?); 1d6 2.f8B (2Kxf8-b4?). You
can expect something good from a triumvirate such
dwdp0wiw
as Avner/Rehm/Widlert, and they certainly do not
wdwHPdw0
disappoint with F: 1.f8S+? Kxe7-g8! 1.Sxd5-d4+?
dwdpIwdp
Rxd4-~ 2.f8S, but 1Rxd4-b5! 1.Sxg6-g5+? Bxg5wdwdbdwd
~ 2.f8S, but 1Bxg5-e4! 1.f8Q? (>2.Qg8) Bf4
dwdBdwdw
2.Sxd5-d4; 1Rf4 2.Sxg6-g5; 1Rc4/Re4 2.Bxc4H#2 2 solutions
g4/Bxe4-g4; but 1Bg5! So 1.f4! (>2.f5) Bxf4-f5
Take&Make chess
2.Sxg6-g5; 1Rxf4-f5 2.Sxd5-d4; 1Kd6 2.Qxb2b6. The arrival of a wP on f4 causes the black units
arriving on that square with capture to move on to
F Uri Avner, Hans Peter
Rehm & Kjell Widlert
f5, thereby relinquishing essential guards. This
effect brings about reciprocal change as compared
with what happens after 1.f8Q?, when there is no wP
wdbdKdwd
on the intersection square f4.
dwdpHPdp
wdwdk)pd
$wdpdwdw
wdwdwdw4
dw!BdwGw
w4wdp)wd
dwgwdwdw
#2 Take&make chess
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
Lan cyclic shift. 1.b4? Sc5! 1.RLc6+? Bxd6-d7!
1.BLxb5-b4? (>2.RLc6) Sc3 2.Lxf3-f6; 1Sc5
2.Lxf3-e3; 1Rd7 2.Lxf3-f5; but 1Rc3! So
1.RLb4! (>2.RLc6) Sc3 2.Lxf3-e3; 1Sc5 2.Lxf3f5; 1Rd7 2.Lxf3-f6. To see how all this works,
you should ask why the thematic mates are not
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
threatened, and how it is that the arrival of different

pieces on b4 and their departure from d3/d4 bring
about the shift. Its an impressive task, but achieved
at considerable cost.
Section 3, for Proof Games and Retros, also
attracted a fair number of entries. Dirks 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
Whites moves, ideally in the key. When the theme
specifies black moves, as on this occasion, its
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; 1Qxc4! (Q unpins Sd5); 1.Qd4?
(>2.Sf8) Sf6! (Sd5 unpins Sg6); 1.Rh5! (>2.Bxf5)
Se5 2.Sf8 (Sg6 unpins Q).
441
G Reto Aschwanden
H Dirk Borst
wdw4rdwd
$Qgw4pGw
w0w)kdw$
dpdwdwdR
ndP$Rdwd
gPdBdr0B
wdRdpdwd
dwdwHndw
r1bdwgn4
0p0wdpip
whwdwdwd
dwdp0wdB
PdwdwHPd
dwdP)wdK
wdPdw)w)
dNgRdwdw
#2 Take&Make chess
No wK Q=Lion
R/B=Rook/Bishop-Lion
PG 14.0
Take&Make chess
J Uri Avner
I Michel Caillaud
v Sp Pr Messigny QT
2006
wdwiwdw4
0p1p0p0p
wdndwhwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdP)P)Pd
$NGQIBHR
wdwdBdNd
dwdN0wdp
wdwdkdn$
dw)ndrdw
wdQdq0B0
Iwdpdwdp
wdwdwdbd
dwdw$wdb
PG 11.0
Take&Make chess
#2
K Menachem Witztum
The helpmate theme was a simple one, and
Pr Messigny QT/2 2006
entries consequently ran the risk of anticipation:
unpin or anticipatory unpin of a white unit. As often
wdwdwdwd
happens at these weekend gatherings, Menachem
dwdw0whw
Witztum competed from Israel by mobile phone,
KdwGQdw4
sending several entries, one of which (K) was
drdw0p)p
awarded the only prize. (a) 1.Bc6 Qd5 2.Sxg5 Bxe5;
Rdwgbiw0
(b) 1.Bb6 Bc5 2.Se8 Qxf5. Complex line-play,
dwdqHndp
though with a lack of harmony on B2. In his
comments on L (a) 1.Se4+ Kb4 (Kb3?) 2.Rf4 Sd3;
wdw)wdwd
(b) 1.d5 Kb3 (Kb4?) 2.Be6 Sd6 judge Yves Tallec
dwdwdwdw
expressed doubts about the Pd3, added by the
H#2 (b) Pd2>h2
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 anticips (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.
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
THE PROBLEMIST
442
JULY 2006
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
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 Reevess 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. Vinagres 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
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
C10311 Robert Lincoln
C10312 Robert Lincoln
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).
(USA)
(USA)
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw!wdKd
dNdwdwdw
wdwdkGwd
dw4wdRdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdRdwdw
wdwdpIwd
dp0w0wdw
b0Ndk0wd
dw)Rdwdw
QdwGw4Pd
drdNdwdn
#2
#2
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
C10313 C.J.Morse
C10314 Herbert Ahues
C10315 Herbert Ahues
C10316 Vasyl Markovtsy

& Vyacheslav Pilchenko
(Germany)
(Germany)
(Ukraine/Russia)
KdBdbdwd
dwdwdQdq
wdpgw)w$
dwdwdNiw
RdwGwdwd
dwdw)P0P
wdwdwdw4
dwdwdrdw
RIBdwdwd
0pGwdwdw
kdpdwdwd
)wdwdwdw
wdPdw4wd
!whNdwdw
wdwdwdwd
drdwdwgb
w1w$wgwd
dwdwdNdK
wdw)w)w0
dwdkHBdQ
n0wdp)wd
dPdwGwdw
wdrdwdwd
dn$wdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0wHpdwd
gwdwdBdq
w0wdPhw0
dR!w)kdr
wdPGwdw)
dwdwdK$w
#2 two tries
#2 two tries
#2 two tries
#2 six tries
JULY 2006
C10317 Marcel Segers
THE PROBLEMIST
C10319 Aaron Hirschenson
C10320 Leopold Szwedowski
(Belgium)
(Italy)
(Israel)
(Poland)
Qdwdwdwd
Gw)wdRdw
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdwdp)wd
dPdwdwdp
wdw$wdw)
dwdwdwdk
wdRdwhBG
dpdwdwdn
wdw0P4wd
$NHkdwdw
Qdp)wdpd
dw0wdPdw
b)wdwdwd
dwdwdwIw
w$wdwdwd
!Bdpdwdw
KdwdwdpG
0Ndwdw4w
wiwdNdwd
0Pdpdwdw
Pdwdwdw0
dwdwdwgw
wdrdwdwh
dwdwGwdK
wdpdRdw0
dwdBdwdw
wdwiwdwd
dPHwdbdw
pdQdwdwd
dndwdrdw
#2 (b) WKa6 to b8
(c) + WPc7 to a4
(d) + WRf7 to d8
#2 set play + two tries
#2 try
#2 try
C10322 Leonid Makaronez

