Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

AWARDS IN INFORMAL TOURNEYS OF MAT PLUS

Twomovers 2007
Judge: Peter Gvozdják (Slovakia)
In recent years I have not focused my activities on judging. But being asked to judge the reborn
Mat Plus, I have a feeling that some great problems may be expected. And indeed, the general
level of 39 twomovers was very fine.
Milan Velimiroviæc
after Hugo Knuppert îivko Janevski Paz Einat
1.pr Mat Plus 2007 2.pr Mat Plus 2007 3.pr Mat Plus 2007
m¤£¤£n£¤
|||||||| £¬£¤G¤«¤
|||||||| m¤£¤o¤£¤
||||||||
º£J£¤»¤£
|||||||| ¤£X£¤»¤m
|||||||| ¤£¼£ª£¤£
||||||||
£¼©¤»¤£¤
|||||||| £¼£n£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤I¤£X£1
||||||||
¤£¼2º£H0
|||||||| ¤£¤2ª£ºI
|||||||| ¤Wº£¼£º£
||||||||
©X»ºY¤£¼
|||||||| £¤©¤W¼£¤
|||||||| «¤Gº2ª»¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤¹¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤Y¤»¤»
|||||||| ¤»¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
o¤£¤¹¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¬£¤¹º»¤
||||||||
¤£¤«¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤Ypo¤£¤0
|||||||| n£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
#2* 12+11 #2‹ 9+13 #2*Ä 13+10
1st Prize: No.744 – Milan Velimirović (after Hugo Knuppert [A]). The author has just
distinguished two variations with the same mate in the set position... but what a difference! The
result is an ideal Rukhlis in an ideal construction. Great problem with deeply motivated changes
full of pins and batteries. And also a proof, that the old masters may sometimes miss something.
*1... Qxe5,Rxe5 2.Sxb6,e4#, 1... Qxc6,Rxd4 2.Qd8,Se7#; 1.Qd2! ~ 2.Se7#, 1... Qxe5+,Rxe5+
2.Sxe5,dxe5#, 1... Qxc6,Rxd4 2.Sxb6,e4#
2nd Prize: No.563 – Živko Janevski. Out of two problems (563 and 807) with similar ideas by
the same author I have chosen this one. Here everything is clear. White correction with 4-phase
changed mates for two defences (one of them is followed by four different mates, the other one by
two different mates – for me, Sdf6 and Sgf6 are same, as well as Scxe7 and Sgxe7). Very good
example of how to combine classic elements with changed play. *1... Bb2 2.??; 1.S~? ~ 2.Qe5#,
1... Bb2 2.Qb5#, 1... Se7!; 1.Sc6!? ~ 2.Qe5/Re5#, 1... Bb2 2.Sb4# (2.Qb5?), 1... Sd7!; 1.Sd7!? ~
2.Qe5#, 1... Bb2,Se7 2.Sxb6(Qb5?),Se7#, 1... Sc6!; 1.Sg6!? ~ 2.Qe5#, 1... Bb2,Se7
2.Sxf4(Qb5?),Se7#, 1... Qxg5!; 1.Sg4!! ~ 2.Qe5#, 1... Bb2,Se7 2.Qb5,Sf6#, 1... Sc6,Sd7,Qxg5/f6
2.Qxc6,Qa8,Qxf7,Qe6#
3rd Prize: No.745 – Paz Einat. After two defences, in three phases, there are four mates
changed according the formula Z-32-24. The reciprocal elements are spread over all these phases
(2+1+1). Very nice try and key (both flight-giving), however, the role of Rb5 is weak. The overall
impression is fresh, I only hope no anticipation may be found. *1... exd4(a) 2.Qe6#(A), 1... exf4(b)
2.Re6#(B), 1... Sd1 2.Qd3#; 1.Sf5? ~ 2.Sg3#, 1... exd4(a) 2.Qxd4#, 1... exf4(b) 2.Qe6#(B), 1... Kxf4
2.Sd6#, 1... g1Q!; 1.Qe6? ~ 2.Qxe5#, 1... Sc4 2.Qf5#, 1... Kxd4!; 1.Qc1! ~ 2.Qe3#, 1... exd4(a)
2.Re6#(B), 1... exf4(b) 2.Qxf4#, 1... Sd1/Sc4 2.Qb1#, 1... Kxd4 2.Rb4#
Special Prize: MPR3, p152, No.19 – Dragan Stojnić (after himself [B]). Without doubt the best
problem in the tourney. The only trouble is, that the author has already won another competition
with the original setting. Here, he claims two improvements: 1. the refutations do not capture the
rook, 2. newly changed mates after a by-play variation. For me, the 1st reason is not so important,
but the 2nd one is always welcome. Also the difference between the threats is a plus. To be honest,
I very much like the original setting with its well-hidden symmetry. Is this new one better? I am

223
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

sure it is at least as good as the former one. After 30 years of the so-called Vladimirov theme (or
the Azerbaijan theme after the inventors), this matrix is a great surprise.
1.Sd4?(A) ~ 2.Bf6#, 1... S7d5 2.Sxe6#, 1... Rxh4 2.Qxe5#, 1... S3d5!(a); 1.Sd6?(B) ~ 2.Bf6#, 1...
S3d5 2.Sxe4#, 1... Rxh4 2.Qxe5#, 1... S7d5!(b); 1.Rxe5! ~ 2.Qf4#, 1... S3d5(a) 2.Sd4#(A), 1...
S7d5(b) 2.Sd6#(B), 1... Rxh4 2.Qxh4#
Dragan Stojniæc Hauke Reddmann
(after himself) (after Zirkwitz/Kuhlmann) Aaron Hirchenson
sp.pr Mat Plus 2007 hm Mat Plus 2007 hm Mat Plus 2007
£p£¤o¤£1
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¬
|||||||| £p£H©¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¬£¤mn£
|||||||| ¤£X0º¹¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£n»
||||||||
£¤£¤»¤¹¼
|||||||| £¤£¤G¤¹¤
|||||||| £¤£¼¹¤£1
||||||||
ZW¤£¼©3Y
|||||||| ¤£º©ª£¤£
|||||||| ¤W¤©¤»¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤»¤»ª
|||||||| £Z£3¹¤¹¤
|||||||| Y¤£¤2¼¹¤
||||||||
¤£¬£¤£¤£
|||||||| n£¤¹¤£¤W
|||||||| ¤£º»¤Yº£
||||||||
£¤£º»X£H
|||||||| £¤Y¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤¹¤¹¤£¤
||||||||
J£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| Jm¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
#2ÄÄ 10+14 #2ÄÄ 15+5 #2ÄÄ 12+9
I have decided not to award individual rankings within the Honourable Mentions and
Commendations, as they show very different and difficult-to-compare ideas. Here they are in order
of appearance.
Honourable Mentions (ex aequo):
No.556 – Hauke Reddmann (after Zirkwitz and Kuhlmann [C]). Perfect Dombrovskis with
white line-openings and double checks in solution. 1.Qa6? ~ 2.Sf3#(A), 1... Rc4(b5) 2.Sc6#(B), 1...
Rf2!(a); 1.Qd6? ~ 2.Sc6#(B), 1... Rxc5 2.Sf3#(A), 1... Rb6!(b); 1.Qf6! ~ 2.Sc4#, 1... Rf2(a),Rb6(b)
2.Sf3(A),Sc6(B)#
No.560 – Aaron Hirschenson. Dombrovskis again, great unity again. 1.Qxd6? ~ 2.Sef6#(A), 1...
Bxd6 2.Sxd6#, 1... fxg4!(a); 1.Qb6? ~ 2.Sdf6#(B), 1... Rd4 2.Qxd4#, 1... fxg3!(b); [1.Qf6?
fxg4!(a)/fxg3!(b)]; 1.Qg5! ~ 2.Qxf5#, 1... fxg4(a) 2.Sef6#(A), 1... fxg3(b) 2.Sdf6#(B)
No.665 – Dragan Stojnić. Strong one-phase idea: anti-triple after closing the black rook line.
However, the unity is not perfect – most disturbing is the checking defence, where White can
hardly think of the other mating moves. 1.Sb6! ~ 2.Sb7#, 1... d3 2.Sb3# (Rc2?/Qc1?), 1... Sf3
2.Rc2# (Qc1?/Sb3?), 1... f3+ 2.Qxc1# (Sb3?/Rc2?), 1... b3 2.Qa3#, 1... Rf3 2.Rxh5#
Dragan Stojniæc Milan Velimiroviæc Vasyl Dyachuk
hm Mat Plus 2007 hm Mat Plus 2007 hm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£¬£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
mn£X£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£n£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤»¤Y¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£1 ||||||||
£¤Y¤»¤£¤ ||||||||
£p£ª£¤G¤
||||||||
ª£3©¤£¤» ||||||||
X©¤£¤£¼0 ||||||||
º£¤2¤£¤£
||||||||
¹¼£¼£¼£X ||||||||
W¬£n2¤©¤ ||||||||
0º£¬£¤©¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤Y ||||||||
¤£¼£º£¤£ ||||||||
¼£¼W¤£¤£
||||||||
£X£¤£¤m¼ ||||||||
£¤¹¤G¤¹p ||||||||
£¤Y¬£¤£¤
||||||||
H£p£¤£¬Y ||||||||
¤£¤£¤Y¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤o¤£
#2 9+11 #2* 10+8 #2*Ä 10+10
No.740 – Milan Velimirović. Always nice when some new element is found in the Lacny cycle.
Here, the set-to-solution position, with bishop as the key piece. *1... Kd5,Kf5,Rd6 2.e4,Sd6,Sxc3#
ABC (1.Ba7? Rc4!); 1.Be5! ~ 2.Qd3#, 1... Kd5,Kf5,Rd6 2.Sxc3,e4,Sxd6# (CAB)

224
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

No.742 – Vasyl Dyachuk. Z-32-25, which is a good standard. Just to point out two elements, that
may offend some, but did not influence me much: 1. bishop a8, 2. unprovided flight. *1... Bc7,Sc4
2.Bxb7,Qe4#; 1.Sb5? ~ 2.Se3#, 1... Bc7,Sc4 2.Rxd4,Bxb7#, 1... Rd6!; 1.Sxb7! ~ 2.Se3#, 1...
Bc7,Sc4 2.Sd6,Sc5#, (1... Kc4,Rd6 2.Se3,Sxd6#)
Colin Sydenham Abdelaziz Onkoud Emanuel Navon
cm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
o¤£¤£pm¤ ||||||||
YZ£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
«¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
1£¤©¤«¤Y ||||||||
¬£¤£¤mª£ ||||||||
¤£º£¼»¤Y
||||||||
£X£¤«¤£J ||||||||
£º£X£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤G¤£¤»¤
||||||||
¤£¼£¼Y¤£ ||||||||
n¹3£º£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤©3£Z£
||||||||
¹ª2¤»¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¼¹¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¼m¤»¤
||||||||
¤W¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¬£¤£¤I ||||||||
1£¤¹¤£¤I
||||||||
¹¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£X£ªo¤¹¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£X£¤
||||||||
n£¤£¤£¤G ||||||||
1£¤£¤G¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£X£p£
#2Ä 10+11 #2ÄÄ 13+8 #2 8+11
Commentadions (ex aequo):
No.558 – Colin Sydenham. Two nice phases with black correction, however, the claimed mate
transference is not the case. The reason is, that the mates from one phase work also in the other
one, even if the black moves do not really defend the threat. 1.Rb7? ~ 2.Sb6#, 1... Se~,Seg5,Sd4
2.Qxe4,Qc1,Rc3#, 1... cxb4!; 1.Rc6! ~ 2.Sb6#, 1... Sf~,Sfg5,Sd6 2.Qxe4,Qc1,Rxc5#
No.562 – Abdelaziz Onkoud. Hannelius in nice unity. 1.Bc4? ~ 2.Bb4#(A) [2.Sd3?(B)], 1... Bxc4
2.Qxc4#, 1... Sa2/Sd5 2.Rd5#, 1... Sc8/Sc6 2.Rc6#, 1... Saxb5!(a); 1.Rb4? ~ 2.Sb3#(B)
[2.Bb4?(A)], 1... Bd1/Bc4 2.Qc4#, 1... Sc~ 2.Rd5# , 1... Qe6 2.Sxe6#, 1... Scxb5!(b); 1.Qg1! ~
2.Qxd4#, 1... Saxb5(a) 2.Sb3#(B), 1... Scxb5(b) 2.Bb4#(A), 1... Sd5 2.Rxd5#, 1... Sc6 2.Rxc6# , 1...
Qh1/Qd3/Qe3 2.Se6#
No.741 – Emanuel Navon. One-phase experiment. Both white batteries play „random“ and
„specific“. One may simply consider these duals (and they are), but for me this is a reason to
award, not to exclude. 1. Qd7? ~ 2.Qxe7,Bf3#, 1... e6!; 1.Qc5! ~ 2.Qxe7#, 1... e6 2.S~#, 1... f6
2.Sf4#, 1... Sxc7 2.Sxc7#, 1... g3 2.B~#, 1... f5 2.Bf3 #, 1... Qxd3+ 2.Bxd3#
Victor Chepizhny Givi Mosiashvili Hauke Reddmann
cm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007 sp.cm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£p0¤£¤o¤ ||||||||
£¤G¤£Z£¬
||||||||
¤£¤£¤»¤£ ||||||||
n£¤©¤£¼£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¼£¤I
||||||||
£¤£¤£1£¤ ||||||||
£¤W¤¹¤G¤ ||||||||
£1»¤Yn«¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£º2 ||||||||
¤¹¤2ºW¤£ ||||||||
¤£º2¼£pW
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤»¤ ||||||||
Y¤»¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
»¤©¤©¤£¼
||||||||
¤£X£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤»¬£ ||||||||
¤oº£¤¹¤£
||||||||
£H£¤£¤m¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£ª£¤ ||||||||
m¤£¼¹¼£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤I¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤W¤£¤£
#2Ä b) Ïh5®h4 5+3 #2*ÄÄ 10+9 #2* 12+15
No.802 – Viktor Chepizhny. Too simple but nice. a) 1.Qe2? ~ 2.Rh3# A, 1... Kh4! a; 1.Qb4! (~)
1... Kh4 a 2.Rh3# A, 1... g3 2.Bf3#; b) 1.Qb4? ~ 2.Rh3# A, 1... Kh5! b; 1.Qe2! (~) 1... Kh5 b
2.Rh3# A, 1... g3 2.Rc4#
No.803 – Givi Mosiashvili. Two set mates are repeated as threat and mating move in the other
two phases. *1... Bxe6,Bxe5 2.Qxe6,Rxe5#, 1.Be3? ~ 2.Rc5/Sb6#, 1... Ba7 2.Rd6#, 1... Qd4!;
1.Qg4? ~ 2.Sb6#, 1... Bxe6,Qd4,Ra6 2.Rc5,Qxd4,Qxc4#, 1... Bc7!; 1.Rf4! ~ 2.Rc5#, 1...
Bxe5,Qd4,Se4,Bd6 2.Sb6,Rxd4,Qxe4,Rxd6#

225
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

Special Commendation: MPR4, p.245, No.7 – Hauke Reddmann. Another experiment. Four
defences followed with the same mating move. However, all defensive and error motives are
different. Surely noteasy to achieve, the key (taking two flights) and the crowded position
underline this. 1.Sexd2! ~ 2.e4#, 1... Bc2/e4/Be3/Bxd2/Sf4 2.Se3#; (*1... Kxc4 2.Qxe6#)
[C] Th. Zirkwitz [A] (Re: 1.pr by Velimirović)
[A] Hugo Knuppert [B] D. Stojniæc J. Kuhlmann *1... R6xe5,R4xe5,Rxd4,cxd4
1.pr Skakbladet 1997-99 1.pr Wo©a Gu©owska 2004 6.HM Reiners MT 1990
1.Qd2!
£¤£¤£ª£¤
|||||||| £p£¤£¤£J
|||||||| m¤«1£¤£¤
||||||||
¤m¤£n£º£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¼£¬£
|||||||| Z»¤£¼£¤£
|||||||| [B] (Re: sp.pr by Stojnić)
£¬©¤Y¼£¤
|||||||| £X£¬»¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤©¤£n
|||||||| 1.Sc7? Sgxf5 2.Sxe6#, 1...Sdxf5!
¤£¼2º£H0
|||||||| ºo3©¼WZY
|||||||| ¤W¤¹¤£¤£
|||||||| 1.Sf6? Sdxf5 2.Se4#, 1...Sgxf5!
£¤£ºY¤«¤
|||||||| £¤»¤£º£¼
|||||||| £H©º2º¹¤
|||||||| 1.Rxe5! Sdxf5,Sgxf5 2.Sc7,Sf6#
¤¹¤£¤¹¤o
|||||||| ¤£º£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£º£¼£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤¹¤I¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤oº¹p£¤
|||||||| [C] (Re: hm by Reddmann)
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£1G¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤W¤£
|||||||| 1.Sxe3? b6!, 1.dxe3? Bh4!
#2* 12+9 #2ÄÄ 8+13 #2ÄÄ 15+8 1.Qxe7! Bh4,b6 2.Sg5,Sc5#

