BCPS TOURNEY AWARD: FAIRIES 1995

Ian Shanahan

I commence by apologizing to the composers of the 1995 Fairies for my tardiness in

presenting this award. (I shant bore you with excuses!) Anyway, sincere thanks to Cedric
Lytton for allowing me the privilege of judging these problems my very first outing as a
tourney arbiter and also to my good friend Peter Wong for casting his expert eye over
the winners. The task of adjudication here was simultaneously pleasurable yet onerous!
As expected, the average standard was quite pleasing, but, since 1995 was a bumper
year for feature articles that included original fairies within both publications, there was an
inordinately large number of positions to consider. Indeed, there were 131 eligible
problems, five of which were cooked but not corrected (F1523, F1527, F1530, F1540 and
F1567); my own little New Year Greeting problem (p.1) and F1534 were naturally hors
concours, to be evaluated with the 1996 Fairies. PS384v (Sikdar) is identically anticipated
by Josef Kricheli, British Chess Magazine 1976 reflected left-to-right. This award is,
therefore, necessarily long; it embraces 28 problems (a little under 23% of the survivors).
Congratulations to their composers!

Chess composition is, it seems, the only art-form still standing unassailed by the
questionable tenets of postmodernism: originality, above all in fairy chess (where the
author may adapt the rules ad libitum), remains a high priority. And yet I invoke the
Caissaic corollary to Occams razor, that one must eschew tacking on fairy elements so as
to overcome technical difficulties, thereby minimizing the number of unorthodox
components in each problem. Besides the usual interdependent criteria of economy,
beauty and unity, I also relish clarity and artistic richness. These both really stem from the
principle of economy wherein a deep, complex and interesting result is squeezed from
the smallest compulsory force in an optimal medium. However, real complexity will only
assert itself with utmost clarity in chess problems when an idea (i.e. form and content) is
articulated within an amenable genre. Consider, for example, the following two
compositions both of which display the Valladao theme (i.e. underpromotion, castling,
and e.p.):

A Jacob Mintz
2 HM The Problemist 1993 C+
________
[wdwgw4wd]
[dwdndpdB]
[wdwdwdRd]
[dr0Pdw)w]
[wdpdw)wd]
[dpdw0pdw]
[p)wdPdPd]
[dkhwIwdR]
--------
H3

1.a1B 0-0 2.Bb2 Ra6+ 3.f5 gf5 e.p..

Yes, this is without doubt an extraordinary achievement a very rare task in the helpmate
that took its composer years of effort. But one cannot overlook all of those static
cookstoppers, which compel me to agree with the judge (Hans Gruber) that the
construction is far from elegant. Why? Perhaps the Valladao task is fundamentally
incompatible with the H3 genre: a square peg rammed through a round hole? B on the
other hand is a paragon of elegance because its idea (single-phase Valladao theme)

~1~
and the genre (helpstalemate in 4) harmonize:

B Anatoly Stepochkin
The Problemist 1998 {F1810} C+
________
[rdwdkdwd]
[dndw0pdw]
[Ndwdwdwd]
[dwdwdw)B]
[wdwdwdwG]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[Iwdwdwdw]
--------
H=4

1.0-0-0 Bg4+ 2.f5 gf5 e.p.+ 3.Rd7 fe7 4.Sd8 ed8S=.

No cookstoppers here, with only the wKa1 not being employed directly. Yet the theme and
content of B is definitely equal to that of A, having been attained with considerably less
fuel... Thus endeth my exposition.

In regard to the numerous unrewarded contenders, many of the 1995 Fairies were trifles
that are just not up to international tourney award standard: though objects of some
charm, theyre simply too elementary (e.g. lacking a distinct theme) or downright trivial.
Nevertheless, solvers love such cupcakes; and so they are indispensable participants in
any well-rounded problem column. I have also bypassed several works (mostly 2
positions) that illustrate essentially orthodox ideas in fairy guise: these do not evince true
originality. It is not enough merely to exhibit one of the 2 cyclic patterns in Circe, say,
unless: (a) the pattern is impossible or extremely awkward to achieve in the orthodox 2;
or, (b) one has also demonstrated a genuinely new Circe effect.