& Viktor Volchek
C10323 C.J.Morse
C10324 ivko Janevski
C10321 Tony Lewis
C10318 Marco Guida
443
(Macedonia)
(Israel/Belarus)
wdw$wdwd
4wdwdwdr
p0wdw)Nd
dwdndwdn
R)Niw0wd
dP0wdP0w
wdpdpdwd
dwGwIwdw
wdwdwdwd
dpdwdpdw
w!wdw0wd
dPHkhR)w
wgwdwdwd
dP4pdw$w
Bdr)pdPI
dwdwdwdw
kdNdwdwd
dw)P)P)w
wGphwdw0
dPIBdwdw
w)pdwgwd
dw$wdw4b
wdw$rdwd
dwdw!qdw
wdKHw$wd
dBhQ0wdw
wGw)Pdwd
dpdwiw)w
wdwdw0wd
dwdwdPdb
w)w4wHwd
dwdw4wdw
#3
#3
#3
#3
C10325 Chris Reeves

after W.A.Whyatt
C10326 Juri Marker
(Germany)
(Ukraine)
(Portugal)
wdNdwIwd
dwdwdwdw
wHwdP)wd
iPdw$wdw
w0wdw!pd
dw0wdwdp
r0wdw0Pd
hndwgBdR
wdrdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdp4nd
dwdbdRGw
wHwdkdpd
0Rdwdw)p
KdPdw!nd
dwHwGwdB
kdwdNdw4
dwdw!wdp
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
Kdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dpdwHwdw
w)wdwdwd
dwdwdKdw
wdwdpdwd
dwdwiwdw
w!wdwdPd
dwdwdwdw
#3
#3
#4
#4
tries
C10329 Gennadi Zgerski
set play
C10330 Hans Peter Rehm
C10327 Sergei Tkachenko
tries
C10331 Baldur Kozdon
(Russia)
(Germany)
(Germany)
wdNHwdwG
dwdwdwdp
wdwdwdw)
dpiwdwdw
w0wdwdw)
dpgKdwdw
w)wdPdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw$wdKd
dwdwdpdw
bHw)pdwd
0pdPdwdw
wgR)k)Bd
dwdwdw)w
PdPdwGwd
drdwdwdw
kdKdwdwd
drdwdwdw
Ndwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdBdpd
dwdwdwGw
#4
#7
#8
C10328 Jos Vinagre
2 solutions
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
444
THE PROBLEMIST
elements (JACA). Splendid problem with

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 flightgiving 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
JULY 2006
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 tryplay (CJM).
C10256 (Suboti) 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 (Suboti) 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
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).
445
CHAMPIONSHIP LADDER 2005

Month Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Year Total
Maxima 95 95 107 95 95 93 580
G.Anyfantis
B.Barnes I
L.Belcsak I
89
A.E.J.Bouwes III
54
I.Bryuchanov
P.Christoforidis VII 43
B.Clark I
59
J.Coello Alonso XVIII 83
B.Conway
9
S.Dowd
G.Ettl
J.Gill XXXII
87
J.Grudulis V
91
M.Harington XXI
37
F.T.Holt XVII
89
S.Jensen
D.Johnston
89
V.A.Krivenko VI
91
R.Lazowski VIII
91
P.le Grand
30
R.Lindberg IV
62
J.F.Ling
27
G.Lucenti XI
91
C.J.Morse V
30
G.Murphy
12
R.Mylward
D-I.Nicula
84
T.van Oosterhout X 81
E.Petite X
82
F.D.B.Praal XXVI 71
V.Sergeev
90
V.Satkus
93
P.Steiner I
30
A.Willmott XVI
89
G.Yacoubian XV
94
63 79 73
55 65 50
44
51 36 34
60 71 54
92 102 95
12
30
74
92
44
88
9
79
84
88
30
51
30
91
30
88
86
85
62
84
93
30
95
11
58 64
52 56
54 39
91 83
30 27
95
107 95 92 93
36 51 42 35
98 89 85 89
93
99
106
42
58
30
104
36
91
91
95
27
64
21
95
30
87
90
93
30
88
91
92
30
48
24 21
94 85
30 30
99
88
103
91
96
107
39
107
92
87
87
64
82
82
30
95
93
82
85
84
91
95
24
92
90
84
83
81
92
27
90
94 479
367
426 720
332 625
44 80
257 401
244 825
546 792
108 108
42
42
256 788
570 986
245 461
538 750
9 9
527 1042
546 717
565 567
189 687
283 515
153 429
560 768
186 952
12 61
485
546 1269
508 806
525 980
453 587
443 443
562 1315
180 418
568 901
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, Jacks
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
446
STUDIES
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
JULY 2006
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=) 1Kb7 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=) 3b3 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) 4Kb6 (4Kb7 5.Kb4 e5 6.Bxe5 Ra6 7.bxa6+
Ka8 8.h6 h2 9.h8Q wins. This line was the source of inspiration for Brians debut
effort); 5.Kb4 a6 6.Bc5+ Kc7 7.Bg1 axb5 8.Kxa5 bxa4 9.Kxa4 Kd7 10.h6 wins.
k
E940 Brian Stephenson

(after L.Mozes)
L.Mozes
First published study
Magyar Sakklet 1975
Comments
wdwdwdwd
)wdwdwdw
Pdwdwiwd
dwdwdpdp
pdwdw0w$
dwdPgwdw
wdwdwdK)
dwdqdwdw
wdwdQdwd
0kdwdwdw
wdwGpdwd
4w)wdwdP
PdPdwdwd
dwIwdwdp
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdq
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+ =)
1Kxd7 2.c6+! Qxc6 (2.Kxc6 3.Sd8+ Kd7
4.Sxb7 axb6 5.Bf5+ Kc6 [5Ke7 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#.
Draw
Win
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
Book Review
447
E912 Vitaly Kovalenko
(correction)
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. 1Qxf8 2.e7 Qb8! (2Bb4+ 3.Ka4 Qf4 4.Bd4+ =; 2Qh6 3.Bd4+ c5
4.Bxc5+! Bxc5 5.e8Q Qxd6 6.Qd7+! Qxd7 stalemate!) 3.Bd4+ c5 4.Bxc5+! Bxc5
5.Sb5+ Ka8 (5Kb7 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 =) 1Qf6
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) 6Rb4+ 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#) 1b1Q+ 2.Sb6+ Kd6 3.a7
Kc5 4.a8S! (4.a8Q? Qxb6+ 5.Kc8 Qe6+ 6.Kb8 Qd6+ 7.Kc8 Qf8+ 8.Kb7 Qe7+
9.Kc8 Qe8+ 10.Kb7 Qd7+ 11.Ka6 Qb5+ 12.Ka7
Qb6#) 4Qe4+ 5.Kc7 Qe5+ 6.Kb7 Qxh2 7.Sd7+
Kd6 8.Sf3 Qb2+ 9.Sab6 Qg2 10.Sde5 draw.
C Ilham Aliev
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
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
D Sergei Didukh
2 Pr Suomen Tehtvniekat
2001-2
1 HM Moscow Tourney
2004
wdwdwiwd
dwdw0w0p
wdwdPdPd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w4wdwdwd
dwdwIwdR
wdwdwdwd
)Kdkdwdw
Pdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0wdwdwH
dwdwdwHw
Win
Draw
THE PROBLEMIST
448
SELFMATES AND REFLEXMATES
S2119 ivko Janevski
(Macedonia)
wdwdNdwh
dw$w)pdw
wdwdwIpd
dB0k0w)w
w0p)wdw$
dngwdwdw
wdw0wdNd
dQdwdwdw
JULY 2006
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 Mladenovi
whwdwdwd
0wdpdwdw
pdp)wdwd
)wIw$pdw
wdwdw!wd
dwdkdNdw
Ndndp$wd
dBGwdwdw
For solving this month: S2119-S1226R. Theres 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
S2121 Diyan Kostadinov
a flight, the front piece moving each time to a
(Bulgaria)
different square. Jan again shows his partiality for
Qdwdwdwd
changed play in a complete-block setting in S2123.
drdwdwdB
Whites task in S2124 is to get the black Bs and R to
pull their weight. Peter describes S2125R as the
wdwdwdRH
pioneer
example of the Shedey cycle after random
dwdwGRdw
and correction defences in a reflexmate. You need
wHwdkdwd
to find the thematic try to see how this cycle works.
dp0wdw)w
The BR has a significant role to play in S2126R. Do
p0r0w)Pd
have a go at the S#13, with its two variations of
hqgwdKdw
equal length.
S#3
S#5
S2122 Aleksandr Azhusin
S2123 Jan Strydom
S#3
S2120 Valery Surkov
(Russia)
Apologies to Saulius Zeringis for a misspelling

of his first name in May.
JMR
(Russia)
(South Africa)
bdwdRIwd
0Ndwdw4q
wdwdwdpg
dpdwHp0w
w$pGwdwd
dwdw!wdw
kdBdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wGwdwdw!
dwhw0wdw
wdBiPdpd
dw0Pdw)w
w0wdwdwd
dP0w)wdw
wdpdwdwd
dwIwdwdw
S#6
S#6
S2124 Jzsef Psztor
S2125R Peter Gvozdjk
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; 1Rc4
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 Blacks defensive
resources once the BQs line is clear (JMR).
S2126R Ivan Soroka
S2127 Valery Kirillov &