Endgames 2007
Judge: Iuri Akobia (Georgia)
There were 24 original endgames published in Mat Plus and Mat Plus Review during 2007. The
overall quality was very good, which resulted in the high proportion (75%) of entries in the award.
1st Prize: MPR 4, p220, No.6 – Sergiy Didukh. Despite the author's indication “after
Vostroknutov”, it is possible to regard this work as quite original. The theme is doubled by the
addition of the thematic try with Rook-promotion. Such a work may seem to some to be the result
of mere luck, but luck is often the result of persistent searching. And the persistence of this young,
talented author is very high.
1.Ke4 Sc3+ 2.Ke5 Bc5 /i 3.Ke6 and with:
A) 3... Sb5 4.Kd5 Bd6 5.Kc6 Sa7+ 6.Kb6 e5 7.Kxa7 Bc5+ 8.Kb7 e4 9.Kc6 Ba7 10.Kd5 e3 11.Ke4 e2 12.Kf3
e1=Q stalemate;
B) 3... Sa4 4.Kd5! Bd6 5.a7! /ii Sb6+ 6.Kc6 Sa8 7.Kb7 Bc5 8.Kxa8 Bxa7 9.Kb7! e5 10.Kc6 e4 11.Kd5 e3
12.Ke4 e2 13.Kf3 e1=Q stalemate.
i) 2... Bb6 3.Ke6 Bc5 4.a7 Sb5 5.a8=S! =; ii) Thematic try 5.Kc6!? Bb8 6.Kb7 Sc5+ 7.Kxb8 Sxa6+ 8.Kb7 e5
9.Kc6 e4 10.Kd5 e3 11.Ke4 e2 12.Kf3 e1=R! –+.
2nd Prize: No.580 – Richard Becker. The construction of multiple stalemate positions is the
author's favourite theme. Here he has realised the synthesis of three stalemates. The introduction of
the logical element 2.Rb8+!, which causes the blockade of the square f7, certainly adds a nice
decoration to the work.
1.Sc3 /iSxa2 /ii 2.Rb8+! /iii Kf7 /iv 3.Rxb3 Sxc3 4.Rxa3 Se4! /v5.Rxa5 g6 (also 5... g5 6.Rxg5 Sxg5 stalemate
1) 6.Kh7 g5 7.Kh6 Kf6 8.Rb5!zz /vi Bh1 (also 8... Bf3 9.Rxg5 Sxg5 stalemate 2) 9.Ra5zz /vii Bg2 10.Rb5
Bh311.Rb4 Bf5 12.Rb1 g4 13.Rg1.Ke5 14.Kh5 g3 15.Kh4 Kf4 16.Rxg3/viii Sxg3 stalemate 3.
i) 1.axb3? a2 –+; 1.Sxa3? bxa2 –+; ii) 1... bxa2 2.Sxa2 =; 1... b2 2.Rf5+! The reason for this extra rook move
is easier to see: BK must be driven from Pg7. (2.Rxa5? Bd5 3.Rb5 Bxa2 4.Rxb4 Bc4 –+) 2... Ke7 3.Rxa5 Sxa2
4.Sb1 =; iii) Not an obvious move. At first sight it is possible to play Rxb3, but White has no chance of a drawn
result without blocking the f7 square. [2.Rxb3? Sxc3 3.Rxa3 Se4(Sb5) 4.Rxa5 Sd6 5.Ra4 Sf7+ 6.Kh7 Be4+ –+;
2.Sb1? a4 3.Rf5+ Ke7 4.Rf4 Bc6 –+; iv) The plan of white is realized, f7 is blocked by BK and the BS cannot
check from f7; v) [4... Sd5 white easily wins both black pawns 5.Rg3 Be4 6.Rxg7+ Ke6 7.Ra7 =; vi) 8.Rd5?
Bh3 9.Rd4 Bf5 10.Rd1 Sf2 11.Rg1 (Ra1) Sh3 –+; vii) 9.Rd5? g4 10.Kh5 g3 11.Kh4 g2 12.Rd1 Kf5 (Ke5)
13.Rg1 Kf4 –+; viii) 16.Rf1+? Ke3 17.Rxf5 g2 –+ .
3rd Prize: No.680 – Yohanan Afek. This work makes a good impression. The key move 2. Kd5!!
is very nice. Unfortunately, the basic construction of all key placements of the pieces already
exists in the initial setting.

226
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

Clearly it is necessary to move the rook, but the correct choice of move is not so easy to find. 1.Rd1! /i b2
2.Kd5!! /iid6 3.Kc6! d5 4.g6 d4 5.g7 d3 6.g8=B!! /iii d2 7.Bb3 b1=Q 8.Rxb1 d1=Q 9.Bxd1 /iv Ba7 10.Bxg4+
Bg1 11.Bd1 Ba7 12.Bf3+ Bg1 13.Rb2!+– .
i) 1.Rb1!? b2 2.Kd5 d6 3.Kc6 d5 4.g6 d4 5.g7 d3 6.g8=B d2 7.Bb3 d1=Q 8.Rxd1 b1=Q 9.Rxb1 stalemate;
1.Re1!? b2 etc draws; ii) 2.Kc7 (Kd, Ke5!? see move 9; iii) 6.g8=Q!? b1=Q 7.Rxb1 d2=; iv) Now it finally
becomes clear why the wK couldn’t move to a dark square on move 2.

Sergiy Didukh
(after A. Vostroknutov) Richard Becker Yochanan Afek
1.pr Mat Plus 2007 2.pr Mat Plus 2007 3.pr Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£3£1
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
p£¤£¼£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¼£
|||||||| ¤£¤»¤£¤£
||||||||
¹¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£1£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£3£
|||||||| ¼W¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£º£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤¹¤
|||||||| £¬£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤»¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤0ºm
|||||||| ¼»¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤»¤£¤£º£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤¹¤
|||||||| ¹¤£¤£¤o¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤»¼
||||||||
¤£¤«¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤©¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤Wp2
||||||||
= 6+4 = 4+7 + 4+7
Honourable mention: No.583 – Ilham Aliev. An abundance of stalemate positions, but this is
realized with the help of nine (!) bystanders (spectator pieces).
1.Rf1! Qxa3 (or 1... Qxf1 stalemate) 2.Rf2+ Kb1 3.Rf1+ Kc2 4.Rf2+ /i Kc1 5.Rf1+ Kd2 6.Rf2+ Kd1 7.Se3+!
/ii Qxe3 /iii 8.Rf1+ Kd2 9.Rf2+ Ke1 (or 9... Qxf2 stalemate) 10.Rf1+ Ke2 (or 10... Kxf1 stalemate) 11.Rf2+
Kd3 (or 11... Kxf2/Qxf2 stalemate) 12.Rf3! Qxf3 stalemate.
i) 4.Se3+? Kd3–+; ii) 7.Rf1+? Ke2–+; iii) 7... Kc1 8.Rf1+ Kd2 9.Sc4+; 7... Ke1 8.Sc2+ Kxf2 9.Sxa3 Sc5
10.Sc4 Se4 11.Se5 Kf1 12.Sd3 Sc3 13.Se5 Se4 14.Sd3= .

Honourable mention: No.579 – David Gurgenidze. This original ending is executed with clean
technical play. The impression is somewhat reduced by the weak resistance offered by the black
side and also by the immobile Pa3.
1.Kg3 Be5+! 2.Sxe5 a1=Q 3.Bb5+ Kg1 /i 4.Se2+ Kf1 5.Sf4+ Ke1 /ii 6.Sf3+ Kd1 7.Ba4+ Kc1 8.Sd3+ Kb1
9.Sd2+ Ka2 10.Bb3#
i) 3... Ke1 4.Sc2+ +–; ii) 5... Kg1 6.Sh3+ Kh1 7.Bc6#.
Ilham Aliev David Gurgenidze Darko Hlebec
hm Mat Plus 2007 hm Mat Plus 2007 hm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£X£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤m¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£p£ ||||||||
¬£¤»¤£¤£
||||||||
«¤£¤£¤»¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤©X£¤£¤
||||||||
º£¤£¤£¼£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
n£¤»¤£¤£
||||||||
¹¤£¤£¤¹¤ ||||||||
£¤£ª£¤£¤ ||||||||
»¤£¤£¤£º
||||||||
º£¤£¤£º0 ||||||||
¼£¤£¤©¤0 ||||||||
1£¼£¤£¤£
||||||||
£3£¤£¤©º ||||||||
»¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
J£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤2¤£ ||||||||
¤2¤£p£¤£
= 9+5 + 4+4 + 5+7
Honourable mention: No.582 – Darko Hlebec. A fine mutual fight comes to an end with a well
known mating position. The author's rich imagination can be felt.
1.Sd4 /i Sb5+ 2.Sxb5 c2 3.Sc3+ Bxc3 4.Rb6+ Bb4+! 5.Rxb4+ Ka1 6.Rb1+! /iiKxb1 /iii 7.Bd2 c1=Q+ 8.Bxc1
Kxc1 9.h5 d4 10.h6 d3 11.h7 d2 12.h8=Q d1=Q 13.Qb2# .
i) 1.Rxd5? c2 2.Rc5 Bc3 3.Rxc3 Sb5+=; ii) 6.Rc4? dxc4 7.Bd2 Kb1 8.h5 c3 9.Be3 c1=Q+ 10.Bxc1 Kxc1 11.h6
c2=; iii) 6... cxb1=S+ 7.Kxa4 Ka2 8.h5 d4 9.h6 Sc3+ 10.Kb4 Sd5+ 11.Kc4+–; 6... cxb1=Q 7.Bc3+ Qb2+
8.Bxb2+ +– .

227
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

Honourable mention: No.581 – Arpad Rusz. Mutual stalemates and positional draw with
perpetual pinning, but again we can see many technical pieces.
1.Rg2 Se1 2.Bxe4 /i Sxg2 /ii 3.Bf3 Rh2 (also 3... gxf3 stalemate, or 3... Kh2 4.Bxg2 stalemate) 4.Be4 Rh3
(also 4... h3 5.Bf3 gxf3 stalemate) 5.Bf3 positional draw.
i) 2.Rg1+!? Kh2 3.Bxe4 g2+ –+; ii) 2... Sf3 3.Rg1+ Kh2 4.Rg2+ Kh1 5.Rg1+ positional draw .
Gerd Wilhelm Hrning
Arpad Rusz Gerhard Josten Siegfried Hornecker
hm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£1£3£n
|||||||| 0¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| º£¤£¤£¼£
||||||||
£¤£¼£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£º
|||||||| £3£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤¹¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤¹¤»¤£¤o
|||||||| ªm¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤»¤»¼
|||||||| £¼£¤£¤£¼
|||||||| £¤£¤»¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤«¤£¼Y
|||||||| ¼I¤£¼£¼£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
W¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £º£¤£¤¹¤
|||||||| £¤£¼£¤o¤
||||||||
¤m¤£¤0¤2
|||||||| ¤£¬£¤mH£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£ª£
||||||||
= 4+8 + 8+10 + 5+5
Commendation: No.584 - Gerd Wilhelm Hörning and Gerhard Josten. The sacrifices of white
pieces are not obvious.
1.h7 Qc2 /i 2.Bd3 Qxd3 3.Qf1+ Qxf1 4.Bd4 Kf7 /ii 5.h8=Q Kg6 6.Qg8+ Kf5 7.Qxd5+ Kg6 /iii 8.Qg8+ Kf5
9.Qf8+ Ke4 10.Qxf1 axb2 11.Bxb2+–
i) 1... d4 2.Bc4 Qxc4 3.Qf1+ Qxf1 4.Bxd4 Kf7 5.h8=Q+–; 1... Bg6 2.Bc4 Qa4 3.Qf1+ Bf7 4.Bd4+–; ii) 4... Qf7
5.h8=Q+ Qg8 6.Qf6+ +–; iii) 7... Kf4 8.Qe5+ Kg4 9.Qg7+ +– .
Commendation: No.758 – Siegfried Hornecker. The move 8.Bf1!! is nice. Unfortunately, the
stalemate shown by the author is not the unique finale in the line 1.Ba4?
1.Sc4+ /i 1... Kc7 2.Sxd2 e3+ 3.Sdf3 e2 4.Bxe2 g5 5.Sh3! /ii g4 /iii 6.Shg5 gxf3 7.Se6+ Kd6 8.Bf1!! Bxf1
9.Kb8 Be2 10.a8=Q f2 11.Qa3+ +–.
i) 1.Ba4? Kc7 2.Bd1! e3+ (also 2... g5 3.Sc4 e3+ 4.Sf3 g4 5.Sxe3 Bxf3+ 6.Bxf3 gxf3=) 3.Sf3 g5 (3... Bf1=; 3...
e2=) 4.Sc4 g4 5.Sxe3 gxf3 6.Sd5+ Kc8 7.Bxf3 Bxf3 stalemate; ii) 5.Ba6? g4 6.Bb7 gxf3 7.Sxf3 Bh1=; iii) 5...
Bxh3 6.Se1 Be6 7.Bf3+–.
Commendation: No.757 – Mihail Croitor.
1.Rxc2 /i f2 /ii2.Rxf2 g3 3.Rf1 Rh5+ 4.Kg1 Reh6 5.Rf6+! Rxf6 6.Ra8+ Kb7 7.Ra7+ Kb8 /iii 8.Rb7+=.
i) 1.Rxe5!? Rxe5 (1... f2? 2.Rxe6+ Kb7 3.Rxc2 f1=Q+ 4.Kh2 g3+ 5.Kxg3 Qd3+ 6.Kf4 (Kh2, h4)=) 2.Rxc2
Re1+ 3.Kh2 Re2–+; 1.gxf3!? Rxc5–+; ii) 1... Re1+ 2.Kh2 R1e2 3.Kg3 fxg2 4.R2c6+ Ka5 5.Rc1=; iii) 7... Kb6
8.Ra6+=.
Mihail Croitor JInos Mikitovics Sergiy Didukh
cm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007 1.sp.pr Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤W¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£1£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¬£1£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
3£¤£n£¤£
||||||||
2¤£¤Y¤£¤ ||||||||
»¤£º£¤£ª ||||||||
£¤¹¤¹¤£¤
||||||||
¤£X£Z£¤£ ||||||||
¤»¤2¤£º£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¼£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤»¤ ||||||||
¹º£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤¹¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤»¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤¹¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤»¤£¤¹¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤0 ||||||||
¤£¤£¤Y¤£ ||||||||
¤£Z£¤£¤£
= 4+6 + b) |
Yf1®b7 6+4 + 6+4
Commendation: No.759 – János Mikitovics.
A) 1.g6! /i 1... Kxd6 2.g7 Rg1 3.a5!! /ii Kd5 /iii 4.g8=Q+ Rxg8+ 5.Sxg8 Kc4 6.Kc7! /iv Kxb4 7.Kb6 Kc4
8.Sf6! b4 9.Se4 Kd3 10.Sc5+! Kc4 11.Kc6 +–.

228
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

i) 1.d7? Kd6 2.Kc8 Rc1+ 3.Kd8 Rf1 4.Ke8 Re1+=; 1.Kc7? Rc1+ 2.Kb8 Kxd6 3.axb5 axb5=; ii) 3.axb5? Rxg7
4.Sf5+ Kd5 5.Sxg7 axb5=; iii) 3... Rxg7 4.Sf5+ Kd5 5.Sxg7 Kc4 6.Kc7 Kxb4 7.Kb6+–; iv) 6.Se7? Kxb4 7.Sc6+
Ka4 8.Kc7 b4 9.Sxb4 Kxa5= ;
B) 1.Sf5! /v bxa4 2.Kc8! Ra7 3.d7! Ke4 4.Sg3+! /vi Kf3 5.g6! /vii a3 6.Sf5! Kf4 7.Sd4! a2 8.Sb3[/b] /Sc2+–.
v) 1.Kc8? Kc6 2.g6 bxa4 3.Sf5 Ra7 4.Kb8=; vi) 4.Sd4!? Ra8+! 5.Kb7 Rg8! 6.Sc6 a3= ; 4.Sd6+!? Kd5 5.Sb5
Ra8+! 6.Kb7=; vii) 5.d8=Q? Ra8+ 6.Kc7 Rxd8 7.Kxd8 a3! 8.Sf5 Ke4 9.Sd6+ Kd5=.
1st Special Prize: MPR4, p222, No.11 – Sergiy Didukh. Successful processing of a known idea
(G. Nadareishvili, 1962).
1.Bc5+! /i Rxc5 2.c7 Sc6+ 3.Kd7 Se7 4.Kxe7 Kb7 5.Kf7! /ii Rxc7+ 6.e7 Steven Dowd
Kc6 7.Kf8 Kd6 /iii 8.e8=S+!+– Marko Ylijoki
i) 1.c7? Sc6+ 2.Kd7 Sxe7 3.Kxe7 Kb7 4.Kd6 (also 4.Kd8 Rc6 5.e7=) 4... 2.sp.pr Mat Plus 2007
Rc6+ 5.Kd5 Rxc7 6.Kd6 Rc6+ 7.Kd7 (also 7.Kxe5= ) 7... Rc7+ 8.Kd6=; 0X£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
ii) [.Kf8? Kxc7 6.e7 Kd6 7.e8=Q Rc8 8.Qxc8 stalemate. iii) 7... Rc8+
8.e8=R! +–. ||||||||
º»¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£p£¤£¤£¤
2nd Special Prize: No. 756 – Steven Dowd and Marko Ylijoki.
The authors have used a rough introduction with the aim of
¤£¤£¼£¤£
||||||||
creating a thematic try. Apart from this roughness, the work leaves ||||||||
£¤»¤£¤£¤
the impression of integrity of play. ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
1.Kxb7 /I Bxa7 2.Kxa7 c3 3.b4! e4 4.Re8 with: ||||||||
£º2¤£¤£¤
A) 4... Kb3 5.b5 c2 6.Rc8 e3 7.b6 e2 8.b7 e1=Q 9.b8=Q+and wQ is not ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
blocked by wR as in the thematic try, so White has important checks: 9... + 4+5
Ka4 (9... Ka3 10.Qd6+ +–) 10.Qf4+ +–;
B) 4... Kd3 5.b5 e3 6.b6 c2 7.Rd8+ Ke2 8.Rc8 Kd1 9.b7 e2 10.Rd8+ Kc1 Mirko Markoviæc
11.b8=Q e1=Q 12.Qf4+ +– . 1.sp.hm Mat Plus 2007
i) Thematic try 1.Rxb7? Bxa7 2.Kxa7 (compare to the position in main line
after 2.Kxa7) 2... c3 3.b4 e4 4.Re7 Kb3! 5.b5 c2 6.Rc7 e3 7.b6 e2 8.b7
£¤£¤m¤£¤
||||||||
e1=Q 9.b8=Q+ Ka4!! 10.Rc4+ Ka3 11.Qd6+ Kb2 12.Qd4+ Kb1 13.Qb6+ ¤»¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
Kc1 14.Qc5 Qd2=. ||||||||
»¤£º£¤¹¤
1st Special Honourable Mention: No.683 – Mirko Marković. ||||||||
¤»ª£¤£¤»
The Novotny theme is realised in a heavy construction. £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
1.g7! Rg1 2.Bxh5+ Kd2 3.Bg4 Rxg4 4.d7 Bh4 5.Se4+ Ke2 /i 6.Sg5 Rxg5 ||||||||
º£¤£¤£¤o
7.d8=Q Be6+ 8.b3 Bxb3+ 9.Sxb3 +–. ||||||||
0º£¤£¤£¤
i) 5... Ke3 6.Sg5 Rxg5 7.d8=Q (Sc2+–) 7... Be6+ 8.Sb3 Bxb3+ 9.Kxb3+–; ª£¤2pY¤£
||||||||
5... Ke1 6.Sg5 (Sc2+–) 6... Rxg5 7.d8=Q (Sc2+–) 7... Be6+ 8.Kb1 Bf5+
9.Kc1+–.
+ 8+8
Daniel Keith
Zlatko Mihajloski Mirko Markoviæc (after Mirko Miljaniæc)
2.sp.hm Mat Plus 2007 sp.cm Mat Plus 2007 sp.cm Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤m¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤©¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£1£¼»
|||||||| ¤¹¤£¤W¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£ª£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤Yº
|||||||| »J£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| 0¤£¤£¤¹¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤2
|||||||| º£¤£¼£¤»
||||||||
«¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| ¹¬£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| 2¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£º£ºW
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤¹¼£
|||||||| ¤£p£º£¤£
||||||||
2¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £º£¤£¤¹p
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
J£n£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤0¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤«¤£
||||||||
= 7+6 = 8+6 + 5+5
2nd Special Honourable Mention: No.824 – Zlatko Mihajloski. Unexpected sacrifice by
3.Bb2!!, but the author could not overcome some technical difficulties.
1.Bf7+ /i Kb1 2.Bxg6+ /ii hxg6 3.Bb2!! /iii Qxb2 4.Rh1+ Ka2 5.Rh2 Qxh2 6.hxg7 Qh7 /iv 7.Kf8 Qh6 8.Kf7
Qh7 9.Kf8 Qh6 10.Kf7 Qxe3 11.g8=Q=.
i) 1.Rh2+? Kb3 2.Bf7+ Kb4 3.Rh4+ Kb5–+; 1.Bxg6? Qf6+ –+; ii) 2.Bb2? Kxb2 3.Bxg6 Sc5–+;. iii) 3.h7?
Qf6+ 4.Ke8 Qe6+ 5.Kf8 Qxh3–+; iv) 6... Qh5 7.g8=Q+ Ka3 8.Kf6=.