A footnote: I do concur with Ronald Turnbull (see his preamble to the 1997 Fairies Award
in The Problemist November 1998, p.492) that the time has well and truly come to partition
the Fairies henceforth into separate awards on the grounds of sheer quantity, but also
because of their incredible diversity of genre. Maybe this can best, or most fairly, be done
by categorizing the Fairies according to aim (a helpful preliminary tactic that I adopted
during my own adjudication process): direct-play; self- and reflex-play; help-play; series-
movers; fairy retros. (If the annual quantities are insufficient within the last two types, then
their awards could be made biennially.) BCPS Committee please take note! Now on to the
prizewinners...

~2~
1st Prize F1517 Tadashi Wakashima

A masterful problem that has everything: high originality (despite a precursor to the Variable
concept: John Beasleys Chess in Disguise, Chessics 4 1977), impressive economy, difficulty (the
finale is not easily spotted), and above all a beautiful labyrinthine logic ... certainly the best
problem with Variables Ive seen to date! As with all good series-movers, it contains a quasi-try
i.e. a try without unique move-order that is just one move too long (wherein b2=S and d2=R, the
reverse of what b2 and d2 actually prove to be in the solution, thereby imbuing this fortuitous try
with some thematic value). But unlike conventional series-manoeuvres, the wKs seemingly
wayward perambulations here are not solely strategic (aiming to arrive at h3 by the shortest
possible physical route) they also serve to progressively reveal, a posteriori, the identity of each
BV. Furthermore, 4.Re1 and 17.Rg2 (after 1.Va3?), and 2.Vgb3, 8.Rf1 and 14.Rg2 (after 1.Vg3!)
are all anticipatory shields of the wK from as yet unrecognized bVs which later turn out to be Rs;
such shields are peculiar to Variables. Wonderful deductive chains throughout!

Tadashi Wakashima
1 Pr The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[adwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wjwjwdad]
[dwdwdwje]
--------
ser.S19 Variables

1.Va3? 2.Va2 3.Ve2 (e2=Q,R: a2=wK: b2~K,Q,R,B & d2,g1~K: h1=bK: e2~Q: e2=R) 4.Re1 5.Kb1
(d2~S) 6.Kc1 (b2~P & d2~Q,B,P: b2=S & d2=R) 8.Rd3 13.Kd4 (g1~Q,B) 15.Kf4 17.Rg2 19.Kh3
(g1~S: g1=R) 20.Rh2+, Rh2. (But one move too long!);
1.Vg3! 2.Vgb3 (b3=Q,R: b2,d2,g1~K: h1=bK: b3~Q: b3=R & a4=wK: b2~S) 3.Kb4 4.Kc3
(b2,d2~Q,B) 5.Kd3 (d2~R) 6.Ke2 (g1~S) 8.Rf1 10.Kc1 (b2,d2~P: b2=R & d2=S) 12.Ke2 14.Rg2
15.Kf2 (g1~Q,B: g1=R) 17.Kh3 18.Rd2 19.Rh2+, Rh2.

~3~
2nd Prize F1570 Ronald Turnbull

A profound and original thought from a fecund mind: mate due to White avoidance of an illegal
delayed self-check, which Black is unable to nullify either by securing for the wP a sufficiently long
legal move-sequence, or because Black runs into trouble sometime later through an immediate
self-check. I love the complex nested argument here, initiated by the enigmatic 1.Bb8! ... my only
quibble being the gross imbalance of logical ramifications (and also the disparate quality of key-
moves) between the two PRA lines. Of course, it would be aesthetically ideal were they both
equally deep and embraced such astonishing openings if such a miracle were at all possible!
Note to the composer: I much prefer the term Ultra in the stipulation (not Strict), by analogy with
Ultra Maxi, etc.