Mikhail Mishko
(Hungary)
(Slovakia)
(Ukraine)
(Russia/Ukraine)
BGwdwdwd
0RdwHbgr
Qdw)pdw0
IRdwdwdw
Pdk0Pdwd
dw0wdwdw
wdPdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdbdwdBd
dw0RGwdw
ndPdwdpd
dwdwIwdw
wdr)p4pd
dk0PHw0n
wdwdwdw1
dwdwdwgw
rdwhwdwd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdwGpd
0wdBdw0w
wdwdRdP$
dwdwHkdK
wdwdNdwd
dw!wdwdw
w4Rdw)pd
iw0w$w)w
wdwdKdwg
dP)wdP0w
w)wdw0Pd
dwdwdBdw
S#6
R#2
R#4
S#13
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
S2094 (Cuppini & Karamanits) Set 1Rxb2

2.Qb5+ Rxb5 3.Rc6+ Kxc6; 1Rc3 2.Qa5+ Kc4
3.Qd5+ Rxd5. 1.Rb3 (>2.Qa5+ K~ 3.Qd5+ Rxd5)
Bb2+ 2.Rc3+ Rxc3 3.Sxd3+ Rcxd3; 1e1Q+
2.Se4+ Sxe4 3.Bxd6+ Sxd6. Black upsets Whites
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;
1c3! 1.Ra5! (>2.Sc3+ B Kxd4 3.Sf3+ Sxf3) exd4
2.Sf6+ A Kf4 3.Qf3+ Sxf3; 1c3 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+ (3Kc4 4.Qe4+) Kd4 5.Qb2+
(4Kc4 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; 1Qxg1 2.Qxa3 Rxg2; 1c2 2.Qxb1 c1S;
1d2 2.Qc1 dxc1S; 1axb2+ 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. Its 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 thats fine! (SJGT).
b
A.F.Mackenzie
1 Pr BCM 1900-1
wgw$Qdwd
dp0KdBdw
NdNdndwd
)Pdkdwdp
wdwdwGwd
dwdPdw0q
ndP)rdp0
dwdw4wdw
S#3
Heres an attractive
prizewinner from the past.
1.Qh8 (>2.Bxe6+ Rxe6
3.Se7+ Rxe7) 1Qh4
2.Scb4+ Sxb4 3.Ke8+
Qxd8; 1bxc6 2.Qd4+
Kxd4 3.Kxc6+ Sxd8;
1bxa6
2.c4+
Kc5
3.Qf8+ Sxf8; 1Ba7
2.Sxc7+ Kc5 3.Qf8+
Sxf8; 1R1~ 2.Bxe6+
Rxe6 3.Qe5+ Rxe5. Fine
battery-play with both Ks
mobile.
449
SELFMATE SOLVING LADDER 2005

Month
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Year Total
Maxima 36 53 78 72 51 36 326
L.Belcsak
14
A.E.J.Bouwes 3
I.Bryuchanov
R.J.Dunn II
21
G.Ettl
C.Frankiss X 35
J.Grudulis V 27
F.T.Holt III
32
V.Krivenko IV 36
R.Lazowski V 36
G.Lucenti V 34
D-I.Nicula
29
E.Petite I
19
F.D.B.Praal 12
V.Satkus
36
V.Sergeev
34
A.Willmott VIII 36
G.Yacoubian X
8
5
27
39
27
22
29
20
20
8
28
46
8
21 17 21 22 103 376
3 3 3 12 240
26
9 20 32
87 409
48
55 43 22 182 474
59 53 51
229 347
55 43 42 36 235 524
48 41 44
191 552
62 41 44 22 234 607
36 41 37 22 190 526
22 34 30 22 157 356
21 24 25 8 105 453
9 13 3
37 85
36 114
19 30
111 111
67 62 51 36 298 484
8 87
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
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
composers 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 composers 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. 3e5+ 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
THE PROBLEMIST
450
JULY 2006
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.Bn
Magyar Sakklet 1961 (v)
k!wdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw)wdwd
dwdwdKdw
H#7
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.Bns H#6 achieved
by Javier Rodriguez
Ibrans 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#).
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 (Molnr) (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
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 (Csk) (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
didnt 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)
JULY 2006
H2977 Christer Jonsson
THE PROBLEMIST
H2978 David Shire
H2979 Vitaly Medintsev
(Sweden)
451
H2980 Tony Lewis
(Russia)
wdwdwIwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dqdpdwdw
wdk4Rdwd
dwdbdwdR
wdwdBdwd
dNdwdwGw
wdwdBdbd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwHrdk)N
wdKgwdw1
$wdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwhwdw
wdwdKdwd
1wdwdwGw
wdPdwdwd
dQgPdwdw
wdpdk)n$
dw0wdbdw
wdwdrdwd
dwdwdwdw
NdwdwIwd
dwdpdw0w
wdk)wdwd
dpgqdwdR
w0wdwdrd
dwdwdNGw
wdwdwdwd
dwdRdwdr
H#2 2 solutions
H#2 (b) a3=WB
H#2 2 solutions
H#2 2 solutions
H2981 Tode Ilievski
H2982 Gyrgy Bakcsi &

Lszl Zoltn
H2983 Temur Chkhetiani
H2984
Aleksandr Pankratiev
(Macedonia)
(Hungary)
(Georgia)
(Russia)
Qdwdwdw4
dpdw$wdw
w0wdwGwd
)wdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
Iw)wdqgR
ndwiw0Pd
4wdwdwhw
wdwhwdw!
dwgwdpdw
pdPdw0wI
Gw)PdPdw
Pdk)whwd
dwdw)wdw
wdqdPdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdw4w4qd
dphwdwdw
bdBdwdwd
dwdPdwdp
w$w)Ndwd
dwdwHk)w
wdnIwdwd
gwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dKdpdwdp
wdw)niw0
dwdwdwhP
wdwHwdwd
0wGwdNdw
qdw0w$wd
dwdwdw4w
H#2 2 solutions
H#2
(b)>(d) BQc2>c3/b4/a4
H#2 4 solutions
H#2 4 solutions (b)

e6&g5=WSs, d4&f3=BSs
H2986 Nicolae Popa
H2987 John Nunn
H2988 Vadim Vinokurov,

Valery Kirillov & Mikhail
Mishko (Russia/Ukraine)
H2985 Angelo Smecca &

Antonio Garofalo
(Italy)
(Romania)
wdwdwdwd
drgwdwdw
wHkHw0wd
4w0wdPdw
wdPdwIwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwgqd
dwdKdk4n
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdndp
wdwdw)PG
dwdwdp4b
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdwdw
bdwdwdwd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdwdwd
dwdwHP0p
wdwdkdr0
dRdwdwdw
Pdpdwdwd
gwdwdwdK
ngwdwdwd
Gwdw1wdw
pdwdpdwd
Iwdwdwdw
wdwdkdwd
dwdwdpdw
w0wdrdwd
db4Rdndw
H#3 (b) Kf4>b1
H#3 2 solutions
H#3 2 solutions
H#3 2 solutions
H2989 Ricardo Vieira
H2990 Ivan Antipin
H2991 Christer Jonsson