229
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

Special Commendation: No.825 – Mirko Marković. Unfortunately, the form of the position
should have been improved.
1.Rf5+ Kh4 2.Rf4+ Kg5 3.Rg4+ Kf5 4.Se7+ Ke5 5.b8=Q+ Qxb8 6.Rxb4 Qd6 7.Rd4! Qf6 8.Rf4! Qd6 9.Rd4
positional draw.
Special Commendation: No.679 – Daniel Keith. The study shows the theme of the 7th WCCT.
It's the rational correction of a study by M. Miljanic.
1.Se6 e4 (X) 2.Kb6 /i Bxa5+ 3.Ka6 Bc3 (X’) 4.Sd4 Bxd4 /ii 5.exd4 e3 6.g7 e2 7.g8=Q e1=Q 8.Qa2+ Kb4
9.Qa5+ +– .
i) .Sc5+!? Kb4 3.Kb6 Sxe3 4.a6 Sd5+ 5.Kc6 Se7+ 6.Kb7 Kxc5 7.a7 Sxg6 8.a8=Q Se5 9.Kc7 Kd4 10.Kd6 Ke3
11.Ke6 Sg4 12.Kf5 Sf6=; ii) 4... Sxe3 5.g7 Kb4 (5... Bxd4 6.g8=Q+–) 6.g8=Q Kc5 7.Sb3+ Kd6 8.Qg3+ +–.

Helpmate twomovers 2007

Judge: Thomas Maeder (Switzerland)
36 h#2 problems competed in this tourney, among them one published in the MatPlus.Net forum.
Considering how difficult composing a good h#2 has become, the level is satisfactory.
Thanks to Harry Fougiaxis for asking me to be the judge, and – as always – to the PDB team and
to C. J. Feather for their invaluable support to finding anticipations and predecessors.
First a word on some interesting works not awarded:
595v is a neat presentation of 2x ABBA, but this theme has seen many very satisfactory
realisations, even with the same material as in 595v (cf. P0535067).
599 is a very complex and interesting idea. The realisation is extremely heavy, though, and Toma
Garai has shown it several times, even with just half the material (cf. P0528805).
836 adds two solutions to P0547392 in HOTF style, but in my eyes, these solutions are too similar
to the original ones. I wouldn’t go as far as calling them duals, but I expect more variety from a
good HOTF problem.
îivko Janevski
Ioannis Kalkavouras Michal Dragoun Borislav GaÀanski
1.pr Mat Plus 2007 2.pr Mat Plus 2007 1.hm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£H ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£X£¤£¼£ ||||||||
no¤«¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤0¤«¤£
||||||||
£p£¤£n£¤ ||||||||
£¤W¤£¤m¼ ||||||||
£¤»H£ª£¤
||||||||
¤»J£Z£¤£ ||||||||
1»¬£¤»¤£ ||||||||
¤»ZI¤£¤£
||||||||
£º©º£Z£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£Z ||||||||
£¤£3£¼¹¤
||||||||
1£3«¼¹¤£ ||||||||
X»¤2¼£¤» ||||||||
¤»¼o¤m¤£
||||||||
£¤»¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¼£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£Z£¼»¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¬£¤£ ||||||||
¤Yp£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£p£¤£¤£
h#2 2111 8+11 h#2 »d2®e7 5+14
b) | h#2 2111 5+14
+c) |
»b5®d2
»e3®e4
+d) |
1st Prize: 773v – Živko Janevski and Ioannis Kalkavouras. A blend of known effects, which
seems not to have been done like this before though. The strong white material allows for a lot of
potential cooks, which the authors have skilfully avoided; the resulting position is a bit on the
heavy side. Re-captures of white pieces were requested in the 1st round of Liga Problemista 2007,
but none of the problems in that tourney’s award is as complex as (nor similar to) 773v. 1.Kxc4
dxc5 2.Rxc5 Qg8#, 1.Kxd4 Sxe5 2.Qxe5 Qd8#
2nd Prize: 841 – Michal Dragoun. This HOTF problem has the variety that I miss in 836 (see
above). In isolation, each solution isn’t terribly spectacular; however it’s interesting to see how the
white officers and the black pieces masking them collaborate. I agree with the author that better

230
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

twinnings are not unheard of ... a) 1.Kc4 Bxc5 2.b2 Bf7#, b) 1.Se6 Ra2 2.Sf4 Bxf5#, c) 1.Kd4 Rxc5
2.f4 Ra4#, d) 1.Sa4 Bh5 2.Sb2 Rxb3#
1st Honourable mention: 840 – Borislav Gađanski. The tries, ending with the obvious mating
moves, fail because the white knight closes the black queen’s hideaway. In the actual solutions,
both the mating moves and the escapes of the black queen to squares now available are exchanged.
The bishop’s play in the actual solution isn’t as homogeneous as that of the knight in the tries,
unfortunately. 1.Kc4 (a) Se4? 2.Q~!? Qxc5# (A), 1.Ke3 (b) Sh5? 2.Q~!? Qxf4# (B), 1.Kc4 (a) Be2!
2.Qh5! (Q~!?) Qxf4# (B), 1.Ke3 (b) Bd1! 2.Qf3! (Q~!?) Qxc5# (A)
Ivan Denkovski
Chris Feather Gligor Denkovski Anatoly Styopochkin
2.hm Mat Plus 2007 3.hm Mat Plus 2007 4.hm Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¬£¤£¤
|||||||| o¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤o¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤G¤Y¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£1¹¤¹
||||||||
£¤m¼£¬£¤
|||||||| »¤£¤»¤£¤
|||||||| »¤»¼»¤¹¤
||||||||
¼£3£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤¹JW¼m¬£
|||||||| Z£3m¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£º¹¼»¤
|||||||| »X£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
º£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ª£p2¤£¤¹
|||||||| ¤£¤£¼£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤»Z»¤
|||||||| £¬£¤Y¤£¤
|||||||| £¤«J«¤£¤
||||||||
¤£1£¤£nG
|||||||| 1£n£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
h#2 b) |
mc6®c8 5+8 h#2 b) |
Gd7®h7 10+13 h#2 4111 6+12
¹a3®d5
+c) |
2nd Honourable mention: 593 – Chris Feather. Complete triple avoidance by the black rook
moves in impeccable economy and good twinning. 1.Kc4 Qh7 2.Rf4 (A) Qc2# [2.Rf3? (B) guard
of mate square / 2.Rf5? (C) interference], b) 1.Kc6 Qh4 2.Rf3 (B) Qc4# [2.Rf5? (C) guard of mate
square / 2.Rf4? (A) interference], c) 1.Kb5 Qh3 2.Rf5 (C) Qb3# [2.Rf4? (A) guard of mate square /
2.Rf3? (B) interference]
3rd Honourable mention: 598 – Ivan Denkovski. This matrix has been used very often, but I
haven’t found these solutions. The choice of the white mating piece is interesting, particularly
because the twinning suggests the other choice. I don’t like the first black moves, though. a)
1.Qxb5 Rxb5 (Qxb5+?) 2.Bxd4 Rb3#, b) 1.gxh3 Bxh3 (Qxh3+?) 2.Rxe4 Bf1#
4th Honourable mention: 597 – Anatoly Styopochkin. Similar things can be said about this
problem’s matrix. While the arrangement of the black king and the white officers is well known, it
seems not to have been combined with 4 white promotions. There are a number of black
cookstoppers, and the solutions aren’t entirely balanced, but this is still an interesting problem.
1.Qxb4 fxe8=Q 2.Kb5 Qxc6#, 1.cxd5 fxe8=R 2.Kc6 Rc8#, 1.Kxb4 h8=Q 2.c5 Qb2#, 1.Kxd5 h8=R
2.Ke5 Rh5#

Zoran Gavrilovski Ioannis Kalkavouras Kostas Prentos

5.hm Mat Plus 2007 6.hm Mat Plus 2007 1.cm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
1£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£J ||||||||
£¤£¬¹¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤»3»¼Y¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¼£ ||||||||
¤£¼£3»¤£ ||||||||
¤¹¤I¤«¤W
||||||||
£¤£¬£n0¤ ||||||||
»ZW¤£¤£1 ||||||||
£¼¹¤£¼£¤
||||||||
¤£3£¼W¼Y ||||||||
HI¤£¤£Z£ ||||||||
¤¹¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤o¤»¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£X£¤m¤ ||||||||
£¤£º£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£X£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤©p£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£X£n£
h#2 b) |
Yc2 4+9 h#2 2111 7+9 h#2 4111 8+9

231
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

5th Honourable mention: 592 – Zoran Gavrilovski. Nice choice of white tempo move in a light
setting. a) 1.Kd2 Rxg3 (Bxg5?) 2.Bd3 Bxe3#, b) 1.Kd3 Bxg5 (Rxg3?) 2.Rd2 Rxe3#
6th Honourable mention: 772 – Ioannis Kalkavouras. Another blend of familiar motifs that
apparently haven’t been realised just like this before. 1.Qd3 Rd4 2.Kxd4 Qc3#, 1.Qf3 Re4+ 2.Kxe4
Qe3#
1st commendation: 839 – Kostas Prentos. Another helpmate of the future, with the added effect
that the first white moves of one pair are equal to the second moves of the other; this effect loses
some of its appeal because in one case, the same piece also executes the second move rather than
staying in place. 1.Qe4 Bc5+ 2.Ke5 d4#, 1.Sd4 Rxe6+ 2.Kc5 Rxc6#, 1.Qxb5 Be3 2.Ke5 Bc5#,
1.Sg3 Re3 2.Kc5 Rxe6#
2nd commendation: 697 – Misha Shapiro. There were times when multipin mates were more
fashionable than nowadays. This is a good problem, which uses the obvious (in hindsight anyway
...) possibility of adding a third pin per mate to P0538425. a) 1.Qf4 Rf1 2.Kf5 Rg5#, b) 1.Rd3 Qd8
2.Kd4 Bb2#
Misha Shapiro Paz Einat Anatoly Styopochkin
2.cm Mat Plus 2007 3.cm Mat Plus 2007 4.cm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£H£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
0¤£¤£p£Z
||||||||
¤£¤£Z£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤o ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤I
||||||||
£¤£¤»¼£¤ ||||||||
£¼m¼£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¼£n£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¼«3I¤£ ||||||||
¤¹3IZ£¤W ||||||||
¼¹¤£¤W¤£
||||||||
£¤oZ«¤Wº ||||||||
£¤£¬£º£¤ ||||||||
»¤2¼£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£p£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤W¤£ ||||||||
¬£¤£XY¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£p£¤ ||||||||
£¤£º£¤£¤
||||||||
¤m¤W¤£¤0 ||||||||
¤Yn£¤£¤0 ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤o
h#2 b) m
|b1®c1 6+11 h#2 b) «
|d4®b4 7+9 h#2 b) »
|b6®c2 6+11
3rd commendation: 695 – Paz Einat. Pinner becomes pinnee, with slightly unbalanced usage of
the half-pin. a) 1.Rb4 Ba3 2.Re4 Rc3#, b) 1.Qc4 Rc3 2.Be1 Be3#
4th commendation: 596 – Anatoly Styopochkin. Several bi-color exchanges of places have been
shown in h#2 recently, and I was astonished not to find an anticipation. Nice ODT with a twinning
that seems odd at first sight, but alternatives are not obvious if the potential cook 2.Sb4 Rc5# is
taken into consideration. a) 1.Sc2 Ra3 2.Se3 d3#, b) 1.Sxb5 Ba3 2.Sd6 Rc5#
P0528805 P0538425
P0535067 Toma Garai P0547392 Ladislav Packa
Zvi Roth 11832 Skakbladet J. Lehnert Emil Klemanic
Al-Hamishmar 1970 06/1989 1.cm Tungsram Ty 1978 4.pl èCSSR–Israel 1992
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤©p«¤GX
|||||||| £¤£¤£pY¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
||||||||
¤£¤£¤0¤£ ||||||||
¤2¤»¼£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤«¼£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¼«¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤W¤£¤ ||||||||
£¼£¼£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤o¤2¤m¤ ||||||||
£¤»¼2J£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤¹¤£¤£¤0 ||||||||
¤£¤W¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£pY¬£X£
||||||||
£¤£¤Y3£ª ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤¹Z£¤£¤ ||||||||
»¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤o¤¹ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤¹¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤»¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤0¤ ||||||||
£¤»¤£¤£¤
||||||||
p£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
H£1£X£¤Y
h#2 2111 4+5 h#2 2111 5+7 h#2 2111 4+7 h#2 b) |
¹f3®h5 5+12
b) Y
|e4®a5
P0535067: a1) 1. Lf6 Sxf3 2. Kf5 Txf6#, a2) 1. Td4 Sg6+ 2. Kf5 Te5#, b1) 1. e1=L Te5 2. Lg3 Sg6#, b2) 1. Th5
Tf6+ 2. Kg5 Sxf3#; P0528805: 1. Lc7 Sxd6+ 2. Sxd6 Da8#, 1. Sc7 Sxe7 2. Lxe7 Db8#; P0547392: 1) 1. Te4
Tc5 2. Te5+ Txc6#, 2) 1. Lg7 Lh7 2. Lf6+ Lxg8#; P0538425: a) 1. Td4 Td1 2. Kd5 Da2#, b) 1. Df5 Tf1 2. Kf6
Tg6#

232
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

Retro/Math 2007
Judge: Wolfgang Dittmann (Germany)
In the year 2007, the retro column of the revived Mat Plus offered a mixture of retro genres. A
total of 17 problems competed, with a high (or even very high) level of quality. Among the
compositions were classical dissolution problems as well as proof games and defensive retractors,
and even some exotic examples. According to recent developments, in which the retro spectrum
has been substantially extended insofar as legality issues are concerned, a number of problems
used fairy conditions. Comparing all these genres, I attached importance to clarity of ideas in
pointed construction. Aesthetics and richness of content were important criteria as well as the
economy of the means used.