Ronald Turnbull
2 Pr The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwi]
[dwdwdKdp]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[Pdwdwdpd]
[0wdwdwdw]
[b)PdwdPG]
[!bdwdwdw]
--------
2 Ultra Single Combat

If bPa3 moved last: 1.Qa2! ab2 2.Qb2. If bPg4 moved last: 1.Bb8!! g3+ 2.b3. (3.b4??
illegal! [delayed self-check, which Black cannot cancel in time]: 2...h5 3.b4?? h4 4.b5 h3 5.b6 hg2
6.b7+!, and Black is too late to play 6...g1B/Q 7...g1-d4, so that 3.b4?? is in fact delayed White
self-check by 6...BwK; or, 2...Bc2 3.b4?? 4...Bb5??, 5...Bb7??, or any Black check, is illegal
[instant Black self-check, provoking QbK]; and 4...Bc6 5.bc6?? or 6...Bc8 7.bc8?? are also
illegal [instant White self-check, triggering BwK].)

~4~
3rd Prize F1518 Markus Manhart & Franz Pachl

Although not as original as the 1st or 2nd prizewinners, this problem is perfectly and economically
constructed (NB: no cookstoppers), with 100% unified strategy between the two parts giving rise to
a complete formal ortho-diagonal echo. An exquisite gem, memorable for its pure beauty and for
its intense cascading effects: reciprocated withdrawal and interference unpins, anticritical moves,
and at the fourth move reciprocal batteries which deliver (necessary) double-checks, with self-
blocking by each of the Black units just unpinned. Superb flow and exploitation of the reciprocal-
helpmate genre.

Markus Manhart & Franz Pachl

3 Pr The Problemist 1995 C+
________
[wdwdwgwd]
[dwdwdwdn]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dw$whkdw]
[wdpdr0wd]
[IwdBdwdr]
[P)wdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
Reci-H4 (a) diagram (b) Pf4 to e6

(a) 1.Rh6 Bc4 2.Rd6 Ra5 3.Sf6 Bb5 4.(Rd3)Sg6 Bd7.

(b) 1.Bh6 Rc4 2.Be3 Bb1 3.Sg5 Rc2 4.(Bc5)Rg4 Rf2.

~5~
Special Prize F1557R Peter Fayers & Cedric Lytton

Why a special prize? This problem is (I believe) undoubtedly prizeworthy but, as a retro, ought
not to be weighed against the rest. Its stipulation la Raymond Smullyan is rather unusual,
yielding a rich retro-content. Observe how the algebra of the E-move always producing cartesian
coordinates (2a,2b) relative to an Es starting-square is a kind of ubiquitous force-field that
uniquely foreordains everything. The composers solution really speaks for itself with great
eloquence. All I wish to affirm is that, as with the top two prizewinners, the logic of the retro-
genesis here is quite elaborate and impeccable. So much so that one solver declared: I love this
problem. Who wouldnt?

Peter Fayers & Cedric Lytton

Sp Pr The Problemist 1995
________
[w$K4rdwd]
[ip0w0bdQ]
[wdw0pdwd]
[dqdwdwdp]
[wdpdPdwd]
[dwdw1wdP]
[w)PdP)Pd]
[dwdwdBdw]
--------
Game played with Equihoppers instead of Ss. What was captured where?

Black has just played Rd7d8+ which besides Pf7e6, (Pa7)bc and (Pg7)-g3h2 on the way
to promotion at h1 to the bE now on b5 accounts for all missing White units. What did White
move last? Not Eh7 (wPc2 prevents Eb1-h7). Not h2-h3, which occurred before (Pg7) went
through. White might just have played d3Ee4 (the other missing units (Bf8), (Eb8) couldnt get
there); this E, checking the wK, must at once retract Ea4-e4 without capture, and then White
cannot retract Pd2-d3 (as (Bc1) would be locked in). So, either now or on the next move, White
moved whatever was captured on d8 not Q,R,B nor a promoted S (since bKa7 stops Sc6-d8 and
bBf7 stops Sf7-d8). Thus it must have been a wE, promoted by (Pa2)-a7b8E. So Black has just
played Rd7Ed8. This wE must have captured on d8, otherwise the wK would be in irreal check:
there are no spare victims for bRe8. (Bf8) and (Eg8) couldnt get there, so EEd8 accounts for
(Eb8). Hence (Bf8) was captured on b8, and (Eg8) on e4 after all. For White, (Rh1) fell on h2,
(Eg1) on c5, and (Bc1) on b6 leaving just the wQ, which died on e6.

