First, let’s look at the problem I left with you last time:
Hans Peter Rehm, bernd ellinghoven and Kjell Widlert
Prize, Paris Theme Tourney 1985
Mate in 3
As I said last time, this is more difficult than the problems I usually leave for solving. I gave the hint that we need to improve the position of one of the white pieces in such a way as to threaten mate on move 3, and we can expect the line-up of bBh1 and bRf3 against the white king, masked in the diagram position, to provide the sort of fireworks that composers like to display. And the key is 1.Rd6!, threatening 2.Nxc2+ Kxe2 3.Rd2#. The various ways in which the black rook can move from f3 discovering check do indeed provide fireworks - White must respond accurately to each of Black’s possibilities. (It helps that the moves of the f3R open the line of the h5B, defending the d2R.) If 1…Rf2+ or 1…Rf1+, then 2.Nc6+ does the trick. If instead 1…Rf4+, then 1…Nc6+ no longer works (as both the Bh1 and the Rf4 can intercept on the d-file), but the interception of the h6-d2 line means that we can play 2.Rg2+! Ke1 3.Bd2#. If 1…Rxe3+, then the necessary reply is 2.Ndf3+!, importantly eyeing e1, e.g. 2…Rd3 3.Re1# (alternatively, 2…Kxd2 3.Rd2#, with the bR blocking the ‘otherwise flight square’, e3). Another defence is 1…Bxe3, whereupon 2.Rxe3 seals the deal.
If you had a go at this one, you may have found the computer a useful ally. If you found all these ramifications without that ally, you really should think about getting into competitive solving!
I said in a recent column that the British Chess Problem Society is a mix of people whose main interest is solving chess problems, and people whose focus is rather on trying to compose problems (with a few people who have a foot in both camps); and I said that, while the solving side of things is quite buoyant, we worry about the dearth of composing talent. Newly composed problems – ‘originals’ – are the lifeblood of many chess composition websites and magazines (such as the BCPS’s journal The Problemist), and upon receipt of a magazine I often look first at the originals, partly in the hope of seeing new names (especially British ones) over the diagrams. Alas, I rarely see what I’m hoping for. If you are tempted to try your hand at composing, why not send me what you have composed? In this spirit, here is an original, albeit not by a newcomer to composition, but rather by an experienced composer, some of whose endgame studies you may have seen in Ian Watson’s ChessMoves studies column:
Mate in 8
Paul Michelet (London)
Original
Before going any further, you may like to have a look at it with a view to perhaps solving it.
A composer usually has in mind a task that he wants to achieve when composing. In this case, you might be able to intuit from the set-up of pawns what it is that Paul wanted to achieve (although I’m not sure whether I would have!).
In the diagram Black has only one legal move. So White has one ‘spare’ move before, on move 2, granting the black king some freedom to roam – or, at least, to oscillate between d5 and e5. So we start with 1.Bg3, and then, after 1…f6, play 2.Bf2. The reason why f2, rather than e1 or h4, is chosen becomes clear later. Black plays 2…Ke5, and now, because we need the white king to be in closer attendance, we play 3.Kg6. There follows 3…Kd5 4.Kh5 Ke5 5.Kg4 Kd5, and now we come to the nub of this composition. White must play 6.d4!. As we shall see, there is a mating continuation when Black makes the compulsory reply 6…exd4 e.p.; but it was necessary to play 6.d4 rather than 6.d3 because 6.d3 would have allowed 6…Ke5, after which we can’t force mate on move 8. After 6…exd4 e.p. 7.Kf4 d2 8.e4 is mate (with d4 now guarded by the bishop that chose to go to f2 on move 2).
The challenge that Paul had set himself was to construct a scenario in which White would have to move a pawn two squares to be captured e.p., because moving one square, envisaging a conventional capture, would fail. It is by no means easy to set this up. (Do have a go at emulating this in a sound problem if you are tempted!) It is hoped that the challenge to the composer to set this up will be matched by the pleasure of the solver in unearthing this rather cryptic feature.
In his problems Paul has shown this sort of diagram position – this ‘matrix’ – to illustrate a number of thematic ideas. I leave you with a revised version of a 2013 problem of his, which you may like to have a go at solving before I reveal the solution in the next issue:
Mate in 7
Paul Michelet
Correspondence Chess, 2013 (version)
No question of an e.p. capture this time, but you will find that Paul had in mind some highly eye-catching strategic play, in which the proximity of the white king to its black counterpart is a significant feature. At first glance 1.Kg5 looks good (1…Ke3 2.Kg4#), but Black can play 1…d5!.
Don’t hesitate to email me with any queries at all to do with this column.
Christopher Jones Email: cjajones1@yahoo.co.uk