1st Prize: No. 657 – Michel Caillaud. So-called anti-castling (a concept introduced by Thomas
Brand) includes (1) castling and (2) complete switchbacks of king and rook to their squares in the
initial game array. All hitherto existent anti-castling proof games shared the feature that no other
original pieces stood on their initial squares between king and rook. The bold idea of positioning
such pieces on the castling rank implies that anti-castling includes
Michel Caillaud
the impressive number of four switchbacks by white pieces (K, R, 1.pr Mat Plus 2007
B & S). It is ludicrous that only the WRh1 can liquidate the BPg7 – ||||||||
£¤o¤£3£¤
a knight would check, however, and the queen has to be sacrificed ||||||||
¼»¼£¼»¤»
early in the proof game and thus cannot afford the moves required ||||||||
£¤£¤»¤£¬
to capture the pawn. It is extremely impressive that it has proved ||||||||
¤£Z£¤£¤£
possible to show the theme without pawn promotion. A splendid ||||||||
£Z«¤¹¤£¤
performance in a breathtakingly short solution. ||||||||
¤£¤£p£¤£
1.e4 Sc6 2.Qg4 Sa5 3.Qe6 d7xe6 4.Ba6 Qd3 5.Sh3 Qxc2 6.0-0 Bd7 ||||||||
¹ºIº£º¹º
7.Re1 Rd8 8.Re3 Bc8 9.Rg3 Rd4 10.Rxg7 Rb4 11.Rg3 Bh6 12.Re3 ||||||||
X©n£1mªW
Kf8 13.Re1 Be3 14.Kf1 Sh6 15.Ke2 Rg8 16.Rh1 Rg5 17.Ke1 Rc5 SPG 18.5 14+15
18.Bf1 Sc4 19.Sg1

2nd Prize: No. 871 – Klaus Wenda. White operates with threats and without any self-check. This
is the technical basis of an innovative and exciting feature in retraction problems: Three times,
clever defensive moves are at Black’s disposal. The first and second moves are enriched with
retro-analytical contents and thus are particularly sophisticated.
Klaus Wenda
2.pr Mat Plus 2007 The white threats are – although short – substantial and surprising
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¬ as well. Overall, some fascinating interplay between attack and
||||||||
¤£¤£n£¤£ defence results, covering all 7 retro moves. The density and
||||||||
¹¤£¤£ºY¤ richness of the motives used, and their interrelationship contribute
||||||||
¤»¤»¤o¤£ to an outstandingly beautiful problem.
||||||||
¹¼£¼£¤£¤ R 1.Rc8-c2! (thr. 2.Re8 & 1.Kb2#) Be4-f5! (Now 2.Re8-c8?? would
||||||||
3»¤£¼o¤£ be illegal, because the self-check could not be released.) 2.Bf8-e7!
||||||||
£¤W¤¹¤£¤ (thr. 3.f5xe6 e.p. e7-e5 4.Re8-c8! & 1.Kb2#, because BPe7 may
||||||||
¤0¤£¤£¤« uncheck) h2-h1=S! (With the promoted BB the 8th BP is on the
–4 & #1 7+12 board, therefore e.p. is not allowed; but now h1 is unblocked.)
Proca without forward 3.f7-f8=B! (thr. 4.Kc1-b1 & 1.Rxh8 [Ra1]#) Bh1-f3 4.Re8-c8
defense
Anticirce (legal) & 1.Kb2#; 3.- Rg8-g6 4.Ka1-b1 & f7xg8=S [Sb1]#

233
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

1st Honourable Mention: No. 873 – Dragan Petrović. The author has longstanding experience
with Circe dissolution problems. He showed the Circe-specific tempo-win using two black pawns
as early as 1982 (see the FIDE-Album 1980–1982, No. 983). In that problem, the WQ and a WS
were part of the manoeuvre, here the actors are first a WS, then a WS and a WR. A new aspect is
the surprising WK walk to h1. After this walk, the Circe tactics of entering rebirth squares in order
to allow uncaptures is used differently from former problems. The idea is not – as in former
examples – to enter a rebirth square several times, but rather to enter different squares
consecutively: h1, g1, c1 & a1. It is far from trivial to comprehend the idea behind the repetition of
manoeuvres. BPd5 has to be moved to a6, before the BPe6 moves to g7, because only then can the
WPa2 be uncaptured, thus activating the Ra3. A thrilling problem, good for tinkerers.
1.g2xPf3 [Pf7]+ (The position is resolved by arrival of the black Dragan Petroviæc
pawn on the g-file) c6xSd5 [Sb1]! (Only this. To return both white 1.hm Mat Plus 2007
knights to d5 and e6, together with getting the white king among ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
the black pawns in search for a tempo-move would lead to retro- ||||||||
¤£¤£¤»¤£
infinity, because the white knights cannot reach b1 or g1.) 2.Se7-d5 ||||||||
£¤£¤»¤£¤
(The knight has to hurry to arrive in front of the pawns and to ||||||||
1¹¤»¤¹¤£
provide tempo moves.) c7-c6 3.Sc6-e7 4.Se5xPc6 [Pc7] c7-c6 ||||||||
mZ¹º2Z¹¤
5.Sc6xPe5 [Pe7] e6-e5 (Here is the possibility for White to move ||||||||
X»HoJ¹º£
the king. The only thing he can do is to get the king to h1 in order
to introduce the white rook into the play.) 6.Ka6-a5 e7-e6 9.Kb7
||||||||
¹¬»¼»¼£¤
e7-e6 10.Se5xPc6 [Pc7] c7-c6 11.Sc6xPe5 [Pe7] e6-e5 ||||||||
¤©¤«p£¤£
12.Se5xPc6 [Pc7] c7-c6 13.Kc6-b7! (This is the fastest way) e7-e6 Last 9 captures 13+16
by black pawns?
14.Kd7xPc6 [Pc7] c7-c6 17.Ke6-d7! c7-c6 18.Kf7xPe6 [Pe7] e7- Circe
e6 35.Kh1 e7-e6 36.Se5xPc6 [Pc7] c7-c6 37.Sc6xPe5 [Pe7] e6-e5
38.Se7xPc6 [Pc7] (The knight is prepared to go to d5.) d7xTe6!
(38.--~f7xTe6? leads to retro-infinity.) 39.Rd6-e6+ c7-c6 40.Rd5xPd6 [Pd7] d7-d6 41.Rc5xPd5
[Pd7] d6-d5 (The rook takes over the pawns and provides tempo moves.What now? It is easy to
establish that, because of the unfortunate position of the black king, the white resources are not
sufficient to transfer the Pd7 to the g-file. Therefore it is necessary to proceed westward to set the
Pa2 free from the cage and to activate another white rook.) 42.Kh2-h1 (The king exits, because
now he is only an obstacle.) 48.Kg5 c7-c6 49.Rc5xPd5 [Pd7] d6-d5 50.Rd5xPc5 [Pc7] d7-d6
51.Rd8xPd5 [Pd7] (The rook goes to h1 with the aim of transporting the pawn to the b-file.) d6-d5
52.Rh8-d8 c6-c5 53.Rh1-h8 b7xRc6 [Rh1] 54.Sd5-e7 d7-d6 (Now the white knight resumes the
job, while the white rook goes to g1 to enable the pawn to be transported to the a-file.)
55.Sb6xPd5 [Pd7] d6-d5 56.Sd5xPb6 [Pb7] d7-d6 57.Rh6-c6 b7-b6 58.Sb6xPd5 [Pd7] d6-d5
59.Rh1-h6 d7-d6 60.Sd5xPb6 [Pb7] b7-b6 61.Sb6xPd5 [Pd7] d6-d5 62.Sd5xPb6 [Pb7] d7-d6
63.Sc7xPd5 [Pd7] d6-d5 64.Rg1-h1 a7xSb6 65.Sa6-c7 d7-d6 66.Sb8xPa6 [Pa7] b7xPa6 [Pa2] (At
last! Now the rook and the bishop can enter the play. From now on it is simple, although the
captures by black pawns are determined since they must go by way of b6 and f6.) 67.Sd5xPb6
[Pb7] b7-b6 68.Sb6xPd5 [Pd7] d6-d5 69.Ra1-a3 (The rook goes to c1 to let the white bishop out
first, while the rook itself will serve for the final transfer of the black pawn from the f- to the g-
file.) 72.Rc1 d7 73.Sd5xPb6 b7 74.Sb6xPd5 d6 75.Sd5xPb6 d7 76.Sc7xPd5 d6 77.Rh1 exBd6
78.Be5 b7 79.Bf6xPe5 e6 80.Ra1 fxRe6 81.Be5xPf6+ gxRf6+ etc.
2nd Honourable Mention: No. 659 – René J. Millour.
Question: What is in Monochrome Alice Chess the total number of legal positions having at
most 3 pieces?
The combination of Alice Chess (using two boards; a moving piece changes onto the other
board) and Monochromatic Chess is highly original. At first sight, it is implausible that
substantial difficulties may occur placing three pieces legally on the board. But in many of these
positions complications arise in capture balance, tricks emerge using en passant captures, and

234
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

retro-stalemate traps have to be avoided. Such a degree of retroanalytical thought in a seemingly

(chess-)mathematical problem is remarkable, in particular if a bishop is placed in a corner, or if a
promoted knight is placed on the board. Using Q, R & P is less difficult. The retro contents might
thus have been made more clear if the thematic question had simply been posed so as to relate only
to the material combinations KKB and KKS. The effort of counting could thus have been reduced
(the solution includes more than three million legal positions). Those who seek the
retroanalytically interesting positions in the (clearly laid out) solution, will enjoy the surprises.
3789312 legal positions! For details, see Mat Plus (27), Autumn 2007, pp. 71-72.
Author’s solution: In Monochrome, the WK is a black-square piece, the BK a white-square one. With only
WK+BK, there are (2×32) × (2×32) = 4096 legal positions, each K having 2 possible states on 32 squares.
When a 3rd piece is present, the number of its locations is to be multiplied by (2×31) × (2×32)=3968, because
if it is on a black square the WK has 2 possible states on 31 squares, the BK 2 states on 32 squares, and if it is
on a white square the WK has 32 and the BK 31 squares. The different possible 3rd pieces are arbitrarily black
in what follows.
The Q being original or promoted, all the WK+BK+BQ positions are legal and their number is 2×64×3968,
which means: 2 states of the Q on 64 squares, combined with 3968 locations of the Ks. Thus
2×64×3968=507904.
All the WK+BK+BR positions are also legal. Again 2×64×3968 = 507904.
If we compare WK+BK+BP to the previous cases, from the number obtained with Q or R, we must subtract
2×16×3968 as the P is illegal, in A and B states, on the 16 squares of the 1st and 8th ranks. On the 8 squares
of the 7th rank, only the A state is valid, and only the B one on the 8 squares of the 6th rank, therefore
1×16×3968 is to be taken away. If the P is A on a7, the WK, A or B, is illegal on b6 (he could never move on
b6 guarded by the P), forcing the subtraction of (1×1) × (2×1) × (2×32), which means: only 1 state of the P
on 1 square, combined with 2 states of the WK on 1 square and 2 states of the BK on 32 squares. Similarly, if
the P is on c7, e7 or g7, the WK is illegal on the 3 couples of squares b6-d6, d6-f6 and f6-h6, thus (1×3) ×
(2×2) × (2×32) is taken away. If Pg7, the WK could not reach h8, and with Pc7 he could not access a7-b8, so
(1×1) × (2×1) × (2×32) and (1×1) × (2×2) × (2×32) less. And also (1×1) × (2×1) × (2×32) because, with
Pb7, the WK has 32 squares, but the BK, A or B, is illegal on a8.
The number of legal positions is here (2×64×3968) – (2×16×3968) – (1×16×3968) – [(1×1) × (2×1) ×
(2×32)] – [(1×3) × (2×2) × (2×32)] – [(1×1) × (2×1) × (2×32)] – [(1×1) × (2×2) × (2×32)] – [(1×1) ×
(2×1) × (2×32)] = 316032.
What about WK+BK+BB? Like a Q or a R, theoretically a B may appear, A or B, on 64 squares. Let us take a
close look! The B is A on a1 or h8, the WK also A somewhere on a1/h8. In Monochrome the check from a1
would be legal (b2xa1=B+, except if WK on b2), but not the one from h8. In Monochrome Alice, both are legal
because Black may retract BxXa1--A or BxXh8--A without retro-check as the B is now in B state. At this stage,
the WK is retro-paralyzed (a retro-move would mean that, in the forward play, the K would have placed
himself in check in B state before turning to A), but White has retro-moves thanks to the restored piece X! Both
checks are also legal if both, the B and the K, are in B state.
Now the B is A on a1 and the WK is B on a1/h8. The WK is retro-paralyzed, and also the B because of retro-
check. Moreover, b2xa1=B--A cannot be retracted. This B in A state implies, in Alice, a 6-move excelsior,
which in Monochrome must be 6 captures, which may include an e.p. capture. In the case of
a7xBb6xRc5xPd4xP[e.p.]c3xPb2xYa1=B, the WP captured in A state on d4 would itself have captured
d/f2xBc/e3xRd4 and the piece Y captured at a1 would be a promoted P resulting from f/d2-
f/d4xPe5xQd6x??c7xSb8=Y. Now, this last sequence is impossible: a capturee is lacking for d6 or c7, the
unmatched states of the Pawns making impossible, in a 5-move excelsior, both an e.p. capture (here of the
BPd) and the capture of a P at home (here of the BPc). Is it really possible to break the Ba1-WK paralysis?
Perhaps by interposing a piece between the B and the K, but how? There is no other black-square piece on the
board and the BK can only uncapture white-square pieces! An exception saves the day: a white-square BP
captured e.p. the black-square WPb! The paralysis is thus broken by restoring the Pb2, which is legal because,
in Alice forward play, the B could have crossed over, in B state, the Pb2 before turning to A on a1. The BK
uncaptures a figure, which uncaptures a BP on b3, which uncaptures e.p. the WPb, which is restored on b2,
which allows the WK to retro-move out of a1/h8 and then the B is free! If the B is on h8, the BK uncaptures a
white figure, which uncaptures a black figure, which uncaptures a WP on g6, which uncaptures e.p. the BPg,

235
Winter 2008 Mat Plus Review

which is restored on g7, etc. But mind, with Ba1 it doesn’t work if the WK is on b2, thus (1×1) × (1×1) ×
(2×32) illegal positions. With Bh8, WKg7 is wrong, and also WKf6 as f6 has always been guarded by the
restored Pg7, thus (1×1) × (1×2) × (2×32) less.
If the B is B on a1 and the WK A on a1/h8, once more both pieces are retro-paralyzed. Here restoring Pb2 is
illegal, the B could not reach a1. But the position is indeed legal, the last move b2xa1=B--B being now valid:
excelsior in only 5 moves including 4 captures [for example e7-e5xPd4xBc3x(promoted P!)b2xRa1=B], except
with WK on b2, thus (1×1) × (1×1) × (2×32) to be taken away. If the B is B on h8 and the WK A on the 7 free
squares of a1/h8, there is nothing to do, the B-K paralysis cannot be broken, that means (1×1) × (1×7) ×
(2×32) less.
The number of legal positions is here (2×64×3968) – [(1×1) × (1×1) × (2×32)] – [(1×1) × (1×2) × (2×32)]
– [(1×1) × (1×1) × (2×32)] – [(1×1) × (1×7) × (2×32)] = 507200.
What happens in case of WK+BK+BS? Not able to move in Monochrome, the S is illegal on the 48 squares of
the ranks 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and also on 6 squares of the 8th rank. That means 2×54×3968 must be subtracted
to the number obtained with a Q or a R. On b8 and g8, the S cannot appear in B state, thus 1×2×3968 less. On
a white or black square, the S is legal if B on the 1st rank: excelsior in 5 moves. Also legal if A on b1, d1, f1 or
h1: an excelsior in 6 moves including 6 captures is possible on white squares [for example
d7xBe6xRd5xPe4xP[e.p.]d3xPe2xQf1=S, the P taken on e4 having made c/g2xBd/f3xRe4]. But illegal if A on
a1, c1, e1 or g1: an excelsior in 6 moves on black squares doesn’t work as already shown (see b2xa1=B--A
above), illegal even in case of promotion on g1 because WSg cannot be taken in such an excelsior as the P
would capture a B-state piece on g1, whereas the WS, for having never moved, would be necessarily A! Thus
1x4x3968 to be taken away.
Do you think all the subtractions have been considered now? Not at all! In Monochrome Alice, 0-0-0 is
forbidden and a K appearing in A state on the a-c-e-g files, or in B state on the b-d-f-h files, cannot have
played 0-0. On the other hand, a K appearing B on the a-c-e-g files, or A on the b-d-f-h files, must have
castled. Let us say the S is A on g8, theoretically in a legal position as mentioned above, but mind please! The
BK is B on a white square of a-c-e-g, or A on a white square of b-d-f-h. In the 31 corresponding locations of
the K, Black played 0-0. How could that be, Sg8 never moved!! Having castled or not, the WK may appear A
or B on 32 black squares. So, there are 31× (2×32) “WK+BK+BS” illegal positions due to this black 0-0 at
once mandatory and impossible!
Here we have (2×64×3968) – (2×54×3968) – (1×2×3968) – (1×4×3968) – [31× (2×32)] = 53568.
A white 3rd piece is possible as well. If “3 pieces”, and in this case only, a multiplication by 2 is highly
recommended! Finally, the result is 4096 + 2× [507904 + 507904 + 316032 + 507200 + 53568]. In other
words:
3789312 legal positions!
Probably more retro than mathematical, this problem forces to examine all the specific cases of Monochrome
Alice and, with its promotions, e.p. captures and castlings, it achieves in an original manner the Valladao
theme!

Gûunther Weeth 1st Commendation: No. 652 – Günther Weeth & Klaus Wenda.
Klaus Wenda An artfully composed problem with rich variations. After the
1.cm Mat Plus 2007 unpinning key – without self-check! – the threat and four variants
||||||||
£¤£¤m¤£¤ add up to a total of five lines, each of which makes full use of
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ Anticirce effects. They are nicely linked, because five (out of a
||||||||
W¤£¤£¤£¤ possible six) different kinds of pieces finally mate (without
||||||||
¤£¼£¤£¤£ necessarily moving themselves).
||||||||
«¼0ª£¤£¤
||||||||
3£º£¤£¼£ R 1.Sd3-c1! (thr. 2.Bc1-d2 & 1.Bxb2[Bc1]#)
||||||||
¹¼¹nY¤¹¤ 1.- Re1-e2 2.Kb3-c4 & 1.Bxe1 [Bc1]#
||||||||
¤£ª£¤oJ£ 1.- f2-f1=B 2.Ra8-a6 & 1.Bxa4 [Bf1]#
–2 & #1 10+9 1.- b3-b2 2.Sc1-d3 & 1.axb3 [Pb2])#
Proca
Anticirce 1.- Qe3-g1 2.Sf2-e3 & 1.Sb5#

236
Mat Plus Review Winter 2008

2nd Commendation: No. 874 – Gianni Donati & Thomas Volet. In a position which seems easy
to dissolve a black knight has first to be uncaptured and then to serve three times as a shield
against checks on the first rank (shielding the black king at g1, e1 & g1). A dissolution retro with a
pleasant theme and good retro-effects in an elegant rendering.
WK to e3, e7xBf6, B to c1, b2xSc3 (= the leading actor) S to g1, R to d1, K to f1, S to e1, WK any,
BK to f2, S any, R to h1, S to g1, BK any, c2xBd3, B to c8, d7xe6 etc.