~6~
1st Honourable Mention F1511 James Quah

This attractive problem is an intensive yet refreshing example of the Phoenix theme; there is also
an ortho-diagonal echo and Mars-Circean pin-mates i.e. not 3.Rg2/Bh1??. All units (including the
wK) work hard: there are no cookstoppers. And 3.R*e8 is elegantly avoided throughout. However,
there is a not-quite-perfect parity of effects between phases, follow-my-leader moves being
present in one solution but not the other.

James Quah
1 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[wdBdwdwI]
[dwdw)wdR]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdrd]
[dwdwdPdk]
[wdwdwdw4]
[dwdwdbdw]
--------
H2 Mars Circe 2.1.1.1

1.Rh4 Bg4 2.B*g4 e8B;

1.Bg2 Kg7 2.R*h7 e8R.

~7~
2nd Honourable Mention F1565 Espen Backe

One can only admire the perfect construction and strategic harmony using Gs and Ns, with
reciprocal arrivals by the wN (shuttling along the line a5-g2) and theme/antitheme (i.e. the [Anti-
]Hot-Spot theme), plus an ortho-diagonal echo yet again! and minimal twinning. But, alas, its
less hot on the originality spot...

Espen Backe
2 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[Qdwdwdwd]
[dwdndwdw]
[wdqdwdKd]
[Hwdwdwdw]
[Qdwdkdq!]
[dwdwdwdw]
[QdPdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdQ]
--------
H2 (a) diagram (b) Ga2 to b2; Grasshoppers & Nightriders

(a) 1.Nh5 Ng2 2.Gf3 Nc4.

(b) 1.Na1 Nc4 2.Gd4 Ng2.

~8~
3rd Honourable Mention p.55 C Ronald Turnbull

Over just a single phase, here we see similar catenae of complex thought as in this talented
problemists 2nd Prizewinner, above (wherein the logic ramifies to a slightly deeper stratum).
Again, a highly original problem from Mr Turnbull.

Ronald Turnbull
3 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwHw$]
[dwdwdk4R]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dqdwdwdK]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdPdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
H3 Ultra Single Combat

Solution: see The Problemist May 1995, pp.54-55.

~9~
4th Honourable Mention F1583 James Quah

Now we relish an ambitious and complicated cyclic idea in fairy mode, which is (as its composer
quite rightly claims) probably impossible in the orthodox 2 without drastic twinning. One savours
White (non)castling within a 4-point Djurasevic cycle motivated by the advent of Superpins in part
(b) a lovely, simple fairy twinning! While the results are indeed impressively elaborate, there are
several constructional glitches the 3 Ps on the f- and g-files, the need for an extra (albeit
cognate) fairy unit (wLa3), the superfluity of the bBLa7 in (a), and the fact that the wPa4 plug in (b)
flags the key of (a) somewhat, to damage formal clarity which unfortunately preclude me from
awarding this gargantuan effort a prize.

James Quah
4 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[gRdwdwdw]
[wdw$rdpd]
[gw$wdwGw]
[Pdb0wdPd]
[!wdwdpdw]
[wdBdw$wd]
[4wiBIwdR]
--------
2 (a) diagram (b) Superpins; Lion, R-Lions & B-Lions

(a) 1.BLb3! [B] (>2.RLf4 [C]) 1...RLb6/d3 2. Le3 [D]/0-0 [A].

(b) 1.0-0! [A] (>2.BLb3 [B]) 1...RLb6/d3 2.RLf4 [C]/Le3 [D].

~ 10 ~
5th Honourable Mention F1577 Frantisek Sabol

Yet another echoing study in chameleonic elegance, elegantly constructed (despite some idle
wPs). And economical too a bK+R minimal. I found this quite hard to solve. Although the Circe
condition is well exploited throughout, the overall impact of this problem is rather familiar.