& Rolf Wiehagen
H2992 Mario Parrinello
(Brazil)
(Russia)
(Sweden/Germany)
(Italy)
wdw4Rdwd
dBdbdwdw
wdw)w0wd
dw0q4pgp
wdp0w0wd
dw0wiwdw
nhKdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdqdwd
dbdNdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdrdwd
dKdk0wdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwi
dwdwhwdB
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdb
wdwdwdwg
dwdwdwdw
wdwIwdw)
dwdwdwdw
wgwdniwd
dwdwhw0w
wdp4Bdpd
dwdqdwdw
rdwdp0wd
dwIwdpdw
bdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
H#3 2 variants
(b) BKe3>f3
H#4 3 solutions
H#5
H#6
THE PROBLEMIST
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
Re the Solving Ladder:

I'd like to introduce in 2007 a new factor in tiebreaking 100% scores. Until now (and up to the end
of this year) Ive 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 Ill still adopt my present, more
JULY 2006
HELPMATES SOLVING LADDER 2005

Month:
Maxima:
Jan Mar MayJul Sep Nov Yr Total

92 90 91 98 92 92 555
L.Blackstock III 92
L.V.Belcsak I
86
D.P.Bonner XVII 65
A.E.J.Bouwes II 27
A.W.Bowen XII 46
B.Chamberlain IX 92
B.Clark VII
92
F.Cockerill VII
41
M.Condon V
89
J.de Boer
89
C.C.Frankiss I
92
J.Gill XI
92
J.Grudulis VII
92
F.T.Holt XV
92
V.A.Krivenko X 92
R.Lazowski VIII 92
G.Lucenti X
92
D.-I.Nicula I
92
D.Osterholz IX 82
E.Petite X
92
F.D.B.Praal XIII 53
V.Ramaswamy VI 89
M.A.Ridley VIII 59
V.Satkus VI
92
V.Sergeyev VIII 92
D.J.Shire I
35
B.G.Steveson VII 89
C.Tylor II
64
T.v Oosterhout III
A.Willmott IX
92
90
88
41
31
91
87
31
36
87
87
11
58
87
90
90
88
90
90
90
90
87
59
90
36
90
43
90
90
40
73
70
51
90
87
91
42
87
91
85
86
89
91
89
91
91
78
87
56
87
46
91
87
38
84
84
59
91
98
89
33
24
92
88
33
28
92
71
31
26
17
92 92 92
58
59
59 72 66
94 90 89
98 92 92
93 92 87
98 90 90
98 92 90
98 92
98 92 92
98 88 92
98 88 92
23
95 92 89
35 63 53
98
28 40 58
98 92 92
96 90 82
35 35 35
83 88 85
35 63 48
56 56 43
98 92 92
555 1114
509 905
234 331
172 476
63 649
542 950
328 381
153 706
431 510
540 540
464 847
539 776
544 896
551 848
463 795
553 994
551 608
548 622
242 305
545 1191
296 854
364 656
274 626
555 616
537 1182
218 722
502 1190
364 402
265 281
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 years occasional solvers were:
I.Bryukhanov 75 (total 321); C.J.Morse 11 (total
164); and G.Yacoubian 66 (XVII 473).
relaxed approach in marking, but Ill 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
R375 Eyjolfur Eyjlfsson
16 Lime Grove, Sheringham, Norfolk NR26 8NX
Qhbdkgn4
0p0w0pdw
wdw0wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdPdPdwd
dBHwdwdw
P)w)K)P)
dwdwdR4R
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.
(Iceland)
PG 12.5
R376 Aleksandr Yarosh
(Russia)
nhbdwdw$
gq4pdwGw
k4pdwdwI
dpdwdwdw
w)Bdwdwd
!wdw)w)w
PdP)N)N)
dRdwdwdw
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
Last 21 single moves?
back Pf7xB Bh3; Ph5 Bf1; Black needs another tempo, which can only be made by
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
RETROS SOLVING LADDER 2005
the last 4 single moves (playing back) were: Pc7
Ka5; Kc5 Pa3.
Month:
Jan Mar MayJul Sep Nov Yr Total
Maxima:
7 6 6 6 6 6 37
With so much apparent freedom, many questions
arise; especially pleasing is reason why bQ must
L.Belcsak I
6 - 3 3 3 6 21 41
have been captured at home (FM). Very clever
B.Chamberlain III 3 3 3 3 6 6 24 67
Retro: took quite a while to work out fate of bQ
F.Cockerill
3 - - - - - 3 45
(CCF). As you said, several plausible possibilities
J.Craig II
6 6 6 3 3 - 24 46
then all seems impossible then bK oscillating gives
R.J.Dunn
3 - 6 5 6 - 20 58
the key (TM). So far, Richard Dunn the only other
solver; evidently a difficult set.
G.Enslin
- - 5 - - - 5 47
P.Fayers IV
6 6 6 6 6 6 26 46
b
b
b
b
b
C.C.Frankiss III 6 5 6 5 6 6 34 49
J.Grudulis IV
6 6 6 - 6 6 30 30
The Master Sleuths 2005
R.Lazowski III
4 - 3 3 6 6 22 71
P.le Grand II
3 - 6 3 3 6 21 25
1. Frank Moralee
37
T.Marlow XVI
4 3 6 3 6 6 28 54
2. Peter Fayers
36
F.Moralee XIII 7 6 6 6 6 6 37 69
3. Charles Frankiss
34
D-I.Nicula
3 - - - - - 3 3
Once again Frank scores what shooting experts
V.Sergeev VI
6 - - - - - 6 30
call a possible, being the only one to spot the one
C.Stockford II
3 3 3 3 3 6 21 26
cook, in January. Peter achieved his declared aim of
Klaus Wenda also sent a solution and comment
solving everything, and completing his perfect run
to
R358
(Jan) by his friend Wolfgang Dittmann.
of 6s remarked, Mission accomplished. J.Grudulis
might have joined him, but no solution received for
Ascents: XVII T.Marlow; XIV F.Moralee; IV
July snail mail might have got there instead. Well
B.E.Chamberlain, R.Lazowski; and a first to
done, gentlemen. Evidently a tough year, with no
Richard Dunn.
one else breaking 30.
454
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
FAIRIES by Stephen Emmerson

2 Sevenoaks Road, Reading, Berks. RG6 7NT
Judge for 2006: Norbert Geissler
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 months problems. = Stalemate. Seriesmovers: 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 1DGd4-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
1Bxg5 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 isnt 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).
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
455
F2480 Albert Grigorian

(Armenia)
F2481 Ken Cameron
F2482 Paul Racan

(Romania)
F2483 Kevin Begley

(USA)
wdwdwdwd
iwGwdwdw
wdR0wdwd
dwdPdwdw
wdPdwdPd
dwdwdw0w
w)wdKdNd
dwdwdwdN
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdkdBdwd
dwdQdwdw
wdw!wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
Iwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dw)wdwdw
wdwdwdw0
)wdwdwdK
wdwdRdwd
dwdwHwdw
pdQdwdwd
$bdwiwdw
wdQdwdwd
dwdN0wdw
w)P0wdP0
dwdkdwtGP
w)wdwdw0
dP)NgwdP
wdB0wdPd
dwdKdwdw
Ser-H=21
H#3 (b) bKc6->f4

2wDG
S#11 Circe
after G. Koziura
#2 (set, tries)
Equipollents Circe
Kamikaze Bishop g5 9wP
F2484 John Rice
F2485 Oleg Paradzinski