Gianni Donati
Thomas Volet Dmitrij Baibikov Klaus Wenda
2.cm Mat Plus 2007 3.cm Mat Plus 2007 4.cm Mat Plus 2007
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤0ª ||||||||
WnWJmp£¤ ||||||||
£pW¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤»¤£¤¹¼W ||||||||
¬GZ£¤»¼£ ||||||||
¼£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤»¤»¼ ||||||||
£¤»1£¼£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤»¤£ ||||||||
¤2¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤»¤Y
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
oº»¼£¤»¤ ||||||||
«¤mX»¤£¤
||||||||
¤£º¹¤¹¤£ ||||||||
¤¹¤¹¤£º£ ||||||||
3£J»¤»¤£
||||||||
£¤»º¹X¹º ||||||||
£¤£º£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤oZ£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤2 ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£1£¤£
12+8 11+13 –8 & #1 4+12
Release the position Add men, then: #1 Proca without forward
defense
Anticirce

3rd Commendation: No. 651 – Dmitrij Baibikov. The basic idea of the problem is to dissolve
the position which results after three pieces have been added. This resolution comprises an
impressive exact retro-play of 25 plies, including two retro replacements, two unpromotions and
black and white retrostalemate avoidance. The other elements are less important; there are no
piece-adding tries. The stipulation has to include the question “Who?”, because otherwise there
would be no solution.
+WSd7, WSe7, BSb6. Then: 1.Qxb6#? 1.- Bxe7#!
R 1.e2xRd3 Re3-d3 2.Sg6-e7 Re7-e3+ 3.Sh8-g6 g5-g4 4.h7-h8=S g6-g5 5.h6-h7 h7xSg6 6.Se5-g6
c5-c4 7.Sc4-e5 Sd5-b6 8.Sb6-c4+ Se3-d5 9.h5-h6 Sc2-e3 10.h4-h5 Sa1-c2 11.h3-h4 a2-a1=S
12.h2-h3 a3-a2 13.a2xSb3 etc.

4th Commendation: No. 653 – Klaus Wenda. A clever idea: The mating unit is a white pawn,
which is “born” by unpromotion, and which finally captures a black pawn, which in turn has first
to be uncaptured. Thus none of the actors involved in the mating move are visible in the diagram.
The means for bringing them to life (including a tempo manoeuvre) are already present, but the
mate itself is deeply hidden.
R 1.Kh3xBg4 Rg5-h5+ 2.c7-c8=R Bh5-g4+ 3.Kg3-h3 Bg4-h5+ 4.c6-c7 e5-e4+ 5.Kf2-g3 Rd1-d2+
6.Ke1-f2 Rd2-d1+ 7.Kc5xPb6 b7-b6+ 8.Rd8-d4 - 1.cxb7 [Pb2]#

237
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

AWARDS IN INFORMAL TOURNEYS OF MAT PLUS

MOREMOVERS 2007
Judge: Hans Peter Rehm, Germany
To say it frankly: this year the quality of the moremove originals Borislav Stojanoviæc
cm Mat Plus 2007 (577)
published MATPLUS is much inferior than that in all other £¤£¤£¤m¤
||||||||
sections. Problems with some (perhaps nice) variations without ¤»¤£¤£H£
||||||||
specific theme (or even an outdated theme without tries) would not £Z¹º£¤£1
||||||||
be accepted for the 2# section but they form the majority of the p»¤£¼£¼»
||||||||
moremovers. Not a single moremover (apart from the excluded «º£3»¤£¤
||||||||
751) had the ambition to show a modern or complex theme or an º£Z£¼£¤»
||||||||
£¤¹¤¹¤£¤
||||||||
original collection of models. ¤£¤©¤£¤£
||||||||
I have to exclude the best entry, namely 751, because the author #8 10+13

had published it already in Sadachi y etudi, April 2007, where it got Borislav Stojanoviæc
2nd hon.mention. The nice miniature 576 is anticipated by Fritz cm Mat Plus 2007 (676)
Köhnlein, Müncherer Neueste Nachrichten 1914. 578 does not £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
make it into the award because the mechanism and theme are well ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
known from the WCCT and the finale with capture of the essential £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¼»p»º£¤£
||||||||
defender is brutal. The position is ugly with too many pawns. £3£n£¤G¤
||||||||
So this year there are no prizes nor honourable mentions. ¤£¤¹¤£¤£
||||||||
£ª»¤£¤£¤
||||||||
Commended without graduation: ¤£ª£¤0¤£
||||||||
#5 7+6
No.577 – Borislav Stojanović (Serbia). Pleasant manoeuvring of
the wQ to get the black RR in a position blocking Sa4. There is a Leonid Makaronez
multiple in the second variation: 1...Rc5 .... 6.Bxd5+ Kc5 then Leonid Lyubashevsky
6.Be4,Be6, Bf7, and Bxb7. Without this multiple an hon. mention cm Mat Plus 2007 (754)
would have been possible. (I would even prefer not to have this o¤£¤£¬£¤
||||||||
¤£¤©¤G¤£
||||||||
variation or a short variation after 1...Rc5). £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
No.676 – Borislav Stojanović (Serbia). Little strategy but 2 ¤»¼£º¹¼Y
||||||||
sacrifices leading to an unexpected nice zugzwang position where 2 £¤£¤£¤2¤
||||||||
selfblocks of the bK are forced. ¤£¤»º£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£1©¤
||||||||
No.754 – Leonid Makaronez and Leonid Lubashewsky (Israel). ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
Clear logic and good construction but simple and not very original. #7 7+8

Solutions:
577: 1.Kxg5 Rc6 2.Kf5 R6xc5 3.Qb7 Rc6 4.Qe7 R3c5 (4... R6c5? 4.Qh4) 5.Qg5 Rc3 6.Qg3 R6c5
7.Qh4 ~ 8.Qxe4#; 1... Rc5 2.Kf5 Sc3 3.bxc5 Kxc5 4.Qxe5+ Kxc6 5.Bf7! Sd5 6.Bxd5+ Kc5
7.Be6 Ke6 8.Qc5#; 1.Kg6? Rxc6 2.Kf5 Rc5 3.Qxb7 Rc6 4.Qe7 R6c5! 5.Qh4?? .
676: 1.Qg1! ~ 2.Bxc5+ Kc3 3.Qd4+ or 2.Qf2 ~,Ka3,Bxd4 3.Qe1+,Qxc2,Qxd4+; 1... Ka3 2.Bxc5+
Kxb2 3.Ba3+, 3... Kxa3 4.Qd4 a4,b4 5.Qc3,Qa1#, 3... Kc3 4.Ke2 ~,d4 5.Qc5,Qe1#, 3...
Kb1/Ka1 4.Qd4 ~ 5.Qb2#; 1... a4 2.Bxc5+ Ka5 3.Qg6 Kc3 3.Qd4+ Kd2 4.Qf4+ Kc3 5.Qb4#
754: 1.Sf6+Kxf5 2.Sd7+Kg4 3.e4 Bxe4 4.Sf6+Kf5 5.Sd5+Kxe5 6.Qf6+Kd5 7.Se3#, 5... Kg4
6.Sde3+ Kh3 8.Qxh5#

35
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

FAIRIES 2007
by Petko Petkov, Bulgaria

INTRODUCTION
I am very glad to make the award for this tournament because it seemed very strong,
interesting and highly varied. Obviously MAT PLUS is a new great arena of fairy chess and
I greet its editor Milan Velimirović – one of the most talented, active and ingenious persons
in the world of chess composition and also a famous upholder and creator of the Serbian
traditions in this art. I say “Serbian traditions”: they also exist in fairy composition, because
the great Nenad Petrović was one of the best known authors and theoreticians in this
direction and his phenomenal magazine “Problem” was, in the hard times of the so-called
“cold war”, a free, democratic site for fairy publications of every kind. Today Milan and his
team have the splendid ambition to prolong the “Problem” legend.
I greet also the fairy-editor Eric Huber who is one of the best known and competent experts
in the world in this sphere. Huber’s contribution to the raising of this column on a
worldwide level is obvious in attracting very strong composers who demonstrate
remarkable mastery and originality.
For me it was very interesting to read in every number of the magazine the comments
of another fairy expert: Juraj Lörinc, who shows amazing competence, accuracy and
exhaustiveness in the analyses of the published originals.
Of course it was very difficult, even impossible for me to award in only one section 102 (!)
originals, among which I have seen dozens of very good problems. Hence I have decided to
make an additional differentiation of these works in three sub–sections:
I. Problems with so called direct play (#n, s#, r#, etc) – 27 originals;
II. Problems with help-play (h#, h=, ser.h#, ser. h= etc) – 53 originals;
III. Problems with help-self play – “HSP” (HS#, HS=, etc) – 22 problems.
I recommend this differentiation for every important fairy-tourney with a big number of
originals and fully understand that it means to favour the nowadays hypermodern fairy
HelpSelfProblems. But I am convinced that this genre really deserves a special attention
and it is presently one of the most remarkable phenomena in the modern development of
composition.
ABOUT THE JUDGE’S CRITERIA
First of all, I should say that as a judge I have wished in every case to understand the
author’s goals, means and expressions. In principle, every work deserves interest because
every opus is created with the best emotions and purposes. Every composer deserves
respect and commendation for his work. We, in our role of judges, commentators, etc.
should not forget that every author lives on his planet, with its own orbit and secrets which
other colleagues do not know so well.
But what should the judge do to achieve the expected so-called “objective" award? There
are no fully “objective" awards of course, because the judge puts into practice the so-called
“general criteria” conformable to subjective eyesight and to his subjective manner.
In this direction I wish to inform about my personal views.

36
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

1. The most important criteria of evaluation of a composition are the original and rich
contents and the perfect form in their indivisible unity. It is a very old main principle, in
other words even a “charm” which is valid in every art - and our little composition cannot
be a exception. If we speak in more concrete terms, for Chess Composition, good or even
great contents in a bad technical form – or created with many essential thematic (or other
obviously unpleasant) compromises – cannot be a composition of full value and such an
opus does not deserve a high prize, because Chess composition is not a sport-arena.
Therefore the masterpiece in chess composition, which we perceive as a “task”, is a unique
goal and a high ideal very hard to achieve and cannot be a daily phenomenon or a “work for
every author”. Nowadays, many composers create their own “task-problems” of the type
“Task at any cost” – with a lot of big aesthetic and technical compromises. Such a
“production” cannot excite one’s admiration and this creative primitivism is a great threat
to Chess composition.
These criteria are of course valid for all other problems which are not tasks, but which we
perceive as considerable creative achievements in composition.
2. But it is obvious that it is not always possible to reach our ideal, and this is a law with
great philosophical and practical importance in all spheres of human life. A virtuoso pianist
can also make a mistake in his gala–concert, well-known poets and writers repeatedly
changed their own artistic work in search for the perfect form. Therefore in Chess
composition it is also very difficult to reach full harmony and unfortunately very often this
goal is unattainable.
In such cases therefore the judge should estimate to what extent a composition is OK
according to the minimal, acceptable aesthetic weaknesses which are a necessary evil. I say
“minimal weakness” because if the weakness is essential, it does not matter whether it is
possible to eliminate it or not.
Because every person can permit an error, I think that it is not a tragedy if a composer
publishes later a new, better version of one good problem which unfortunately is not perfect
in its primary version. Why do I speak about this? My reason is that as the judge of this
tournament, during my analytical work about each problem, I have found more successful
versions of some originals. But as the judge I do not have the right to publish these new
positions and thus to show my “superiority” over my colleagues, which in their own
practice as arbiters have also some possibilities. I only want to note that in all cases when in
this award I speak about original versions that are not absolutely good, there is an actual
margin for improvement. This phenomenon is normal in our days when the computer is a
terrible weapon in the judge’s hands!
3. In Fairy Chess especially, there is a modern trend to combine two, three and more fairy-
conditions in one problem. Is this acceptable or not? In my opinion it is not so easy to
answer this special question with great practical importance. If we use “n” conditions, an
ideal can be to give an equivalent role to each of them. But we know that it is also an ideal
which is not achievable in practice. Such a “perfection” can be reached, for example, in
music, if in one concert we wish to hear an equivalent sound of all music themes or all
musical instruments. But it is really a foolish claim.
Concretely, as regards Fairy Chess, my advice is to use such “multi-complexes” of fairy
condition only in those cases when it is impossible to realize the author’s theme in another
way. Therefore in a modern Fairy Composition a classic principle is the economy of

37
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

material, but in combination with the other main principle, which is the “Economy of fairy
conditions and fairy–kind of pieces”. If a composer uses many fairy conditions (among
which there are very difficult, unpopular conditions), he should know that his audience is
extremely limited or even non-existent. The question is, in this case, who does the author’s
brain work for? Therefore another ideal in this matter is: every synthesis of fairy conditions
should be nice and accessible and, first of all, realized in economical form, in miniature or
Meredith if it is possible.
The problems with 4-5 pieces or miniatures deserve a closer attention because many fans of
composition are able to understand and to solve such problems directly from the diagram,
without a chess board. This is a very important factor and one that has also a psychological
value! Besides, it is obvious that humanity loves not only monumental masterpieces but
also sunny miniatures like Beethoven’s “For Elise” which can be heard in the world every
day – even from millions of mobile phones!
4. Model mates are not a main aesthetic criteria for me because “model mates” cannot be
the main theme nowadays and in many positions it cannot be a main criteria for the
economy of material. Such finales have some aesthetic value but this little plus is not an
independent argument for high prizes.
I apologize if my criteria are unacceptable to readers and fairy-authors of MAT PLUS.

GROUP I – DIRECT PROBLEMS

There are here 27 problems of very good quality and with a strong accent on the modern
themes well known from the orthodox genre. This is a very widespread phenomenon in our
times, and this rather mechanical transfering of themes & mechanisms from one genre to
another is a serious threat to the normal evolution of Fairy Composition.
Participants: Nos. 615-619, 646, 650, 708-714, 780-784, 790, 853-858, 870.
The following problems were not included in the award for the following reasons:
No.616 (Shifrin) – in such cycles, the repetition of moves like 1…CAf3 2.Qe2# (B) after
the try 1.Qg2? and in the solution after 1.Gc6! is undesirable;
No.619 (Styopochkin) – 2.Rc3 follows three black defences – it is bad in this scheme.
No.646 (Ylijoki). There are a lot of good problems with neutral AUW in PWC, for
example: Erich Bartel, “Phenix”, 1991 2 Commendation: White: Kh7(1); Black: Kb7(1);
Neutral: Qd6, Pc7,Pd7 (3) – H#2, PWC, 2 solutions: I. 1.nQd4! c8=nB+ 2.Kc6 dxc8=nQ
(nBd7)#; II. 1.Ka8 d8=nS 2.nQb6 cxd8=nR(nSc7)#.
Neutral Super AUW is also known from some problems, for example: P.A.Petkov,
“Feenschach” 1994: White: Kg2, Pb4, Pe3 (3); Black: Kd5, Pb5, Pd2, Pe4 (4); Neutral:
Camel – a1, Nightrider – c2, Pb2, Pd7, Pe7 (5); H#2 PWC b) Kd5 – c4; a) 1.b1=nQ d8=nS
2.nQxa1(nCHb1) exd8=nR(nSe7)#; b) 1.b1=nB e8=nCH 2.nBxc2(nNb1) dxe8=nN
(nCHd7)#
In this aspect, No.646 which shows the AUW in the very limited “one-side” stipulation
Sd#n seems too thin for a distinction.
In No.708 (Reddmann) and No.709 (Kotesovec) there are promotion duals which are main
elements in the contents.
Some other originals were eliminated because of inadequate quality.

38
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

Vasylj Dyatchuk Peter Harris

Annatolij Vasylenko Kevin Begley Guy Sobrecases Eric Huber
1.pr Mat Plus 2007 2.pr Mat Plus 2007 3.pr Mat Plus 2007 4.pr Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤©x£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| 2¤£¤£¤£Z
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£h£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¼£¤0¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£XG
|||||||| ¤£1£¤£¤£
||||||||
¹¬Q¤£¤£X
|||||||| £¤¹¤W¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¼2¤»R©
|||||||| ¤mº2¤£¼£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤Q¤£¤£X
|||||||| W¤£¤£º¹¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£h£¤m
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| o¤£¼£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£J£¤£¤
||||||||
H£1£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£Zon£
|||||||| X£¤£¤£¤0
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤2
||||||||
#2*ÄÄ 8+10 #2*Ä 9+5 s#15 4+4 #6 b) |
Id2®h3 1+2
Anticirce type Cheylan Parrain Circe ParrainCirce Black Maximal
U = Grasshopper
| Andernach
§ = Bishopper
| Anti-Andernach
k = Rookhopper
| Sentinelles pion adverse

1st Prize: No.710 – Vasyl Dyachuk & Anatoly Vasilenko (Ukraine). I’m not a devout
admirer of the so called “alphabetical themes” but I esteem good, perfect compositions of
this type and I always decorate them with high prizes. My arguments in such cases are: an
alphabetic combination deserves attention if combined with some other good thematic
motives and if realised in a precise form. I can see all these components in No.710 which
demonstrates an excellent combination of complete Shedey cycle, changed mates and
Ruchlis theme. Of course here the fairy condition works brilliantly – another very important
criterion!
*1…Gd8 c / Gd2 d 2.Qe5# A, 1…RHe2 2.Rd6# D; 1.Bxf5(Bf1)? ~ 2.Qe5# A, 1…Ge6 a 2.Shf6# B, 1…Ge4 b
2.Sf4# C, 1…Sd7 2.Qd4#, 1…RHxe8(RHe1)!; 1.Re4? (2.Shf6# B), 1…Ge6 a 2.Sf4# C, 1…Gxe4(Ge1) b 2.Qe5#
A, 1…Gd8 c 2.R4e5#, 1…Sd7 2.Qd4#; 1…RHe5/Ge5 2.Qxe5(Qd1)#, 1…Gf4!; 1.Re6! (2.Sf4# C), 1…
Gxe6(Ge1)a 2.Qe5# A, 1… Ge4 b 2.Shf6# B, 1… Gd2 d 2.R6e5#, 1… RHe5 2.Rd6# D, 1… Gf6 2.Bg2#, 1… f4
2.R6e5#, 1… Ge5 2.Qxe5(Qd1)#

2nd Prize: No.854 – Kevin Begley (USA). Here we can notice the surprising and very
original three-phase changed play, excellently motivated by the fairy condition, in the
following system of variations: Set-play: 1…Re2(a) 2.Bc4#(A), 1…Be2(b) 2.Re5#(B) with
“Grimshaw” on “e2”.; 1.Re2? (zz) – 1…Rxe2(a) 2.Bf2(Rd3)# – C, 1…Bxe2(b)
2.Ra7(Re5)# – D, 1…B~ 2.Rd2#, 1…R~ 2.Re5#, but 1…gxf4!; solution: 1.Be2! (zz) –
1…Rxe2(a) 2. Be3(Bc4)# – E, 1…Bxe2(b) 2.Re8(Be4)# – F, 1…R~ 2.Bf3#, 1…B~
2.Bc4#, 1…gxf4 2.Ke7(Pe4)#.
In the second and third phase it is nice that the black Correction is combined with a
Novotny on e2. There are in the initial setting some “parasitic” black defences. For
example: 2.Bc4# follows not only 1…Re2 but also 1…Bg2(Bh3); 2.Re5# follows not only
1…Be2 but also 1…Ra1(Rb1,Rc1,Rd1). There are no answers to the black powerful
defences 1…Rxe6 and 1…Bxb5, etc. But we know from the modern orthodox twomover
that in such cases the relevant moves are those which we accept as thematic defences –
1…Re2 and 1…Be2.