Frantisek Sabol
5 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[Bdwdwdwd]
[dwdP)wdw]
[N)wdK)Pd]
[Hwdwdwdw]
[QdriwGwd]
[dwdwdwdR]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
S4 Circe

1.Bc7? Rb4 2.Qa1+ Rb2 3.Qg1+ Rf2 4.Kd6 R*f6, but 2...R*b6!
1.Sc6+! Ke4 2.Qc2+ R*c2 3.Qh1+ Rg2 4.f7 R*g6.

~ 11 ~
6th Honourable Mention F1564 Aleksandr Postnikov

Although the Hannelius theme has of course been shown many times in the orthodox 2 just as
perfectly and at least as elegantly, I do like this problem as much for its dual avoidance as for its
(now hackneyed) formal pattern both brought about by complex Madrasi paralysis chains. A
problem of great clarity.

Aleksandr Postnikov
6 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdqd]
[dwdwHwdw]
[p)Niwdwd]
[!wdwdwdQ]
[wdPdwdB1]
[dw!wdwdq]
[Qdwdwdw1]
[dwdwdKdQ]
--------
2 Madrasi; Grasshoppers

1.Ga7? (2.c5 [A]) 1...Gc7! [x]

1.Ga6? (2.Sc8 [B]) 1...Gd8! [y]
1.Gd5! (2.Gd2) 1...Gc7 [x]/Gd8 [y] 2.Sc8 [B]/c5 [A].

~ 12 ~
7th Honourable Mention F1551 Piet van Dalfsen & Albert Koldijk

Here we see a lovely reciprocal change forced by a Circean avoidance of self-check. The
reasoning behind the different keys is fine (in (b), 1.Cd1? Rg7! 2.Q*d4+ Rd4!), and apart from
a single plug (wPa2) the construction is clean. I do find it a small pity that in (b), 2.Qd4 does
not involve Circean self-guard.

Piet van Dalfsen & Albert Koldijk

7 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[wdw4wdwd]
[dw4wdwdp]
[Bdw!PdwI]
[dwdwdwdp]
[wdngNdwd]
[dw0kdPdw]
[PdRdwdwd]
[HwdwdwGw]
--------
2 (a) diagram (b) Circe; Camel e4

(a) 1.Cd1! (>2.Cg2) 1...Rg7/Rg8 2.Bc4 [A]/Qd4 [B].

(b) 1.Ch5! (>2.Cg2) 1...Rg7/Rg8 2.Qd4 [B]/Bc4 [A].

~ 13 ~
8th Honourable Mention F1526v Aubrey Ingleton

F1526v is an important stepping-stone in this composers ongoing researches into thematic Circe
mates with fairy neutrals (e.g. see his 1st Pr Variant Chess 1993-1994). The move-order here is
certainly well-motivated, making the problem decidedly tricky to solve particularly with all of those
fairy conditions and pieces...

Aubrey Ingleton
8 HM The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdN]
[wHNdwdwd]
[dw)wdwdK]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[Pdw!wdwd]
[dwdQHwdw]
--------
Ser.S17 Circe Malfique; Neutrals: Gd1,d2; Ne1; Camels b6,c6,h7

1.a4 2.Na3 3.Kg5 4.Gh6 5.Kf4 6.Ke4 7.Kd5 8.Gd6 9.Gb4 10.K*c6(Cc8) 11.Cb5 12.Kb7 13.Ka7
14.Che6 15.Ka6 16.c*b6(Cb8) 17.ab5+, N*b5(b7).

~ 14 ~
Ungraded Commendations (in order of publication, approximately)

Supplement p.134 F Ronald Turnbull

Ronald Turnbull
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdKdwdw]
[wdPdNdwd]
[dwdkGwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdBdwdw]
[wdwdw$wd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2 Antipodean Circe; (a) diagram (b) a2 = a1 (c) b2 = a1 (d) b1 = a1

An attractive demonstration of a four-fold Indian in 2, due to Antipodean Circe! The wB is reborn

critically in all four corners. (Now the fairy condition here is fully justified: in orthodox direct-play,
one of course needs a minimum of three moves to show the Indian theme.)

(a) 1.Rb2! K*e5(Ba1) 2.Rb5.