(Ukraine)
F2486 Klaus Wenda

(Austria)
F2487 Vclav Kotovec

(Czech Republic)
wdwdwdwd
gwdbdwdw
wdpdwdwd
)wiw)pdw
Pdw4wdwd
dBdw!wGw
N)wHwdw0
Iwdwdndr
wdKdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wgwdwdw4
dwdwdwdw
wGwdwdwd
dwdpdwdw
pdwdwdwd
iwdwdwdw
w1wdw4wd
)w)w)Q)w
wdwdwIwd
dw)wdwdw
w1w1wdw1
dwdwdwdk
pdpdpdpd
dwdBdw!N
r4bdn1qd
)P)P)P)P
Kgwdkdpd
dw1wdw1q
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
1wdwdw!b
#2 (set)
Couscous Circe
Ser-S=17
PWC
H=4 Circe Madrasi

(1+3) Lions
Ser-=8 Circe Madrasi

3bG 2bQ 3bB
F2488 Gennadi Zgerski

(Russia)
F2489 Alessandro Cuppini

(Italy)
F2490 Jn Duk
(Czech Republic)
F2491 Hubert Gockel

(Germany)
rdw$wdwd
dwdwdNdw
wdwdwdwd
Hwdw0wdw
wdwdPdwd
)wirHpdp
Pdwdn)w)
$wdwIwdw
wdwdwdwG
wwewwewweww
iwdw0w)K
fwfwefwfwefwfwefwfw
wdwdw)wd
wwewwewweww
dw)p)wdw
fwfwefwfwefwfwefwfw
pdp)w0wd
wwewwewweww
dw)wdwdw
fwfwefwfwefwfwefwfw
w)w0w)wd
wwewwewweww
dwdwdwdw
wwewwewweww
wdwdQdwd
dqdpdw)w
qdwdBdw)
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwIP0
dwdw0p0w
wdwdQiwd
dwdwdwdR
wHwIwdwh
dN0wdpdw
w0wdw)wd
1wdkdwdw
pdr0wdpd
dw0wdwdw
whwdQdwd
dBdwdwdw
=2 (set)
Madrasi (2+1) Camels
Ser-H#30
Grid chess
#2 (try)
AntiCirce (2+2) Leos
#2 (try)
Masand
F2492 Arthur Willmott

(Australia)
F2493 Geoff Foster

(Australia)
F2494 Wolfgang Dittmann

(Germany)
F2495R Ian Shanahan

(Australia)
wfwdwdwd
dwdKdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwhwdwdw
wdwgwdwd
dbdwiwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdedwjed
dwdedwje
wjwdejqf
dwdwfeje
kdndwdwd
)w0wdwdw
wdwdwdpd
dwdwdpdB
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdpdw
wdwdPdwd
gwdwIwhw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
w0pdwdwd
dwiwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdPdr
w0p)wdwd
4wdRIwdw
H=3 Imitator b8
(b) Ib8->d4
H=9
Variables
-12 & #1 Proca Retractor

AntiCirce
Ser-S#19
Protean men
THE PROBLEMIST
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 (aleti) 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) 1Sf7 2.Sd6 Sd8 3.Sc8 Sc6
4.d6+ Ke6; 1Se4 2.Sc5 Sxc5 3.Kb8 Sxd7+ 4.Ka8
Ke6. I preferred the 1Sf7 line with the bS locked
in on c8. Nicely done though (CCF). A very pretty
solution by 1Sf7 (FM). 1Sf7 line spectacular
and difficult, despite static bK. WS routes welldefined 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 (Peikan) 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).
JULY 2006
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 & Mller) 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 Whites 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 couldnt 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 dont 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 1h8nB. 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) 1nSPe8nS(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
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). Im 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 doesnt 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 its often
difficult to spot the intention in a cooked longer
problem.
457
Month Jan Mar May July Sep Nov Year Total