3rd Prize: No.784 – Guy Sobrecases (France). Attractive long selfmate with surprising
Royal march to f3 and pleasant mate with double check. As regards Parrain Circe, the
cooperative play of the strong white trio Q/R/R seems very original. A good point is that all
the pieces that stand in corners in the initial position depart from these fields during play. I
cannot say that we have here the Zabunov theme because the question about battery
creation & play in Parrain Circe does not seem theoretically clear to me.

39
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

1.Rxa2+! Kb8(Bb2) 2.Rg8+ Rxg8 3.Qb7(Ra8)+ Kxb7 4.Rc8(Qd7)+ Kb6 5.Qa7+ Kb5 6.Rc5+ Kb4 7.Qa4+ Kxc5
8.Kh2(Rc6)+ Kd5 9.Qe4+ Kxe4 10.Rd6(Qf4)+ Kxf4 11.Ra4(Qf6)+ Ke3 12.Re4+ Kxe4 13.Kh3(Re5)+ Bxe5
14.Qf3(Re2)+ Kxf3 15.Rxe5(Qf6)+ Rh8(Bf5)#
4th Prize: No.712 – Peter Harris (South Africa) and Eric Huber (Romania). A unique
“three-men” during the play of which two fine white batteries P/R and P/B are created after
minor-promotions! Here in the company of four fairy conditions we see also a strange (but
only at first sight!) synthesis of Andernach and Anti-Andernach which we can call Super-
Andernach. Its definition is: a piece (except Kings) changes its colour after every move
(capturing as in Andernach or not capturing as in Anti Andernach).
This condition, very actively exploited by Harris, is interesting because is not so easy to
give mate. Unfortunately in No.712 the threat only has a formal character because such a
variation is impossible as an answer to the one and only black defence 1…Qd8=wQ.
a) 1.Kc6[+bPc7]! threatens 2.Kc5[+bPc6] Qd8=wQ[+wPd2] 3.Qxc7=bQ Qg3=wQ[+wPc7] 4.c8=bQ Qg4=wQ
5.Qg4-h3=bQ[+bPg4] Qh8=wQ[+wPh3] 6.hxg4=bP#; 1...Qd8=wQ[+wPd2] 2.Qc8=bQ Qg4=wQ 3.Qh3=bQ
[+bPg4] Qa3=wQ[+wPh3] 4.Qa7=bQ[+bPa3] Qf2=wQ [+wPa7] 5.a8=bR Rh8=wR 6.hxg4=bP#
b) 1.Kd8[+bPc7]! Qc8=wQ [+wPh3] 2.Ke8 c5 3.Qc7=bQ Qg3=wQ[+wPc7] 4.c8=bB Bxh3=wB
5.Bg2=bB[+bPh3] Ba8=wB[+wPg2] 6.gxh3=bP#
Ladislav Packa
Juraj Lûorinc Tadashi Wakashima Paul Rööaican Paz Einat
5.pr Mat Plus 2007 6.pr Mat Plus 2007 sp.pr Mat Plus 2007 1.hm Mat Plus 2007
£¤W´£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£L£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤Y¤£¤
|||||||| £n£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
||||||||
´£¼£¤Yº£ ||||||||
¤£¤¹¼o¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤¹¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤»¼£Z£
||||||||
£¤0p£¤m¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£3£¤ ||||||||
£ª£Z»º£¤
||||||||
¤¹¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£1£¼£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¼£3£¤£
||||||||
±¤±¤¹¤G¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¼m3 ||||||||
£¤£1£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¼o¤¹¤¹¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤» ||||||||
¤£¤£¤G¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£º£¤»¼£
||||||||
£¤£¤©3£¤ ||||||||
£N£¤M¤£Z ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
«¤£¤£º£n
||||||||
¤£X£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤© ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤0¤£ª«
#2* 11+7 #2 6+8 a) #7 2+2 2# 10+13
Anticirce type Calvet Anticirce b) |
0d4®b5, s#7 AnnanChess
±|
| ³ = Nightrider M = Lion
K|
| Maximummer
Kûoko, PWC

5th Prize: No.711 – Ladislav Packa & Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia). Very interesting idea!
After captures on f4 there is no Novotny but a good, motivated and AntiCirce-specific
annihilation, with opening of two black lines and one white line. In a Novotny, you need at
least one interference of a piece by another piece of the same colour on the capture square.
The brilliant set-variation 1…Kxe2(Ke8) 2.Qe6#!! gives a still more modern accent to this
composition.
In my opinion the variation 1…Nd8~ is not a very suitable companion for this complex.
Furthermore, it is probably possible to eliminate the technical Na7 in a new version?
*1... Rf4 a 2.Qg2# A, Qg3# B, 1... Bf4 b 2.Qf3# C, Qg2# A, 1... Sf4 c 2.Qg3# B, Qf3# C, 1... Kxe2(Ke8) 2.Qe6#
1.Qh4+?, 1... Bg3 2.Sxg3(Sg1)#, 1... Kxe2(Ke8) 2.g8Q/R#, 1... Kf3!; 1.Sf4! ~ 2.Sd3#, 1... Rxf4(Rh8) a 2.Qf3# C,
1... Bxf4(Bf8) b 2.Qg3# B, 1... Sxf4(Nf1) c 2.Qg2# A, (1... Sd8~ 2.Qg2# A, Qg3# B, Qf3# C)
6th Prize: No.615 – Tadashi Wakashima (Japan). A nice AntiCirce twomover with
dynamic and varied play. Here we have the following system of variations: 1st pair : 1.Kf6!
(threat 2.Kxe7(Ke1)# and 1…Be6 2.Kxg5 (Ke1)# with Annihilation of Pe7/Pg5; 2nd pair
1…e6/e5 2.Kxe6/Kxe5 (Ke1)# also with Pawn Annihilation but with another goal – the
elimination of black defences Lie7 and Lih8; 3rd pair: 1…Lig7/Lih8 2.Qg3/Qf2#. It is a
“Twomover of the future” if we wish to use Chris Feather’s helpmates terminology
(whether this is “WCCT” theme or not does not matter). In this problem another question is
important : is there a fourth pair after 1…Lixg4(Lih1) 2.Qg4# and 1…Rxh1 (Ra8) 2.Qh3#?

40
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

No, of course, because the variation 1…Lixg4(Lig1) with double vacation of square “g4”
(for White and for Black which can move 2…g4!) is much better and has a different
motivation from variation 1…Rxh1 (Ra8) 2.Qh3#. Therefore, this pair of variations is not
thematic according to Feather’s standards, but they are good additional variations. As a
general conclusion, I can say that in a problem (with direct stipulation) in which the content
is created from pairs of thematic variations, additional variations are admissible and even
desirable. In this aspect, I evaluate Tadashi’s problem as one composition which deserves a
prize.
1.Kf6! ~ 2.Kxe7(Ke1)#, 1... e6/e5+/Be6+ 2.Kxe6 (Ke1)/Kxe5(Ke1)/Kxg5(Ke1)#, 1... Lg7/Lh8 2.Qg3/ Qf2#, 1...
Lxg4(Lg1)/Rxh1(Ra8) 2.Qg4/Qh3#
Special Prize: No.781 – Paul Răican (Romania). A very strange four-men problem with
surprising echo mates. We can call this super difficult theme “Reciprocal Kings echo
mates”. This feature seems a new phenomenon. About the twin: such a change of position
is acceptable and even good if the problem demonstrates some paradoxical content. Here
the last “echo-chords” have such a character.
a) 1.dxe8=R [+bRd7]! Rg7 2.Ke5+ Rd7 3.Re7+ Kxe7[+wRf6] 4.Rf8 Rd4 5.Kf6+
Kxf8[+wRe7] 6.Re8 Rd8 7.Kg7#; b) 1.Kc6! Re5 2.Kc7 Re8 3.dxe8=Q[+bRd7] Rg7
4.Qe5+ Rd7 5.Kc8 Rd4 6.Qb8 Rd8+ 7.Kxd8[+bRc8] Ke7#
1st Honourable Mention: No.857 – Paz Einat (Israel). An interesting idea for fairy
problems: realisation of the Dombrovskis theme. But here I have two observations. The
first one: the technical interpretation of this nice mechanism is inadequate; the second one:
the presence of the second defence in solution is unpleasant – 1…bxc3+ on which follow
again 2.Sxc4# (B). By the by, 1…Sxf2(a) 2.Bxg3# (X) is a good set-variation but there is
no set-mate after 1…Sxc3(b).
1.fxg3? ~ 2.Sxf3# A, 1... Sf2! A; 1.cxb4? ~ 2.Sxc4# B, 1... Sc3! B; (1.Sxf3? ~ 2.fxg3#, 1... gxh2!; 1.Sxc4? ~
2.cxd4#, 1... b3!); 1.Ke1! ~ 2.Sxe7#, 1... Sxf2+ a 2.Sxgf3# A, 1... Sxc3+ b 2.Sxc4# B, (1... exf6 2.Bxd6#).
Juraj Lûorinc
2nd Honourable Mention: No.617 – Juraj Lörinc (Slovakia). A 2.hm Mat Plus 2007
very ambitious task–idea : play of two black reciprocal batteries ||||||||
y¤£¤£¤£¤
LO/LO plus multiple play of the white Siers battery! But here the ||||Þ|||
®£¤£££¤y
construction is obviously not optimal and not charming. The ||||||||
m¤©¤£¤S¤
unthematical capture 2.Sxe7+ and the repetition of move 2.Sb4+ in ||||||||
n£¤2¤£¤ò
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤U¤
both phases are weaknesses too. ||||||||
V£¤£¤£°£
1.Bc7? [2.Se5+ Kd4 3.Sf3+ LOxf3-f4#]. 1... LOxg6-g7 2.Sxe7+ Kd4 3.Sf5+ ||||||||
£º£¤»¤£¤
LOxf5-f6#, 1... LOxe7-f8 2.Sa5+ Kd4 3.Sb3+ LOxb3-a4#, 1... GIg3~ 2.Sb4+ Kd4
||Þ|||||
¤Ë£U1U¤£
3.Sc2+ LOxc2-b3#, 1... GIc4!
s#3 10+7+3N
1.Bb6! [2.Sd4+ Ke5 3.Sf3+ LOxf3-f4#], 1... LOxg6-g7 2.Sb8+ Ke5 3.Sd7+ LOxd7- ||
S U = Locust
d8#, 1... LOxe7-f8 2.Sb4+ Ke5 3.Sd3+ LOxd3-d4#, 1... GIg3~ 2.Sd8+ Ke5 3.Sxf7+ £=Bishop Locust
yÝ
|
LOfxf7-f8# Ë|¯ = Giraffe

3rd Honourable Mention: No.855 – Aleksandr Bulavka (Belarus). This way of realizing
the super difficult Lacny 3x3 is not new of course and also it is important to note here that
the play is rather schematic, without good strategy. Therefore we can evaluate this work
mainly as a technical interpretation without enough aesthetic degree.
But in my opinion this composition is a good occasion to speak about another minus of all
Imitator problems: the unthematical repetition of the additional Imitator shifting is also a
weakness. For instance here on the 2nd white moves repetitions happen in three phases, 6
times on e6 and 4 times on h6 – unpleasant repetition, which shows that it is impossible to
realise this mechanism in another way.

41
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

Set: 1...bxa6[Id7] (a) 2.Kf3[Ie6] (A)= ; 1...b6[Ie7] (b) 2.Ke3[Ie6] (B)= ; 1...bxc6[If7] (c) 2.Kd3[Ie6] (C)=
1.Rg4[If8] ? zugzwang, 1...bxa6[Ie7] (a) 2.Ke3[Ie6] (B)= ; 1...b6[If7] (b) 2.Kd3[Ie6] (C)= ; 1...bxc6[Ig7] (c)
2.Kf3[Ih6] (A)= but 1...b3[If7] !
1.Rh4[Ig8] ! zugzwang, 1...bxa6[If7] (a) 2.Kd3[Ie6] (C)= ; 1...b6[Ig7] (b) 2.Kf3[Ih6] (A)= ; 1...bxc6[Ih7] (c)
2.Ke3[Ih6] (B)= ; 1...b5[Ig6] 2.Kf4[Ih6] = ; 1...b3[Ig7] 2.axb7[Ih8] =
Zoltæan Laborczi Ion Murööaraÿsu
Læaszlæo Zoltæan Paul Rööaican
Aleksandr Bulavka Gyûorgy Bakcsi after Bernhard Jacob Karol Mlynka
3.hm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007 (870) cm Mat Plus 2007 (714) cm Mat Plus 2007 (780)
£¤£¤þ¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£3
|||||||| £¤£¤Y¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤»¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¬0¼£¤«
|||||||| ¤£¼£¤£¤»
|||||||| ¤¹º£¤¹¤£
||||||||
¹¤¹¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤»¤£¤Y¤
|||||||| £¤£¼»¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£º£¤¹
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤2¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¼£¤0X£¤
|||||||| »¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤o¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤¹
|||||||| ¤»¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£p£¤»¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£L£¤©
||||||||
£¼¹¼£¤©¤
|||||||| £º£¤£Z£¤
|||||||| ¹¤»¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤»¤K¤©¤
||||||||
¤mp2¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤o¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£1£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£1K¤2¤s
||||||||
=2*Ä 10+6+1N ss#30 2+10 S#39 Circe 2+10 #2*Ä 9+3
þ = Imitator
| Maximummer Anticirce type Calvet
s Bishop-Lion
|
K Lion
|
Commendations (without rank):
No.870 – Zoltán Laborczi, György Bakcsi and László Zoltán (Hungary).
1.Kc8 2.Kb7 3.Kb6 4.Kc5 (Ka5?) 5.Kd4 6.Ke3 7.Kxf2 8.Ke1 9.Kxd1 10.Kd2 11.Kc3 12.Kb4 13.Kxa4 14.Kxb3
15.Kc4 16.b4 (Kc5?) 17.b5 18.b6 19.b7 20.b8=B 21.Ba7 22.Bc5 23.Bd6 24.Kc5 25.Kxc6 26.Kd7 27.Kxe7 28.Kf7
29.Bf8 30.Bg7+ Rxg7#
No.714 – Ion Murăraşu and Paul Răican (Romania).
1.a3! Bh8 2.Kd2 Ba1 3.Ke3 Bh8 4.Kf4 Ba1 5.Kg5 Bh8 6.Kh6 Ba1 7.K×h7 Bh8 8.K×h8(Bf8) Bf1 9.Kg8 Bc4
10.Kf7 Bf1 11.K×e6(e7) Bc4+ 12.Kf5 Bg8 13.Kg6 Ba2 14.Kh7 Bg8+ 15.K×g8(Bc8) Bh3 16.Kf7 Bc8
17.K×e8(Ra8) Bh3+ 18.Kf7 Bc8 19.K×f8 Bh3+ 20.K×e7 Bc8 21.Kd8 Bh3+ 22.K×c7 Bc8 23.K×d6(d7) R×a3(a2)
24.Ke5 Ra8 25.a3 R×a3(a2) 26.Kf4 Ra8 27.a3 R×a3(a2) 28.Kg3 Ra8 29.a3 R×a3(a2) 30.Kf2 Ra8 31.a3 R×a3(a2)
32.Ke1 Ra8 33.a3 R×a3(a2) 34.Kd2 Ra8 35.a3 R×a3(a2) 36.Kc1 Ra8 37.a3 R×a3(a2) 38.Kb2 Ra8 39.Ka1 R×a2#
No.780 – Karol Mlynka (Slovakia).
*1...BLc6 2.LIa1 #, 1.LIb3? zz BLh1-~ 2.f8=Q#, 1...BLf3! 2.LIxf3(LIf8)#, 1... BLxb7 (BLb1)!
1.LIe8! [2.Kxc2(Ke1)#]; 1...cxd1=Q(Qd8) 2.cxd8=Q (Qd1)#; 1... cxd1=S(Sg8) 2.fxg8=Q(Qd1)#; 1...
cxd1=R(Ra8) 2.bxa8=Q(Qd1)#; 1...cxd1=B(Bc8) 2.bxc8=Q(Qd1)#; 1...cxd1=LI(LId1)/ cxd1=BL (BLd1)
2.Kxd1(Ke1)#

GROUP II – HELP PROBLEMS

52 problems were competing here but in this section the thematic palette is very varied and
rich. The typical weaknesses in the helpmate genre are bad, heavy and uneconomical
constructions, non-thematic captures or repetitions of white and black moves, imperfect
building of twins and of course simplicity of content. Even in the case of a task, as I
mentioned earlier, the record thematic contents cannot fully compensate for such violations.
As a supporter of the so-called “ANI–problems” with thematic anti-identical solutions, I
wish to announce that this thematic difference means a group of solutions which are
equivalent in thematic completeness and in aesthetic aspect. Therefore, a work in which we
have a record but with non-thematic captures in some solutions which are obviously worse
than other solutions cannot be an ANI-problem and a good composition. My general
criteria here are the active thematic use of fairy pieces in all phases of the problem - if one
fairy piece performs only technical functions (in some or in all solutions, it is of course a
weakness.

42
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

Participants: Nos. 620-637, 644-649, 715-727, 736, 737, 785-789, 795-797, 859-864, 869.
The following problems were not included in the award for different reasons:
No.620 (Mlynka) – In such a Tanagra - positions with nice but not so difficult solutions, the
use of “progressive twins” is not so aesthetic.
No.621 (Ylijoki) – The black Zd1 is needless in position a).
No.622. (Golha) The repetition of move 2.NHc4 in positions a) and b) is not aesthetic.
No.623 (Sydenham & Murăraşu) – A banal Andernach idea in heavy setting.
No.630 (Enemark) – Bad Pg3 which plays only in one solution.
No.631 (Murărasu) – A 4-men in 8 moves (such positions are not a surprise in Köko!) in
which the main minus is the multiple repetitions of white and black moves in both phases.
Some other originals were eliminated because of not adequate quality.