(b) 1.c6! K*e4(Ba8) 2.Rf4.
(c) 1.Re5! K*d4(Bh8) 2.Re4.
(d) 1.Re4! K*d5(Bh1) 2.Re5.

~ 15 ~
PS352 John Rice

A fine display of Andernachean fireworks, starting with a good thematic key.

John Rice
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwIwd]
[dBdw0b!w]
[wdwdP$p0]
[dwdwdndw]
[wdw)Piw)]
[dwdwdwdP]
[wdw4Pdwd]
[dwdwdNdw]
--------
2 Andernach Chess

1.Rg6=bR! (>2.Qe5)
1...Rg7=wR/Sg7=wS/Sd4=wS/Rd4=wR/Re2=wR 2.Rg4/Sh5/e3/ef5=bP/Rf2.

~ 16 ~
PS388 Raffi Ruppin

Intensive, unified, and clear-cut Anti-Circe strategy: five K+B battery mates ... but hardly an
original idea.

Raffi Ruppin
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdw!]
[dp0wdrdw]
[wdw0w0wd]
[)wiPdwdw]
[rGpdwdwd]
[Hw)wdBdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwIwdwdw]
--------
2 AntiCirce

1.Bh5! () 1...b6/b5/c6/f5/R~ 2.Kb2/Kb1/Kc2/Kd2/Kd1.

~ 17 ~
The Problemist p.1 greeting problem (v) Yves Cheylan

Very clear Patrol effects, with formal reversal elements; the twin adds considerable value.

Yves Cheylan
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwG]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dpdwdwdw]
[w)wdwdwd]
[$kdBIwdR]
--------
2 Patrol Chess; (a) diagram (b) Bh6 to d2

(a) 1.0-0? (2.Bc2) 1...Ka2 2.Bb3, but 1...Kc1! 1.Bb3! 1...Ka2/Kc2 2.0-0/0-0-0.
(b) 1.Bb3/Rh5? 1...Kc2/Ka2! 1.0-0! 1...Ka2/Kc2 2.Bb3/Bc2.

~ 18 ~
p.6 No.22 Petko Petkov

A deep, complex battery transformation (the R/N battery becomes a Q/N battery) with a full-length
threat and two variations. There are subtle motivations and manoeuvres by both sides; however,
its composer has already worked this idea intensively.

Petko Petkov
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdNd]
[dwdpdwGN]
[pdw0w$K)]
[dw0kdw)N]
[wdbdpdwd]
[dw!pdw0w]
[wdwdwdpd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
S6 Nightriders

1.Na5! (>2.Rf4+ Ke6 3.Qf6+ Kd5 4.Qd4++ Ke6 5.Qd5++ Bd5 6.Re4+)
1...Bb5 2.Rf8+ Ke6 3.Qf6+ Kd5 4.Qd8+ Ke6 5.Qd7+ Bd7 6.Re8+;
1...g1N 2.Re6+ Ke6 3.Qf6+ Kd5 4.Qf1+ Ke6 5.Qh3+ Nh3 6.Nf4+.

~ 19 ~
p.77 No.10 Petko Petkov

Though slight, this one scores for humour and originality: half-neutrals to date have been explored
by very few people besides Mr Petkov, alas. The move-order here is well-motivated.

Petko Petkov
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dw)wdwdw]
[wdwdPdwd]
[dwdwdw!w]
[wdw)wdwd]
[dNdKdkdw]
--------
S7 3 Half-Neutral Pawns

1.HNPd3(=nP) HNPd2(=bP) 2.HNPc6(=nP) HNPc5(=bP) 3.Sa3 HNPc4(=nP) 4.Sc2 HNPc3(=bP)

5.HNPe5(=nP) HNPe4(=bP) 6.Qh2 HNPe3(=nP) 7.Qg3 HNPe2(=bP).

~ 20 ~
F1505 Gerhard Maleika

A very well constructed example of an inherently boring idea excessively repetitious, as with
almost all minimalist music (superior to this composers PS405). However, the correspondence
between the promotion keys and the identity of the unit on a4 does enhance its unity.