Maxima 48 50 46 46 48 48 286
L.Belcsak I
33 14 32 18 35 34 166 202
F Cockerill
6 6
6
12 30 65
B.E.Chamberlain VI 29 35 20 24 32 30 170 319
R.J.Dunn II
16 14
30 59
C.C.Frankiss XX 45 44 35 40 42 47 253 364
J.A.Grudulis IV
42 39 33 32 42 44 232 420
R.Lazowski IX
39 39 30 34 33 41 216 275
G.Lucenti VIII
35 27 21 24
107 217
C.C.Lytton IV
24 27 27 26 24 28 156 335
F.Moralee XXI
47 45 46 45 46 45 274 417
C.J.Morse I
6
9
3 9 27 150
D-I.Nicula
33 30 21 21 27 38 170 334
M.A.Ridley IX
8 3
9
3 6 4 33 74
V.Sergeev XIII
38 45 36 39 45
203 318
A.Willmott VIII
36 21 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
1Q~/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; 1Bc2, Bxb3
2.Sb4+ Kxe4 3.Bg4; 1Kxe4 2.Bxd1+ Kf5 3.Se7
(duals after 2Kd3/Kd5); 1Kxc6 2.Rd4 ~/Sf5
3.Rd6/Qh1; 1Sxc6 2.Bc4+ bxc4 3.bxc4; 1Sf5
2.Qh1 Kxc6 3.Rd4; 1Sf3/f5 2.Sb4+ Kxe4 3.Bd3/
Bxd1; 1c2 2.Qd2+.
A Brian Harley
B Brian Harley
The Observer 1944
Morning Post 1917
Q1N$wdwd
dPdPdwdw
w)k)wdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdKdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
Khwdwdwg
dwdwdwdw
wdwdN0wd
dp)kdwdw
pdwHRdwh
dP0wdwdw
wdwdBdwd
dwdb!wdw
#2
#3
THE PROBLEMIST
458
JULY 2006
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)
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)
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.Kovaevi (2)
A.Zude (1)
A.Zude (2)
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
459
A2 Valery Shanshin
SELECTED PROBLEMS
TWOMOVERS, by Lu Citeroni
A1 Vasyl Dyachuk
1 Pr Wola Gulowska 2005
1 Pr Uralski Problemist
1993-6
wGwdwdwd
dwdQdp4w
qdNdwdN4
dpdwdwdp
wdwdkdwd
dw)p0p)w
wdn)RdwI
dwdwdwdB
wdNdwdb1
Hp$nGwgQ
wdwdwdrd
drdkdPdw
w0wdw)wd
dw)w$Pdw
wdwhBdpd
dwdwdwIw
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
(>2.Qxd3 and 2.Qd5) 1Rd6! 1.Sge7? (>2.Qd5 and
2.Qf5) 1Rg5! 1.Sh4? (>2.Qf5 and 2.Bxf3) 1Rf6! 1.Sge5? (>2.Bxf3 and
2.Qxd3) 1Rxg3! 1.Sb4? (>2.Qxd3 and 2.Qd5) 1Qd6! 1.Sce7? (>2.Qd5 and
2.Qf5) 1Qe6! 1.Sd4? (>2.Qf5 and 2.Bxf3) 1Qf6! 1.Sce5! (>2.Bxf3 and
2.Qxd3) Qd6 2.Bxf3; 1Qe6,Qf6 2.Qxd3; 1Se1 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 1Rxf6 in one phase and 1Bxf6 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 1Bf6
2.Rxd7; 1Rf6 2.Rd3. 1.f6? (>2.Rd7 and not 2.Rd3?) 1Be6 2.Rd3; 1Rxf6
2.Qd3! but 1Rb6! 1.Bf6! (>2.Rd3 and not 2.Rd7?) Rc5 2.Rd7; 1Bxf6
2.Qxd7!; 1Sc5 2.Re5; 1Sxf3+ 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 matetransference 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?) 1Rxa3!
1.Se1? (>2.Qh8 and not 2.Qa4?) 1h1Q! 1.Sc4!? (>2.Sde5) Kxc4 2.Qa4;
1dxc4 2.Qh8; 1Rxb2 2.Sxb2; but 1Sxf3! 1.Se5! (>2.Sdc4) Kxe5 2.Qh8;
1dxe5 2.Qa4; 1Rxb2 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 1Bxa4! 1.Qf8? (-) B~ 2.Qf3; but 1Bxe4! 1.Qh8? (-) B~ 2.d5, but
1Bd5! 1.d5? (-) B~ 2.Qh8, but 1Be8! 1.Qa5? (-) B~ 2.b5, but 1Bb5! 1.b5!
(-) B~ 2.Qa5; 1Kxc4 2.Rxc6.
THREEMOVERS, by Don Smedley
Efrn 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
2Re3,Rxf3. So the threat is 2.Qe4+ fxe4 3.Se2. Black defends by playing to e3.
1Re3 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
#2
A3 Valery Shanshin
1 Pr= Shakhmatnaya
kompozitsiya 2001
wdwdQdwd
dpdw)Bdw
wIw0wdwd
0wdpdwdw
wdwiP0wd
)RdNdPdw
r)wHwdw0
dwGRdwhw
#2
A4 Valery Popov
1 Pr= Moscow Ty 2005
wdR!wdwd
Gwdw)wdw
wdbdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
P)N)Pdwd
dwiwdw)w
w$wdwHwd
dwdwdKdw
#2
B1 Efrn Petite
1 HM Probleemblad 2002
wdbdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwIw)Nd
dwdw)pGw
wdpiwdwd
$w0rdP0w
w0w0Q0wd
dwdndn4w
#3
460
B2 Anatoly Stepochkin
2 pl Moscow TT 2005
wdwdwdrd
dw0w0wdr
wdw0Pdbd
dpdPdkdP
w0wdwdw0
)PdKdPdP
wGwdwdwd
dw!Bdwhw
#3
B3 Igor Agapov
2 Pr Zadachi y Etudyi
2003
wdwdwdwd
dw0wdwGn
wdwdwdwd
dwdPHbdN
wdKdkdpd
dw)Rdp0w
wdRdw4pd
dBdQdqhw
#3
C1 Hans Peter Rehm
1 Pr Schach-Aktiv 2005
bdwdwdwd
hwdwdwdw
w0wGNdwH
drdwdw)p
wdP)kdp4
dwdw0w!n
w0wdPdKd
dwdwdwdw
#6
C2 Ralf Krtschmer
wdwdwdwd
dn0KGw0w
wgwdBdpd
4R0piw0w
wdwdwdRd
dw)Pdpdw
wdpdwdwd
dbdw4wdN
#8
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
1Sde3/Sfe3 2.Qd1/Qf1 3.Se2; also 1Rxf3 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) 1bxa3 2.Bd4 ~/b4/Se2 3.Kc3/Kc4/Kxe2;
1Bxh5 2.Ke3+ Kg5 3.Kf2; 1Bf7,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 crosschecks. There is also some good by-play. The repetition of 3.Re2# is perhaps a
slight drawback. 1.Sf7! (>2.Sxg3+ Kf4 3.Be5) 1Re2 2.Re3+ [2.Rd4+? Ke3!]
Rxe3+/Kxe3 3.Re2/Qd4; 1Se2 2.Rd4+ [2.Re3+? Kxe3!] Sxd4+/Ke3
3.Re2/Qd2; 1Qe1 2.Re3+ Qxe3/Kxe3 3.Re2/Qd4; 1Qe2 2.Be5 3.Sxg3;
1Sf6 2.Sxf6+ Kf4 3.Bh6.
MOREMOVERS, by Jrg Kuhlmann
Its 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 Ill report on the
latest informal tourney, you could easily think Id 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-b3b5. 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 doesnt do that job yet, 4.Bf4! Rd3 indeed does: a self-blockRoman with the Roman decoy 3.d5! Rxd5. If you try to start with this decoy
youll trace the WB being in the WQs way: 1.d5? Sc6! 2.Qc7?? So a Bristolclearance along the diagonal h2-b8 is needed, though not just with the key
1.Bb8? would be naively weak. After the Antizielelement (cf. Mays C1) and AntiBristol 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 Whites 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#) 2Rb5 3.d5! (>4.Qe5# & >4.Qc7 Rxd5 5.Qh7+ Rf5 5.Qxf5#; 3.Qc7?
Rf5!! 4.Qh7 Sf4+!) 3Rxd5 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 4Rg1 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 doesnt
6dxe4 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 gRs
control, which is necessary to enable 6.Se4+! at all. And what about 2gxf4
doesnt it serve the double purpose of selfblock and anticipatory interference? No,
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
it doesnt, because 4Re4 (instead of 4Rg1) wouldnt be a refutation even

with, say, WPg3 instead of BPf4 at that stage: 5.Bf8 and either 5Kf6 6.Sxe4+!
as in the solution or 5Rf4 6.Bxg7+ / 6.Sg4+ with a short-cut by overload. You
see, to decide the purity of a manoeuvres 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 isnt a typical moremover by Kozdon hes 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 1Rxg2! 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#, 11Bf3
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 its 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
arent at all. 1.Sb5+? Kc5! (2.Bd6??); 1.Bf2+? Kxe5! 1.Kc6! (>2.Sb5/Rxd5#)
1Sb4,e7+! (Sf4? 2.Rd5+ Sxd5 3.Sb5# & 2.Bxf4 gxf4 3.Rd5# [Rxd5??])
2.Kd7! (>3.Bf2#) 2Sd5! 3.Ke6! (>4.Rxd5# & >4.Bf2+ Se3 5.Rd5/Bxe3#;
3.Bf2+? Kxe5! 4.Bg3+ Kf6!) 3Sc7+! (Sf4+? 4.Bxf4! gxf4 5.Rd5# [Rxd5??])
4.Kf7! (>5.Bf2#) 4Sd5! (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!, 8Sh3?
9.Kc6! Sf4 10.Bf2#) 9.Kc6 Sb4,e7+ 10.Kb7 Sd5 11.Sb5+! Kc5 12.Bd6#
(Kd5??), 10Sc2,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 werent able to accept the offer already on c4 instead of e3. With Rb6
instead of Ra6 wed 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 aRs 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 its not of English origin) 1.c4??;
1.Sxc4? (>2.Se3+ dxe3 3.c4# & [1g1Q?] >2.d3 Sxd3 3.cxd3 ~ 4.Rd6#)
1Bc3? 2.Se3+! (2.d3? Sxd3! 3.cxd3 Bb4!) dxe3 3.dxc3! ~ 4.c4#, but 1Kxc4!
1.Sg4! (>2.Sgf6#) 1Ke4! (d4? 2.Se3#, 1c4? 2.d3! Sxd3 3.cxd3 ~ 4.Sgf6#)
2.Sxh2+! (2.Rf6? [>3.Se3#] h1Q!) 2Kd5! (Kf5? 3.Rf6+! Kg5 4.Sf3#) 3.Sg4!
Ke4! 4.Rf6! Kd5! (h1Q??; 4Be6,h5? / Sd3,e2? 5.Se3+! Bg4/Sf4
6.Rxg4/R~xf4#; 4Sg6?! 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#, 7g1Q 8.d3 Sxd3 9.cxd3 Q~ 10.Rd6#,
7Kxc4? 8.Rb5! g1Q 9.Sb6#.
STUDIES, by Paul Valois
Time for another of Vysokosovs 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
461
C3 Dieter Kutzborski
kdwdwdwI
dw$whw0p
p$w0wdrd
dwdpdpdb
wdpdwdwd
dwdw0wdw
wdwdwdBd
dwgwdwdw
#13
C4 Wolfgang Br
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
462
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
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
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 WBs 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 WBs 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 composers 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 Benkos 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 Blacks 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 Blacks 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 Johns
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.
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
HELPMATES, by Christopher Jones
463
E1 Viktor Syzonenko
E2 Michal Dragoun
1 Pr=, RIA 2003
Pr, Vratnica-64, 2002-03
In the November 2004 helpmate solutions