1st Prize: No.787 – Vlaicu Crişan (Romania). The white Vlaicu Criÿsan
Dedicated to Eric Huber
Annihilation-captures on e5/d5 follow the creation of reciprocal 1.pr Mat Plus 2007
anti-batteries created by PAd8 & VAb8 and line-openings. Black £zkj»¤£¤
||||||||
strategy is also very good – distant black Grimshaw PAO/VAO ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
realized after the rebirth of the thematic pieces on h5/c2, self-blocks £¤£3£¤£l
||||||||
on c7/d7 after very fine captures on d1/h2 with additional line- ¤£¤»¼£¤£
||||||||
§º£¤»¨£¤
||||||||
openings and vacation of squares d1/h2. Every composer with some ¤»¤k¤£¤»
||||||||
practice in “AntiSuperCirce” can understand that the realization of £¤£¤£¤£º
||||||||
this complex with specific effects at every half-move is a great ¤£¤¹j£1y
||||||||
achievement! h#2 2111 8+12
Antisupercirce
1.PAOxh2 (PAOc2) VAOxe5(VAOd2) 2.PAOxd1 (PAOc7) PAOxd5(PAOd1)#; i|
| k = Pao
1.VAOxd1(VAOh5) PAOxd5(PAOg3) 2.VAOxh2(VAOd7) VAOxe5 (VAOh2)# y|
| § = Vao

Peter Harris
Væaclav KotÜe¢ovec Væaclav KotÜe¢ovec Ján Golha Eric Huber
2.pr Mat Plus 2007 3.pr Mat Plus 2007 4.pr Mat Plus 2007 5.pr Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤Q¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £1£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£º£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤0¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
03£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤»¼£¼£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤«Z£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤«¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£H£n£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤ô¤2p£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤¹¤¹¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤m¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤££Y¤£¤£
||Ò||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¼»P£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¬£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
²WJ£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤2¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£3£1£¤£
||||||||
sh==8 Circe 9+6 h#30 0211... 2+2 h#3 411... 1+7+2N h#3 b) |
YRb2 1+2
Madrasi Rex Inclusiv Kûoko Parrain Circe Transmuting Kings
O = Grasshopper
| Double maximummer ô = Neutral Knight
| Chameleonchess
± = Nightrider
| Platzwechselcirce £ = Neutral Locust
Ñ Sentinelles
Q = Grasshopper
| Andernach + Anti-Andernach

2nd Prize: No.648 – Václav Kotěšovec (Czech Republic). A unique finale with a cycle of
Circe-impossible moves: Na1xRc2(Ra89)?? - AB; Rc2xGd2 (Gd8)?? – BC; Gd2xPb2
(Pb7)?? – CD; Pb2xNa1 (Na8)?? – DA. My opinion is that this theme is the herald of a new
generation of ideas which foreshadow great possibilities in practice.
1.Qg1 2.c1=R 3.Qxd4 4.Rc4 5.Qxd3 6.Rc2 7.Qc3 8.Sc7+ e8=S ==
3rd Prize: No.633 – Václav Kotěšovec (Czech Republic). This style is not a surprise.
There are a lot of miniatures in which Köko as an independent condition or in combination
with other conditions allows excellent echo possibilities. But in this field Vaclav is without
doubt “Number one”. It is elementary to say that in such cases the computer is a very active

43
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

help for the composer but this conclusion is right probably only (or predominantly) during
the checking process. The discovery of such very long quartets demands a rich imagination.
1... Kxc8(Gd7) 2.Gd2 Be2 3.Kf2 Bd3 4.Gg2 Bf1 5.Ge2 Bxe2(Gf1) 6.Gd3 Bf1 7.Ke1 Be2 8.Gf1 Bd1 9.Gxd1(Bf1)
Be2 10.Gf3 Bd1 11.Kd2 Bc2 12.Kc1 Be4 13.Gd5 Bb1 14.Kb2 Be4 15.Gf3 Bb7 16.Ga8 Bxa8(Gb7) 17.Gb1 Kb7
18.Gb3 Ka7 19.Gb1 Bb7 20.Gb3 Kb6 21.Gxb7(Bb3) Ka7 22.Ka3 Ba4 23.Kb4 Bc6 24.Gb3 Ba4 25.Gb5
Bxb5(Ga4) 26.Ga8 Kb6 27.Ka4 Ba6 28.Ga5 Bb7 29.Gc7 Bc6 30.Gc5 Ka5#
1... Be2 2.Ge6 Kxe6(Gd7) 3.Gf5 Bg4 4.Gh3 Be2 5.Gd7 Kxd7(Ge6) 6.Gc8 Kxc8(Gd7)7.Kxe2(Bf1) Kxd7(Gc8)
8.Ge6 Kxe6(Gd7) 9.Gf5 Kxf5(Ge6) 10.Gg4 Bh3 11.Gd1 Bf1+ 12.Gg1 Bg2 13.Gg3 Be4 14.Kd3 Bg2 15.Gc3 Be4+
16.Kc4 Bc2 17.Gc5 Be4 18.Gg5 Kg6 19.Gg7 Bd3 20.Gg5 Bf5 21.Ge5 Bd3 22.Kd5 Bf5 23.Gc5 Be6+
24.Kxe6(Bd5) Bc6 25.Gc7 Bd7 26.Kf7 Be8+ 27.Kxe8(Bf7) Kf6 28.Gg7 Kxg7(Gf6) 29.Gh8 Bg6 30.Gf6 Kf8#
4th Prize: No.629 – Ján Golha (Slovakia). Very nice fourfold echo with only 10 pieces –
a good achievement in Circe Parrain where it is not so easy to compose a H#3 – Meredith
with such a benign-looking material!
1.nLxc4-c5 nLxf5-g5 (+nSg4)2.nSe3 (+bSd4) nSf1 3.fxg5 nSd2 (+nLe6)#
1.Rd1 nLxf6-g7 2.nSe5 (+bPh7) nLxe5-d4 3.Rxd4 (+nSe8) nSf6 (+nLe2)#
1.nSe3 nSxf5 2.Kxf5 (+bSg6) Kc7 (+nSg4) 3.Rxc3 nSh6 (+nLd5)#
1.Sd4 nLxc4-c5 2.Bd2 (+nSa2) nLxd4-e3+ 3.Bxe3 (+bSe5) nSc3 (+nLg4)#
5th Prize: No.718 – Peter Harris (South Africa) and Eric Huber (Romania). A very
nice “three-men” with surprising solutions! 4 fairy conditions is too many but here this
“company” works well and the mates elegantly use the “Transmuting Kings” condition.
a) 1.Sd1=wB[+bPb2] Kf1 2.b1=wS Sc3=bB 3.Be1=wR[+bPc3] Bc2=bR #
b) 1.Rb7=wQ[+bPb2] Qa8=bS[+wPb7] 2.Kb1 bxa8=bB 3.Bh1=wR 0-0 #
îarko Pe¢ikan
Arnold Beine Milomir Babiæc Yoshikazu Ueda Marko Ylijoki
6.pr Mat Plus 2007 7.pr Mat Plus 2007 sp.pr Mat Plus 2007 1.hm Mat Plus 2007
O3£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| Y¤£ª£¤£¤
|||||||| 2¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£1£¤
||||||||
¤£¼£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤W
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¼£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤2
|||||||| ¤½¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤W¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£1mn£¤
|||||||| £¤89£¤½1
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤m¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤W¤¹¤¹
|||||||| ¤£¤8¤£¾£
|||||||| ¤£¤¹¤¹¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤¹º
|||||||| £¤£¤»º£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£º£º
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤0
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|Õ|||||| ¤£¤£3£¤£
||||||||
h#17.5 4+2 sh=16 8+3 h#109 Circe 10+1+1N h#2.5 021111 5+2
Double Maximummer Ultraschachzwang Actuated Revolving Board
½= Dummy
|
8 = Wazir (Vizir)
|
£ = Neutral Pao
Õ

6th Prize: No.724 – Arnold Beine (Germany). The duel between K/G ends in a surprising
mate through indirect anti-battery. In my opinion this problem deserves a prize because of
its fine play and more concretely because of its tries which are not a strong thematic
element but which are nice addition to this nonstandard Double Maximummer.
1... g4? ... 3... Gh3!?, 1...Gc8? 2.c5 Gc4!?
1...h4! (prevents 7...Gh4) 2.c5 Gc8! 3.Kc7 Gc6 4.Kd6 Ge6 5.Ke5 Ge4 6.Kf4 g4! 7.Kg3 g5 8.Kf2 Kh2 9.Ke3 Ge2
10.Kf4 Kg1 11.Kg3 Kf1 12.Kh2 g6 13.Kg3 g7 14.Kh2 g8S 15.Kg3 Sf6 16.Kh2 Se4 17.Kh1 (17.c4?) 17...Ge5
18.c4 Sg3#
7th Prize: No.796 – Žarko Pešikan and Milomir Babić (Serbia). A very attractive
problem with a rather difficult solution (Annihilation plays a main role in this scenario!)
and a fine finale with two pinned pieces and a model stalemate.
1.e1B 3.Bxd8 4.Bh4 7.Rxf3 8.Rg3 9.Rg2 10.Bg3 12.Kxh3 14.Kh1 16.Bg1 Rd1=
Special Prize: No.862 – Yoshikazu Ueda (Japan). This gigantic action by the neutral
PAO is really unique! Probably the creation of one such composition means first of all a
very happy creative chance. There are here two other and not so simple questions: who can

44
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

solve such a marathon and how far can this problem be correct (with my Computer-
technique, checking the problem is impossible…) ?
1.nPAh1+ nPAe1 2.nPAe4+ Kh3 3.nPAe3+ fxe3[+nPAe1] 4.nPAh1+ nPAf1 5.nPAf3+ Kh4 6.nPAf4+ nPAf8
7.nPAh8+ nPAe8 8.nPAe4+ WAd4xe4[+nPAe1] 9.nPAh1+ PAf1 10.nPAf4+ Kh3 11.nPAf3+ nPAf8 12.nPAh8+
nPAe8 13.nPAxe3 [+wPe2]+ WAe4xe3[+nPAe1] 14.nPAh1+ nPAf1 15.nPAf3+ Kh4 16.nPAf4+ nPAf8
17.nPAh8+ nPAd8 8.nPAd4+ WAd3xd4[+nPAd1] 19.nPAh1+ nPAf1 20.nPAf4+ nPAf8 21.nPAh8+ nPAe8
22.nPAe4+ WAe3xe4[+nPAe1] 23.nPAh1+ nPAf1 24.nPAf4+ Kh3 25.nPAf3+ nPAf1 26.nPAh1+ nPAd1
27.nPAd3+ exd3[+nPAd1] 28.nPAh1+ nPAf1 29. nPAf3+ nPAf8 30.nPAh8+ nPAd8 31.nPAxd3 [+wPd2]+
WAd4xd3[+nPAd1] 32.nPAh1+ nPAe1 33.nPAe3+ WAe4xe3[+nPAe1] 34.nPAh1+ nPAf1 35.nPAf3+ Kh4
36.nPAf4+ nPAf8 37. nPAh8+ nPAd8 38.nPAd4+ WAd3xd4[+nPAd1] 39.nPAh1+ nPAf1 40.nPAf4+ nPAf8
41.nPAh8+ nPAe8 42.nPAe4+ WAe3xe4[+nPAe1] 43.nPAh1+ nPAf1 44.nPAf4+ Kh3 45.nPAf3+ nPAf1 46.
nPAh1+ nPAc1 47.nPAc3+ dxc3[+nPAc1] 48. nPAh1+ nPAf1 49.nPAf3 nPAf8 50.nPAh8+ nPAc8
51.nPAxc3[+wPc2]+ WAc4xc3[+nPAc1] 52.nPAh1+ nPAd1 53.nPAd3+ WAd4xd3[+nPAd1] 54.nPAh1 nPAe1
55.nPAe3+ WAe4xe3[+nPAe1] 56.nPAh1+ PAf1 57.nPAf3+ Kh4 58.nPAf4+ nPAf8 59.nPAh8+ nPAc8
60.nPAc4+ WAc3xc4[+nPAc1] 61.nPAh1+ nPAf1 62.nPAf4+ nPAf8 63.nPAh8+ nPAd8 64.nPAd4+
WAd3xd4[+nPAd1] 65.nPAh1+ nPAf1 66.nPAf4+ nPAf8 67.nPAh8+ nPAe8 68.nPAe4+ WAe3xe4[+nPAe1]
69.nPAh1+ nPAf1 70.nPAf4+ Kh3 71.nPAf3+ nPAf1 72.nPAh1+ nPAb1 73. nPAb3+ cxb3[+nPAb1] 74.nPAh1+
nPAc1 75. nPAc3+ WAc4xc3[+nPAc1] 76.nPAh1+ nPAd1 77. nPAd3+ WAd4xd3[+nPAd1] 78.nPAh1+ nPAe1
79. nPAe3+ WAe4xe3[+nPAe1] 80.nPAh1 + nPAf1 81.nPAf3+ Kh4 82.nPAf4+ nPAf8 83.nPAh8+ nPAc8
84.nPAc4+ bxc4[+nPAc1] 85.nPAh1+ nPAf1 86.nPAf4+ nPAf8 87.nPAh8+ nPAd8 88.nPAd4+ WAd3xd4
[+nPAd1] 89.nPAh1+ nPAf1 90.nPAf4+ nPAf8 91.nPAh8+ nPAe8 92.nPAe4+ WAe3xe4 [+nPAe1] 93.nPAh1+
nPAf1 94.nPAf4+ Kh3 95.nPAf3+ nPAf8 96.nPAh8+ nPAc8 97.nPAxc3 [+wWEc8]+ nPAc1 98.nPAh1+ nPAd1
99.nPAd3+ WAd4xd3[+nPAd1] 100.nPAh1+ nPAe1 101.nPAe3+ WAd3xe3[+nPAe1] 102.nPAh1+ nPAf1
103.nPAf3+ Kh4 104.nPAf4+ nPAf1 105.nPAh1+ nPAe1 106. nPAxe4[+wWEe8]+ WAe3xe4[+nPAe1] 107.
nPAh1+ nPAf1 108.nPAf4+ nPAf8 109.nPAh8+ Ra7#.
1st Honourable Mention: No.625 – Marko Ylijoki (Finland). Fine and surprising tempo-
promotions in an elegant setting but without sufficient strategy.
1... Rf5 2.g1B! c7 3.Kh6 Bh3#, 1... Bd7 2.g1R! e7+ 3.Kh4 Ba4#
Gyûorgy Bakcsi
Chris Feather Renæe J. Millour Michal Dragoun Læaszlæo Zoltæan
2.hm Mat Plus 2007 3.hm Mat Plus 2007 4.hm Mat Plus 2007 5.hm Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤0¤m¤Y¤
|||||||| £¤£¤K¤£¤
||±||||| £¤£Z£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¼£¤¹
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤»¤»
|||||||| ¤G¤£¤£¤0
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| 2¤£¤£¤¹¤
|||||||| K¤£¤£¤£V
|||||||| £¤»3Y¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¼£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£££¤£¬Y
||VU|||| ¤£ª¹¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
ù||||||| »¤£¤»¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£3£º££
|||||||V £¤¹º£º£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤2
|||||||| º©¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤0¤£¤£¤»
|||||||| ¤£º¹¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£1£÷
|||||||| »¼£¤£¤»¤
|||||||| «¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||±| £¤¹º£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| n£ª£¤£X£
|||||||| ZU¤£¤£¤£
|||U|||| ¤£XW¤£¤£
||||||||
sh#7 b) |
0f2®c2 1+2+1N h=3.5 0411... 9+9 h#2 6111 4+16 sh#8 13+4
Circe b) |
ma1›| Wg1 | = Locust
K Black must capture
£ = Imitator
ù Cuckoo Circe U = Lion
| b) |
»c6®b6
£ = Leo
U
± = Nightrider-Lion
£

2nd Honourable Mention: No.647 – Chris Feather (United Kingdom). Another nice
four-men with attractive and difficult solutions but the second one (after 1.Kh4(Ia5) ) is
better - with a specific Circe element in the white mating move and mate by the promoted
neutral Rook.
a) 1.h1=nB[Ia3] 2.Kh2[Ia2] 3.Kxh1[+nBf1][Ia1] 4.nBh3[Ic3] 5.nBf5[Ia5] 6.nBh7[Ic7] 7.nBg8[Ib8] Kg2[Ic8]#
b) 1.Kh4[Ia5] 2.Kh5[Ia6] 3.h1=nR[Ia5] 4.nRh4[Ia8] 5.Kxh4[+nRa1][Ia7] 6.nRb1[Ib7] 7.nRb2[Ib8]+
Kxb2[+nRh8][Ia8]#
3rd Honourable Mention: 636 – René J. Millour (France). The author is a master of
record problems with promotions. This double Babson is a remarkable idea but the
repetition of 4th black and white moves in each solution and the creation of the twin are not
so aesthetic.