Gerhard Maleika
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdKdwd]
[)wdwdwdw]
[wdBiwdwd]
[dwdwdPdw]
[rdwGwdwd]
[)wdPdwdw]
[Pdwdwdwd]
[dw$wdwdw]
--------
=2 (a) diagram (b) bBa4 (c) bSa4

(a) 1.a8R! ().

(b) 1.a8B! ().
(c) 1.a8S! ().

~ 21 ~
F1508 Nikola Nagnibida

Simply beautiful: three echoed ideal mates and echoed manoeuvres with only five units.
Charming and oh-so-economical, but clichd without mitigating factors... Perhaps the halcyon
Bohemian era of the echo is nearly over? I do sense that such near-perfect repetitive
correspondences between phases could benefit from some symmetry-breaking to liven things
up, beyond mere static beauty.

Nikola Nagnibida
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdqgwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwiwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdKdwdwd]
[dwdw!wdw]
--------
H3 (a) diagram (b) Bf8 to g8 (c) Bf8 to d4; Grasshopper e8

(a) 1.Bd6 Qe7 2.Ge6 Kd3 3.Ke5 Qg5.

(b) 1.Bd5 Qe6 2.Ge5 Kd2 3.Ke4 Qg4.
(c) 1.Kf3 Qe5 2.Ge4 Kd1 3.Ke3 Qg3.

~ 22 ~
F1514 Mario Albasi

Very rich and unified strategic content, indubitably; a spicy Madrasi but the NW corner detracts.

Mario Albasi
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[qgw!wdQ!]
[dbdwdw1w]
[wdpdB1Pd]
[dw0wdwdw]
[w1wip0Qd]
[dwdwdpdw]
[wdKdw)wd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
H2 Madrasi; (a) diagram (b) bKh4; Grasshoppers

(a) 1...Ge2 2.Ge5 Bf7 3.Gf8 Gge8.

(b) 1...Gd7 2.Gg5 Ge5 3.Gd4 Ga7.

~ 23 ~
F1529v Allan Bell & Stephen Emmerson

Stephen Emmersons added Ps (f4 and f5) yield set-play now making use of the formerly idle
bSs which affixes a new dimension to Allan Bells already piquant problem, and increases the
surprise of its solution.

Allan Bell & Stephen Emmerson

Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dKdwdwdw]
[n0Ndwdwd]
[dndwdpdw]
[wdwdw)wd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwiwdbd]
[1wdwdwHw]
--------
S6 * Maxi

Set: 1...Qh8 2.Sh3 Qa1 3.Sg5 Qh8 4.Sf7 Qa1 5.Ka8 Qh8+ 6.Sh8 Bc6.
1.Se2! Qh8 2.Ka6 Qa1+ 3.Sa5 Qh8 4.Sd4 Ba8 5.Sb7 Qh1 6.Sb5 Qb7.

~ 24 ~
F1535 Robert Sharp

Yes, an ultimate record (eight promotions to wG!) but really rather tedious in its repetitiousness,
and solved at a glance. However the record is all, deserving some reward. And yet this problem is
not without humour: the long-suffering bK, being driven across the board from pillar to post, does
engender malicious amusement.

Robert Sharp
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[)P)P)P)P]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[p0pdwdwd]
[iwdp0pdw]
[wdwdwdp0]
[dKdQ4w!w]
--------
8 Grasshoppers

1.a8G+! Kb3 2.b8G+ Kc3 3.c8G+ Kd2 4.d8G+ Ke2 5.e8G+ Kf2 6.f8G+ Kg1 7.g8G+ Kh1 8.h8G.

~ 25 ~
F1546v Yehuda Lubton

Excellent play and quite economical too, despite certain units non-functionality in each phase. The
repetition of 3.Sd4, though probably unavoidable, is a small pity. Could not a full Albino-Pickaninny
be achieved in a series-mover? (Anyhow, this theme-combination has already been shown in the
orthodox 2, by A. C. Reeves, Probleemblad 1965 so the idea itself is by no means new.) Still,
the three-quarter correspondence and clever manoeuvres here are indeed admirable.