w4wdRdKd
(p.524), apropos an original H#3 that had shown the
dwdw4wdw
interchange of squares both of two white units and
w0B1pHw0
of two black units (Platzwechsel) in each of two
phases which however were combined by means of
dwhwiwdw
a zero-position, there was quoted an excellent H#3
wdw0wdpd
by A.Lundstrm that combined two double
dwdwdw0b
Platzwechsel phases by means of an eminently
wdwdwhpd
satisfactory shift of the BK. More recently I was
dwdwdwgw
interested to come across E1, a less economic
H#3 2 solutions
construction than Lundstroms, but one that
combines two double Platzwechsel phases in multisolution form. One of the composers 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
Blacks 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 couldnt 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 achov 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: 1Sc~
2.Rxe6+ Kxe6; 1Sxe3 2.Rd5+ Kxd5; 1Sxd6 2.Qf4+ Kxf4; and 1Rxc7 2.f4+
Kxd6. These variations come in two pairs: play by a white B+R battery with
wdbdwdwd
dwdwdrdw
wdpdwdqd
dwdwdw0w
w)khP4NG
dwdwdwIR
PdwdwdP)
dwdwdwhw
H#3 2 solutions
E3 Frantiek Sabol
1 Pr achov skladba
2005
BGwdwdwd
dwdw0pdw
r0wdw4wd
$wdP0wdw
Kdndwiqd
dwdPHwdp
wdwdwdw0
dwdwdwdw
H#3 2 solutions
E4 Nikolai Chebanov
1 HM achov skladba
2003
wdwdwdwi
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
whwdwdPd
dwdPdwdp
w)pdP)w)
db4RIwdR
H#4 2 solutions
F1 Emanuel Navon &
Uri Avner
3 pl Macedonia v Israel
2005
wdrdwdw1
dwGwdpdb
wdw$pdwd
$pdwiN)w
p)ndpdw!
)wIpHPdw
wdwhw0wd
dwdwgwdw
S#2
464
F2 Dimitar Janevski
2 pl Macedonia v Israel 2005
wdwdwdwd
dwdNdwdp
wdNdP0wG
dwdQ)kdK
wdP0p0Rg
dwdpdwdw
wdrdw1p4
dwhbdwdw
S#3
F3 Evgeny Bourd & Uri Avner
Bdw$NHbd
dwdp!w0p
Pdrdwdwh
dwdkdw0w
w)w0wdRd
dw0P0wdw
KgwdPdwd
hw1rdwdw
S#3
F4 Evgeny Bourd
wdNdw4wg
dn0Bdpdw
Rdbdwiwd
dpdwdN0Q
P)wIpdwd
dwGwdr0w
wdwdwdwd
1whwdRdw
S#2
G1 Wilfried Seehofer
2 Pr= Die Schwalbe 2005
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdr
wdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
wdwIwdwd
dw$wdwdw
wdkdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
S#9 3 solutions
Kko, Maximummer
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
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: 1Re2 2.Rg5+ fxg5 3.Qxe4+ Rxe4;
and 1Se2 2.Rxf4+ Qxf4 3.Sxd4+ Sxd4. Finally there is the further unpinning
defence 1f3, 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: 1Sb3 2.Bxc6+ Kxc6 3.Qc5+ Sxc5; and
1Sf7 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: 1Sxg4 2.Qc5+ Ke6 3.Qf5+ Kxf5; and 1Rxd3 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 Israels 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; 1Kg7 Qh6+ Kxh6; and 1bxa4 2.Kc4+
Qxc3; 1R3~ 2.Ke3+ Qxc3; 1Sb~ 2.Kc5+ Qxc3. Commenting on the threefold appearance of 2Qxc3 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 Kko 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.) 1Kb3 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;
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
G2 Daniel Novomesky
Kg6; and 1.Rb3 Kb2 2.Rd3 Kc2 3.Rd2 Kd1 4.Ke3
2 Pr= Die Schwalbe 2005
Kc2 5.Rf2 Kd3+ 6.Kf3 Ke4+ 7.Kf4 Kf5 8.Kg3 Th2
wdwdwdwd
9.Kh3 Kg4.
dwdwdwdw
wdqIwdwd
dwdwdQdw
wdqiwdwd
dw1wdndw
wdwdw)wd
dwdwdwdw
H#4 3 solutions
Grasshoppers & Mao
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.
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
465
G3 Hubert Gockel
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 1d5
allows 2.Be6 [B], but 1Re2! refutes. 1.Qd4? carries the threat of 2.Sxe7 [C],
with 2.Be6 [B] recurring after 1d6. 1Gf8+ is answered by 2.gxf8Q, but
1Gc7! 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: 1d5 2.Qe4 [A],
and 1d6 2.Sxe7 [C]. Notice here the Dombrovskis affect: moves defeating a
threatened mate in the try-play allow that mate after the key.
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 Grfrath 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 Blacks 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
Cerianis: 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 Id 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.Rb8a8 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.
2 Pr Pachl-50 JT,
Rochade-Europa 2002
w!wIQdBd
1Qdp0w)w
wdwdw0Nd
dwdwdk0P
w!wdwdwd
1pdwdwdw
b4w)wdwd
dQdwdwdw
#2 Grasshoppers
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
THE PROBLEMIST
466
JULY 2006
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
A G.F.Anderson
another piece. The umpire announces checks, and the nature of the check, whether
Are there any? 1959
it is on the rank, the file, or with a knight. A check on a diagonal will be
wdwdwdwd
announced as check on the long or short diagonal passing through the checked
Gwdwdwdw
kings 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
w4wdw4wd
capturer or the piece captured.
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
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 Blacks 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 players 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 1Bf8, but how can White respond? As the position
stands 2.gxf6 will fail, because Black may have played 1Bh6, while 2.Qh6 will
fail if 1Bf8 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 1Bf8 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 1Sf5, and 2.Bxf5 mates. If the answer is Yes White must distinguish
between 1f3 and 1Sg6. He rejects the pawn capture with 2.hxg7, then
attempts 2.Rg4. If this is playable Black has played 1f3. If not, he has played
1Sg6, 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.
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
In the 3-mover D Whites plan is simply to attack e3 with the d4 R and play
Bxe3 mate. The problem is how to deal with the defence 1e5. 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 1e6 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 2cxb6). 2.Qc5 is not a
threat, as Black may play 1h5 followed by 2hxg4. 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 1Ra6,
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 1Bxb4 is played White continues
with 2.Qh6, threatening 3.Qf4. He needs, however, to discover whether Black has
played 2d4, so after Blacks reply he asks Are there any?. If the answer is
Yes he knows that Black has played either 2Bd6 or 2d4, 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 2Bd6 was played) 3.Qf4 mates. Note that 2.Qf6
would fail, because after 2h5 it would be impossible to detect 2d4 (If this
sounds odd remember that all White knows is that Black has moved; 2h5 and
2d4 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 2bxc2, but White can play 2.Qxc3, threatening mates on d4 and d3.
Captures on c2 or f1 are met by 3.Qd4, and 2d4, 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 2d4, 2Bd6 or 2h5), 3.Qd4 mates,
otherwise 3.Q/Bxd3 mates.
F contains one of the most subtle ideas in the book. Whites 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 1e4, so the threat is a long
one, 2.Qe4, 3.Qf3 and 4.Sxf6. This is too slow if Black plays 1Ra8 for 2...Ra4
or 2Ra3, but as a R move means that Black has not played 1e4 White can
continue with 2.Qf3, if he can determine that Black has not played 1e4. 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 2e4 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).
467
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
#4
THE PROBLEMIST
468
JULY 2006
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-phnix. Entitled Der Blick zurck (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 authors own workshop, all with
expert and detailed commentary. Even if I count myself as one of the initiated Ill admit that I gained a fresh
insight into the subject through the authors 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.
Andrey Frolkin
Die Schwalbe 1991
rgwdkdnd
dwdwdpdp
w0Pdw0wd
dwdKdwdR
wdwdwdwd
dpdwdp0p
b)wdPdwd
dqdRdNdw
A Wolfgang Dittmann
Probleemblad 2005
wdwdwdwd
gw)wdwdw
kdwdwdwd
0wdwHwdw
wdwdwdpd
dwdbdw0p
w)w0wdwd
dwhwdwdK
Anticirce
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.Kd6d5? Ba7-b8+ 2.Rg5-h5 & 1.Rxg8#, but the forward defence 1Ba7-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 etc10.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 Blacks 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
JULY 2006
THE PROBLEMIST
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 1Bf1. 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 1Sxd5[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 pblock 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 Dittmanns 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.
Editors 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.
469
B Wolfgang Dittmann
Knig&Turm 2005
wdNdwiwd
dwdwdp0w
wdwdwdwd
dbdwdwhw
wdwdw)wd
dwdwdw0w
wdwdPdw)
dNdwdRIw
Anticirce
C Wolfgang Dittmann
1 Pr Die Schwalbe 2004
Bdwdwdwd
dwdwdwdw
Pdwdwgwd
dwdwdwdw
k0wdbdwd
dpdw0pdw
whw)wdwd
dwdwIwhw
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 Bttger 70 and Reinhardt Fiebig 70
To celebrate the 70th birthday of Horst Bttger 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 Bttger 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
470
JULY 2006
1 Frank Reinhold
Chess Olympics in Dresden, 2008
Pr Freie Presse 1991
rdwdwgNd
hwHBdwdK
w)wiPdp0
dpdwdw0w
wdp)wdw0
dwdpdwdw
wdPdwGwd
dwdwdbdw
#8
2 Hartmut Laue
Schach-Aktiv 2006
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:
#2
#n
eg
S#3
H#
Judge
Wieland Bruch
Wilfried Neef
Yochanan Afek
Hemmo Axt
Hans Peter Rehm
Director
Udo Degener, Stephensonstr. 47, D-14482 Potsdam
Frank Reinhold, Weidenstr.22, D-01458 Ottendorf-Okrilla
Martin Minski, Dolziger Str.1a, D-10247 Berlin
Volker Glke, Leimsiede 13, D-23558 Lbeck
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.
wdwdwdrd
dwdwdwdw
wdN$wdw$
dwdpdkHp
wdpdwdn0
dwdpdKdB
qdwdP)pd
gwGwdw4b
Section 1: mate in 2 no set theme.
S#3
Section 3: studies no set theme.
3 Zdravko Maslar
v feenschach 1986
wdwdwdwd
GndwdKdw
w)wdwdrd
dwdwdwdw
wdwdwdPd
drdwdwdw
bdBdkdwd
dq$wdwgw
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 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 1a! After a preparatory manoeuvre 1.Y! and defence b, however, the
closing/opening of the line by 2.X! followed by 2a 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, bicolour 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.
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
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 (Klner Kontaktschach) a genre that excites little interest? Michaels
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 solvers
angle and earns himself the book prize. Here are the solutions, together with
extracts from Erics 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 2d5, 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 lets 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#. Thatd be nice. By the way,
weve 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 cant 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#5,
(b) BK>a8 (a) 1Rd2 2.e1B Re2 3.Bd2 Re7 4.Rg8 Rg7 5.Bh6 Rg6 6.Bg7 Rh6;
(b) 1Rd2 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 bKs 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).
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
472
THE PROBLEMIST
JULY 2006
THE BRITISH CHESS PROBLEM SOCIETY