45
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

a) 1... hxg8Q(Rd1) 2.bxa1R(Bh8) Sxa1 3.Rd4 Bxd4 4.e5 Be3 =, 1... hxg8R(Rh1) 2.bxa1B(Bf8) Sxa1 3.Rh6 Bxh6
4.e5 Be3 =, 1... hxg8B(Rf1) 2.bxa1S(Bb8) Sxa1 3.Rf4 Bxf4 4.e5 Be3 =, 1... hxg8S(Rb1) 2.bxa1Q(Bd8) Sxa1
3.Rb6 Bxb6 4.e5 Be3 =
b) 1... hxg8Q(Rd1) 2.bxa1Q(Rd8) Sxa1 3.Rd4 Rxd4 4.e5 Rxe4(h1B) =, 1... hxg8R(Rh1) 2.bxa1R(Rh8) Sxa1
3.Rh4 Rxh4 4.e5 Rxe4(h1B) =, 1... hxg8B(Rf1) 2.bxa1B(Rf8) Sxa1 3.Rf4 Rxf4 4.e5 Rxe4(h1B) =, 1...
hxg8S(Rb1) 2.bxa1S(Rb8) Sxa1 3.Rb4 Rxb4 4.e5 Rxe4(h1B) =
4th Honourable Mention: No.786 – Michal Dragoun (Czech Republic). The author’s
arguments for the creation of this task are inspired but the technical realisation is not
aesthetic. My opinion is that it is better to eliminate solutions like 1.NLe6 fxg5 with non-
thematic capture of the black Knight.
1.LIb5 Kb2 2.Kc4 LO(xb5)a4#; 1.NLe6 fxg5 2.Ke5 LO(xe6)f6#; 1.LEe4 LO(xe4)e3 2.NLc4 LO(xc4)d3#;
1.LEcc4 LO(xc4)d3 2.LIe4 LO(xe4)e3#; 1.LEcd6 LO(xd6)e6 2.Sf3 LO(xd5)c4#; 1.LEcc6 LO(xc6)b5 2.Sb4
LO(xd5)e5#

5th Honourable Mention: No.649 – György Bakcsi and László Zoltán (Hungary).
Humoristic Pawn’s actions with annihilation motivation and two nice promotions. But the
strong fairy condition here hints at the solutions.
a) 1. cxd5 2. dxc4 3. cxd3 4. dxc2 5. cxd1Q 6. Qxd2 7. Qxc3 8. Qxc5 dxc5#
b) 1. bxc5 2. cxd4 3. dxc3 4. cxd2 5. dxc1S 6. Sxd3 7. Sxf4 8. Sxd5 Rxd5#

Guy Sobrecases Paul Rööaican Guy Sobrecases Vadim Vinokurov

cm Mat Plus 2007 (723) cm Mat Plus 2007 (632) cm Mat Plus 2007 (788) cm Mat Plus 2007 (785)
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
0¤£p«¬£¤
||||||||
¤Á¤£¤¹¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤»¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤©¤£¤£ ||||||||
ª£¤£º£¼£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£n ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£3£¼£¤
||||||||
¤£1w¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¼»¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤« ||||||||
¤£¼Y¼£¤£
||||||||
A¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£ª ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£º£º0¤W ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¼Ã¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤¹¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£n ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
X£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£3£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤o
h#6 Alice Chess 4+4 h#11* Circe 7+4 h#2,5 21111 2+1 h#2 2111 3+10
Double Maximummer UltraSchachZwang RepublicanChess Circe
(Units upside down are on Circe
Board B)

Commendations (without rank):

No.723 – Guy Sobrecases (France).
1.Bg8{A} Rh1{B} 2.g×h1=B{A} f×g8=R{B} 3.Ba8{B} Rg1{A} 4.f×g1=S{B} b×a8=Q{A} 5.Sf3{A} Q×f3{B}
6.Ka5{A} Qa8{A}#
No.632 – Paul Răican (Romania).
*1... Kg3 2.f4+ Bxf4[+bPf7] 3.exf4+ Kg2 4.f3+ Kf1 5.fxe2+ Kf2 6.e1=Q+ Kf3 7.Qxe3[+wPe2]+ Kxe3 [+bQd8]
8.Qe7+ Kd4 9.Qb4+ cxb4[+bQd8] 10.Qxh4 [+wSg1]+ Kc3 11.Qxh3[+wRh1]+ Sxh3[+bQd8]#
1.e4+ Kg3 2.f4+ Kg2 3.f3+ Sxf3[+bPf7] 4.exf3 [+wSb1]+ Kf1 5.fxe2+ Kf2 6.e1=Q+ Kxe1[+bQd8] 7.Qh4+
Rxh4[+bQd8] 8.Qxh4[+wRa1]+ Ke2 9. Qh5+ Kd3 10.Qb5+ c4 11.Qxb1+ Rxb1[+bQd8]#
No.788 – Guy Sobrecases (France).
1... Be5 2.Sf6 Bb2 3.Sxd7(Sb1) Sc3[+bKa1]#, 1... Bf4 2.Sxf4(Bc1) Sf6 3.Sg6 Bg5[+bKh5]#
No.785 – Vadim Vinokurov (Russia).
1.Bc7! exf8=S (Sb8) 2.Sc6 Sc8#, 1.Sd7! exd8=S (Bf8) 2.Be7 Sb5#
No.626 – Karol Mlynka (Slovakia).
1.Rg2 Kh1 2.Kg8! Kf3 3.Kg1 Rh1#, 1.Rb6 Rh8 2.Rb7 Kc6 3.Ka7 Ra8#
No.719 – Ion Murăraşu (Romania).
a) 1.Kxd3 nRb4(nBd5) 2.nBc3 nRd4+ 3.Kxc3 nBb3(nBa1)#
b) 1.Bnc2 nBxb2+ 2.Kxc2(nRb1) nRxb2(nBc3)+ 3.Kxc3(nBb3) nBg8(nBh8)#

46
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

îarko Pe¢ikan
Karol Mlynka Ion Murööaraÿsu Arnold Beine Milomir Babiæc
cm Mat Plus 2007 (626) cm Mat Plus 2007 (719) cm Mat Plus 2007 (644) cm Mat Plus 2007 (797)
0¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| W¤£n£¤£¤
||||||||
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£3£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£Ä£Ä£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤YX ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤©¤m¤¹X
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¼¹¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£¤»¤£¤¹¼
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
1£3ò¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¼£¤£ ||||||||
¤2¤»1£¤G
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£ñ£¤£¤£¤ ||||||||
£Â㣤 ||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
󣤣¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£ ||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
h#3 211111 2+2 h#3 b) |
0a3®e3 1+1+3N hr=5.5 b) -|Áb2 3+4 sh=16 10+5
StingChess Circe Parrain Double maximummer
KûoKo
¹» = Superpawns

No.644 – Arnold Beine (Germany).

a) 1... SPb8B 2.SPc3 Bg3 3.SPe4 SPf5 4.SPcxd2 Be5 5.SPd1S Bb2 6.Sxb2=, 6.Sc3 Bxc3=
b) 1... SPf8S 2.SPc3 SPd8R 3.SPe4 Rd1 4.SPc1S Rd5 5.Sb3 Rd2 6.Sxd2=, 6.Sd4 Rxd4=
No.797 – Žarko Pešikan and Milomir Babić (Serbia).
1.d2 2.d1B 3.Bxg4 4.Bf3 5.Bxd5 7.Bxg6 12.Bxa8 16.Kb7 Bxc4=

GROUP III – HELP-SELF PROBLEMS

Here the tournament is also very good but my expectation was to see more typical strategic
compositions (like the 1st Prize, for example). Instead of that, I have seen many non-
standard “exotic HSP” but they are also a very interesting phenomenon in this aspect. The
miniatures are practically an inexhaustible spring for new inventions if the composer can
find, after long practice, such “mini-resources” using fairy conditions, as Circe Parrain,
Einstein Chess, Andernach Chess, Anti Andernach Chess etc.
The perfect economy and participation of all pieces (white, black, neutral, half-neutral) in
each phases is for me also a first-class aesthetic criterion. A nice surprise in this tournament
is the HSP – Duplex, decorated with a Special Prize but a future mass production of such
Duplex problems seems quite unlikely to me because of the specificity of the play and the
construction of such works.
Participants: No.: 638-643, 728-735, 791-794, 865-868.
The following problems were eliminated:
No.866 (Krätschmer) – Bg5 is an otiose piece in twin a).
No.794 (Răican) has a cook:1.Sd5! Kxd5 2.+Sa5+ +Sh7(+Sg8) 3.Qb8(Qc7) Re1 4.Qe5+
Rxe5#
In No.865 (Stun) the correct stipulation here is HS==.
Some other originals were eliminated because of inadequate quality.

1st Prize: No.732 – Mario Parrinello (Italy). An excellent realization of the creation of
anti-batteries from both sides, combined with Zilahi (the theme of the 2005 Tzuica TT). It
is very interesting that the white LEOs free squares for their “colleagues” the black LEOs
which give mates from g4/d5. This Umnov motive is especially good here because the
mating moves close the white battery-lines.
1.Bxd4 BLh5+ 2.LEg3 LEa2 3.LEg5+ LEg4#, 1.Rxf3 RLxd6+ 2.LEc4 LEh2 3.LEe6+ LEd5#

47
Spring – Summer 2009 Mat Plus Review 9-10

2nd Prize: No.642 – Michael Grushko (Israel). Again an elegant “three men” with two
surprising echo mates in opposite corners – a difficult idea with such limited material! The
finales with two neutral Chameleons are not new but their realization in this situation is
impressive. The play in both positions is unfortunately not fully adequate but I do not
interpret this criterion formally.
a) 1... h1=nS 2.Kf3 nSg3=nB 3.nBd6=nR nRd1=nQ+ 4.Kg3 nQd8=nS 5.Kxh3 nSc6=nB [+nPg1=nR] 6.Kh2
nBh1=nR#; b) 1... hxg2 2.Kd5 [+nPf3] fxg2 3.Kc5 [+nPf2] g1=nB 4.Kc6 fxg1=nB 5.Kc7 [+nBg2] nBa7=nR+
6.Kb8 nBa8=nR#

Mario Parrinello Michael Grushko Arno Tûungler Bernd Grûafrath

1.pr Mat Plus 2007 2.pr Mat Plus 2007 3.pr Mat Plus 2007 sp.pr Mat Plus 2007
M¤£¤£¤2¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| 2¤0¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£p0n
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¼£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤¹¤£H£
||||||||
£¤£º£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £º£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£º
||||||||
¤£¤K¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£lm¤KN
|||||||| £¤£¤0¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤»n£¤§¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤ö
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¼£¤£¤«¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£÷
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤2¤£J£¤
||||||||
¤£¤0¤W¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
hs#3 211... 7+8 hs#5.5 (no |
2) 1+0+2N hs#8,5 2+2 hs#4 Duplex 5+3
||
K M =Leo b) |
öh2®g2 Black Maximummer
k = Rook-Lion
| Chameleonchess White Minimummer
§ = Bishop-Lion
| Maximal b,c,d,e) see text
Parrain Circe

3rd Prize: No.867 – Arno Tüngler (Germany). A new development of the unique
“Vielväter” position which has up to now over 1000 different modifications according to
the combination of possible stipulations, conditions, form of the board etc. This new opus
favourably impresses with its great diversity of conditions in twins and especially with its
long solutions.
a) 1... a5 2.Kc7 a4 3.Kc6 Kb8 4.b7 Ka7 5.Kc7 a3 6.b8=R a2 7.Kc8 a1=Q 8.Ra8+ Kb6 9.Kb8 Qh8#;
b) hs#9, Haaner Chess, Double max : 1.Kd7 a5 2.Kc6 Kb8 3.Kd5 a4 4.Ke4 a3 5.Kd3 a2 6.Kc4 Kb7 7.Kb5 a1=Q
8.Kc5 Qh8 9.Kb4 Qb2#;
c) hs#9,5 KöKo : 1...a5 2.b7 Ka7 3.b8=Q Ka6 4.Qb4 a4 5.Kb7 a3 6.Qb2 a2 7.Kb6 a1=S 8.Ka5 Sc2 9.Qc3 Sd4
10.Qc5 Sc6#;
d) hs#4, AntiSupercirce, Circe, Double Minimummer : 1.bxa7[+bPa7][wPa7→b7]+ Kxb7[+wPb2] [bKb7→d6]
2.b4 a5 3.Kb7 axb4[+wPb2] [bPb4→h1=Q]+ 4.Kc8 Qa8#;
e) hs#13, KöKo, Black Maximummer, White Minimummer : 1.b7+ a6 2.b8=R Ka7
640a. A. H. Kniest
3.Rb7+ Ka8 4.Rb6 a5 5.Rb5 a4 6.Rb4 a3 7.Rb3 a2 8.Rb2 a1=R 9.Rb1 Ra7 10.Rb6 Feenschach, 1965
Rd7 11.Rb8 Rc7+ 12.Rc8 Rc5 13.Rb8 Rc8#. £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
Special Prize: No.640 – Bernd Gräfrath (Germany). A HSP with ¤£¤£¤£¤2
||||||||
a most surprising additional component – “Duplex”! Good creation £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
of batteries in both phases – a theme which is very difficult to £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
realize in this form, if we observe the principle of economy of ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
material (figures) in both phases. An unpleasant moment is »1»¤£¤£¤
||||||||
repetition of the black move Kb1. By the by, the first Help-self ¤G¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
problem is probably the following miniature by A. H. Kniest hs=3 Duplex 2+3
W: 1.Qg1 a1=S 2.Ka2 c1=Q
(diagram 640a). But here the idea is of small size of course. 3.Qg7+ Kxg7=
B: 1. Kb1 Qc3 2. Bg7 Qc2+ 3. Ka1 Kxg7 4. Qf7+ Kxf7# B: 1.Kh8 Kxa2 2.c1=Q Qg6
W: 1. Qg2 Kb1 2. Ba1 Bg7 3. Kh7 Qf7 4. Qb2+ Bxb2# 3.Qb2+ Kxb2=

1st Honourable Mention: No.865 – Jaroslav Stun (Slovakia). A nice miniature with
simple strategy. The repetition of some moves in different phases is not a plus for this
problem.

48
Mat Plus Review 9-10 Spring – Summer 2009

a)1.Kd4 cPe1=cQ 2.cRd3=cQ Ke5 3.cQg6=cS + cQe1*h4=cS =; b)1.cRe5=cQ+ Kxe5 2.cSh4=cB Kd4
3.cSc3=cB+ cPe1=cB =; c)1.cSf5=cB Kxf5 2.cSf4=cB Ke4 3.cBe3=cR+ cPe1=cR =; d)1.Ke4 cPe1=cB 2.Kf5
cBxh4=cR 3.cRe5=cQ+ cRxf4=cQ =; e)1.cRh3=cQ Ke5 2.cSd4=cB+ Kxd4 3.cQf3=cS+ cPe1=cS =.

2nd Honourable Mention: No.733 – Peter Harris (South Africa). With such limited
material it is rather difficult to realise interesting solutions, but here the fairy condition
“bears” help-pawns. Unfortunately the solutions (with echoed moments) are not fully
adequate in thematic & aesthetic aspects.
1...nKa2 2.nKa3[+bPa2] nKa4[+wPa3] 3.nKb5[+bPa4] c1=nQ 4.nKb4[+bPb5]+ nKb3[+wPb4]#
1...nKb2 2.nKb3[+bPb2]+ nKb4[+wPb3] 3.nKa5[+bPb4] b1=B 4.nKa4[+bPa5]+ nKa3[+wPa4]#
3rd Honourable Mention: No.734 – Bernd Gräfrath (Germany). A typical problem for
solvers with surprising and difficult play in both phases. Such works can make a good
advertisement for every fairy type before a wide audience! But there are here also
obviously minuses – the repetition of the black promotion to Q in set and solution and an
almost total lack of strategy – Black demonstrates only block with his Queen – a nice
motive of course. Because of the inadequate strategy I cannot name this composition an
“ANI – problem” (with anti-identical in thematic solutions).
*1...f1=Q 2.Be3 Qxe2 3.Re1 Qg4 4.Bg1+ Kf3 5.Sh4+ Qxh4#, 1.Se1 f1=Q 2.Bd4! Kxd4 3.Rg1 Ke3 4.Sc2+ Kf2
5.Rg2+ Qxg2#
Jaroslav Stun Peter Harris Bernd Grûafrath Peter Harris
1.hm Mat Plus 2007 2.hm Mat Plus 2007 3.hm Mat Plus 2007 cm Mat Plus 2007
£¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤»¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤0¤¹¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£3£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| 2¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤£¤£ª
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤2¼£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
¤£¤0X£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
£¤£¤»¤©¤
|||||||| £¤ö¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤¹¼©1
|||||||| £¤£¤»¤£¼
||||||||
¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| í£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£nW
|||||||| ¤£¤¹¤£º£
||||||||
hs=3 4+2 hs#3.5 2111111 0+0+2N hs#5* 5+3 hs#2 b) |
»h2®b8 4+4
Madrasi RexInclusiv Sentinelles pion adverse Anticirce
Chameleon pieces (S, R, P) Supercirce
b) |
©h4®a4, c) |
We3®g1, Transmuting Kings
©g2®f4, e) |
d) | ©h4®b5

Commendations (without rank):

No.728 – Peter Harris (South Africa).
a) 1.fxg8=R[+bPc7][wRg8→h1] hxg1=R[+wPc8=wQ] Michael Grushko Michael Grushko
[bRg1→h8] 2.Rxh8[+bRb6][wRh8→a1]+ Kxa1 cm Mat Plus 2007 (731) cm Mat Plus 2007 (643)
[+wRe1][bKa1→e8]# £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤2¤£¤
||||||||
b) 1.Kd8 exd1=B[+wPc6][bBd1→c8] 2.fxg8=B ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
[+bPc7][wBg8→f1]+ Kxf1[+wBe1][bKf1→e8]# £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
No.731 – Michael Grushko (Israel). ¤£¤Uõ£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
a) 1...nSd1 2.Lxd1-c1 nSf7[+nSe3] 3.Lxe3-f4[+bKc4]+ £¤£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£¤£¤
||||||||
nSh8[+nSg4][+wKe4]# ¤£¤£¤£¤£
|||||||| ¤£¤£¤£¤£
||||||||
b) 1...nSb4 2.Lxd5-c6 nSd5[+bLf6] 3.Lxd5-e4[+bKe7]+ £õ£¤£¤£¤
|||||||| £¤£¤£÷£1
||||||||
nSa4[+nSc7][+wKe5]# ¤£¤£¤£¤S
|||||||| ¤£¤£õ£¤£
||||||||
hs#2.5 1+1+2N hs#10 1+1+2N
No.643 – Michael Grushko (Israel). b) |ôe5®c2 Kûoko
1.Kg3 nSf3 2.Kg4 nSg5 3. f4 nSf7 4.f5 nSe5+ 5. f6 nSg6 RepublicanChess type 2 Maximal
6.Kf5 nSe7+ 7.f7+ nSg8 8.f8=nQ nQf6 9.Ke6 nQh8 ParrainCirce
10.nSe7+ Qe5# SU = Locust

_
49