Yehuda Lubton
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdRdwd]
[dwdw0wdw]
[wdw)w)wd]
[dwdwiwdw]
[wdwdw4pd]
[dwdpdndw]
[wdwgPdwd]
[dwdwdKdb]
--------
ser.H2 (a) diagram (b) Bd2 to d4 (c) Re8 to g3

(a) 1.g3 2.Rg4 3.Bg5 4.Kf4 5.ef6 6.f5, e3.

(b) 1.Bc5 2.Rc4 3.Sd4 4.Bc6 5.Kd5 6.ed6, e4.
(c) 1.Rf5 2.Bf4 3.Sd4 4.Bd5 5.Ke4 6.e5, ed3.

~ 26 ~
F1561 Irwin Stein

On the surface, the move-sequence here appears to be strategically quite orthodox, but is in truth
subtly motivated by Kamikaze considerations. This thematic subtlety is heightened by the fact that
no Kamikaze captures occur at all during the series, which ends without a check! Such quietness
is typical of Mr Steins artistry. (In a weaker tourney, I would have honoured both F1546v and
F1561 more highly.)

Irwin Stein
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwiwdwH]
[dwdNdwdn]
[w)RdBdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdw!wdKd]
[dwdwdwdP]
[wdwdwdRd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
ser.S11 Kamikaze

3.h6 4.Kh5 5.Rg5 6.Qh4 7.Sf8 8.Bd7 9.Rcg6 10.Rg8 11.Shg6, Sf6.

~ 27 ~
F1575v Paul Raican

Yet another very nice echo, in wenigsteiner, with intensive usage of the Grid.

Paul Raican
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdkdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[Bdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdKd]
[4wdwdwdw]
--------
S6 Maxi; Grid Chess 2 solutions

1.Bf1 Ra8 2.Ba6 Rd8 3.Bb7 Rd1 4.Bc6+ Rd7 5.Kf1 Kd8 6.Bg2 Rd1.
1.Kf3 Rh1 2.Bf1 Rh8 3.Ke2 Rh1 4.Kd1 Rh8 5.Bb5+ Kd8 6.Be2 Rh1.

~ 28 ~
F1576 Hubert Gockel

A lovely example of Feldmann I cyclic correction within Andernach Chess but its altered-guard
mechanism, though charming, is rather too simple (given the force on the board) for me to place
this problem any higher. The mutate form is an added bonus, however.

Hubert Gockel
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdw$wdwh]
[dwdnHRdw]
[wdw)pgPd]
[dwGwiwdw]
[pdPdwdwd]
[Iw0P)wdw]
[Qdbdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2 * Andernach Chess

Set: 1...cB~ 2.Qh2.

1.Qb1! () 1...cB~/fB~/dS~/Bd3=wB/Be7=wB/Sc5=wS 2.d4 [A]/Sc6 [B]/Bd4 [C]/[B]/[C]/[A].

~ 29 ~
F1581 Vaclav Kotesovec

This wenigsteiner is very rich indeed (multum in parvo), with a funktionwechsel of the two fairy
units between solutions ending in different ideal stalemates. The peripatetic bK (motivated by the
necessity to become a hurdle for the White hoppers) is much to my liking, and I do concur that
as one solver put it this position is a very happy find... (But perhaps Mr Kotesovecs software
should receive the award instead?)

Vaclav Kotesovec
Comm The Problemist 1995
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdQ]
[wdwdwdwd]
[HKdkdwdw]
--------
H7 Grasshopper & Nightriderhopper 2 solutions

1...Kb2 2.Ke2 Kc3 3.Kf3 Ge3 4.Ke2 NHg4 5.Kd1 NHc2 6.Kc1 Gb3 7.Kb1 Gd3+ 8.Ka1 Kb3=.
1...Ka2 2.Kc2 NHe3 3.Kc3 Ka3 4.Kc4 NHa5 5.Kc3 Gb3 6.Kc2 Gd1 7.Kb1 Kb3 8.Ka1 NHc1=.

Ian Shanahan, Sydney, 26/iv/2000.

~ 30 ~