President
Past Presidents
Christopher Reeves
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
British Chess Problem Society 2006
ISSN 0032-9398
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
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.Colsat
Pat Constant
Stewart Crow
D.de Mol
CONTENTS
425
New Fairy condition: Take&Make chess
426
Society Matters
426, 427
Obituary: Santi Pirrone, Jim Hetherington
427
Zabunov theme
428
Ninth update of Chess Problems: Tasks and
Records, by C.J.Morse
431
Awards corrected: Retros 04, Moremovers 03
432
The Hampshire Telegraph & Post column
by Michael McDowell
437
Henry Tate, by Geoff Foster & Bob Meadley
438
Synthetics
439
Keeping up with Mr Jones, by John Rice
440
Andernach & Messigny 2006, by John Rice
442-457
ORIGINALS and solutions
#2 442 #3 442; #n 442; Studies 446; S# & R#
448; H# 450; Retros 453; Fairies 454
447
Book Review: EG Vol.XI, by Yochanan Afek
457
50 years ago
458
British Chess Solving Champions 1980-2006
459-465
SELECTED PROBLEMS
#2 459; #3 459; #n 460; Studies 461; H# 463;
S# 463; Fairies 464; Proof games/Retros 465
466
Browsing in the Library, by Michael McDowell
467
100 years ago
468
Defensive retractors with forward defence,
by Klaus Wenda
469
Tourney announcements
471
Koeko problems (Jan 06): solutions & comments
BCPS Website: www.bcps.knightsfield.co.uk
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 Gamsjger
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
Jii Jelnek
Jrn Johansson
Christopher Jones
Andrew Kalotay
Maryan Kerhuel
C.P.King-Farlow
Jrg Kuhlmann
Roland Lecomte
Jonathan Levitt
R.T.Lewis
Dr Hans Liebeck
Torsten Lin
Michael Lipton
P.Lunn
Dr C.C.Lytton
Michael McDowell
Thomas Maeder
Gabriel Mariz
Udo Marks
Prof R.C.O.Matthews
Dan Meinking
Ren 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

tp064 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

tp064 PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE PROBLEMIST

THE BRITISH CHESS PROBLEM SOCIETY

Introducing a new fairy condition: TAKE&MAKE CHESS

C Volker Glke &

H#2 (b) Pg5>d2

Helpmates are probably easier to compose than

THE PROBLEMIST, July 2006

8th WCCT This is just a reminder that the

Canning Road, Croydon, CR0 6QA (email

Birthday greetings and congratulations go this

Obituary We have Santi Pirrone

the same, it is a matter for great regret when an

Ideal Mate Review Congratulations to editor

Ideal Mate Review 1986

Ideal Mate Review

Eteroscacco Marco Bonavoglia has revived this

NINTH UPDATE OF CHESS PROBLEMS:

The Problemist 2004

5 Pr= Problem TT 1971

The next five diagrams exhibit Ferrns

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

One of the more curious twomove records is H,

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

British Chess Magazine

Shakhmaty v SSSR 1962

Die Schwalbe 2004

The Problemist 1996

S E.Minerva & A.Garofalo

Best Problems 2005

Best Problems 2005

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

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

Finally, the big news on the length-record front

Die Schwalbe 2005 (v)

CORRECTIONS TO RECENT BCPS AWARDS

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

Brian Stephenson reports that the 2nd Prize

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

Our judge Arno Zude has ruled that C9963

Hampshire Post 24.5.1912

2 C.S.Kipping & H.Strong

Hampshire Post 8.11.1912

3 A.Bolus (after E.Eginton)

Hampshire Post 17.1.1913

Hampshire Post 21.2.1913

The Hampshire Telegraph & Post column

Hampshire Post 4.10.1913

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

A large number of Dutch composers supported

Hampshire Telegraph &

To maintain readers interest Chandler continually introduced new features. A

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

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &

Hampshire Telegraph &