MORE IDEAL FLECKERY IN 2 MINIATURE

Ian Shanahan

The response to my previous article on the total Fleck theme in 2 miniature (The
Problemist July 1997, pp.170-171) was highly gratifying. In particular, I wish to thank the
following problemists for their enthusiastic contribution of information, corrections,
additional examples, and newly composed positions: Jose Antonio Coello Alonso, Espen
Backe, Gianni Donati, Geoff Foster, Albert Koldijk, Sir Jeremy Morse, John Rice, and
Adrian Storisteanu.

Firstly, some emendations: the source of 2 is Sjakknytt 1946; the true source of 3
(composed by Nico van Dijk, not Nils G. G. van Dijk) is E.W.W.-wedstrijd 1948; 6 received
a 2nd HM in Leninska Molodij 1967; the matrix of 7 is partially anticipated by 26 herein;
observe that the tries in 8 exhibit cyclic refutation; 16 is anticipated by 22, below (which,
however, lacks try-play). Finally, 18 does not strictly conform to the theme, because Black
has a choice of promotions leading to the same mate; in any case, it is anticipated by 24.

Now a note concerning nomenclature. Sir Jeremy Morse has taken me to task on my
definition of total Fleck. In fact, a total Fleck pattern may include duplicated (single)
mates but it will always be completely dual-free. He suggests that the formula of one-to-
one correspondence between Black moves and separated threats be known instead as
the ideal Fleck theme, a useful terminology that I shall maintain hereafter. It should also
be understood that both total and ideal Fleck formats can, of course, incorporate Black
moves that defeat all threats but permit some new mate; such mates will be referred to
generically as elimination mates.

John Rice was especially captivated by the ideal Fleck theme in miniature. He analysed
all of the problems and composed some more, in the process communicating these
perspicacious remarks to me: I gave myself a couple of hours yesterday to see what I
could produce in the way of [ideal] Flecks. ... What I quickly discovered was that bad
examples were quite easy to compose. Its much harder, though, to come up with
something tolerably good, i.e. with a decent key and some possibly original play ... In
studying the various settings you have included in your article, I have come to realise that
the better ones are those where one (or more) of the following features occurs: (1) unity of
Black defences, e.g. all made by the same piece, as in van Dijks 3; (2) unity of White
mates, e.g. all by the same piece (several examples with WQ) or all from one direction
(your 29); (3) good key, e.g. giving a flight or allowing a check, as opposed to a neutral or
positively bad key; (4) set play changed by the key, even if only one mate (your 17); (5)
convincing tries, as in Saletics 16; (6) appealing interaction of Black and White force (very
hard to be precise about this, but it is a feature of many of the best miniatures ...). There
may be other (even less tangible) desirable features which go to make a good example.

Moving at last to the problems themselves, 20 is the oldest example by far just look at
that date! and is certainly one of the most beautiful, embracing a sacrificial flight-giving
key, model mates, and an elimination mate 2.Qd6 after 1...Kd5. Its excellence is only very
slightly tarnished by the outlying wPd3, which flags the key somewhat. (In passing, I
wonder whether this problem was a conscious realisation by Brouwer of the Fleck threat-
separation idea.) In relation to 12, 21 is possibly the first miniature ideal secondary Fleck.
Are there any others? It is likely that 23, though rather schematic, holds the record in
miniature: a seven-fold ideal Fleck. The wPa7 (suggested by John Rice) eradicates the
unprovided flight and idealises Siotis total Fleck scheme. In 25, Geoff Foster has added

~1~
the bP to remove a fourth (unforced) threat. The pawnless 26 can be set a little more
economically: 16 / 5R2 / 3k4 / R2P4 / 3B4 / 5K2 / 1s6. An interesting mate transference is
demonstrated in 27 but at the price of a drastic key. My 29 (a relative of 18 and 24)
gives two flights, one of them a flight-capture! It is amusing that three units sit on their
home squares. 30 merely economises and adds set-play to 9; both, however, are eclipsed
by my 17. Rices 31 is similar to Hernitzs 8: each has set-play (changed), cyclic refutation
of three tries, and unity of White play. Perhaps the composer of 33 and 34 hit upon the
mechanism of threat-separation by promotion as a result of his researches into the Holst
theme. The bad flight-taking key of 37 is ameliorated by the destruction of a Royal battery,
wK tries, unified White play, and the presence of an elimination mate. (An earlier version
4B2s / 8 / 2p1kP2 / 2Q5 / 8 / 5K2 / 16 has a better key [1.Ke4!], but no tries or the
extra variation.) There are three unprovided flights and a perfunctory give-and-take key in
38 yet an ideal Fleck miniature with rex solus and Y-flights is surely unique! Though not
anticipated, 39 is a counterpart to Sikdars 27.

As before, I would appreciate correspondence from readers who can fill in any gaps. My
postal address is 57 Yates Avenue, Dundas Valley NSW 2117, AUSTRALIA. Alternatively, I
can be reached by e-mail: ian_shanahan@hotmail.com

20 H. H. Brouwer
Good Companions Folder 1919 C+
________
[wdwIwdwd]
[dwdwdwhw]
[wdwdkHwd]
[dwdwdwdB]
[wdwdw!wd]
[dwdPdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Se8! (>2.Bf7[A],Sc7[B],Qe4[C]) 1...Se8/Sh5/Sf5/Kd5 2.A/B/C/Qd6.

21 Sven Ekstrm
Schackvrlden 1944 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdw!wdwd]
[$wdwdwdw]
[n0wIwdwd]
[dkdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Qc4! (>2.Qa2) 1...Sc1/Sc3/Sb4/Ka1 2.Qc2/Qd3/Qf1/Qa2.

~2~
 22 David Hjelle
Nynorsk Vekeblad 1946 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwGwdw]
[wdwdwdpd]
[dwdwdw0k]
[wdwdwdpd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdw!wIw]
--------
2

1.Qe5! (2.Qg5[A],Qh8[B],Qh2[C]) g3/Kh6/Kh4 2.A/B/C.

23 A. Siotis
Parallle 50 1949 (V) C+
________
[kdwdwGwd]
[)wdwdwdR]
[Kdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdw0wd]
[dwdwdrdw]
--------
2

1.Rh8! (2.Bh6[A],Bg7[B],Be7[C],Bd6[D],Bc5[E],Bb4[F],Ba3[G]) Rh1/Rg1/Re1/Rd1/Rc1/Rb1/Ra1+

2.A/B/C/D/E/F/G.

24 Albert Servais
Die Schwalbe 1952 C+
________
[Kdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[ir$Ndwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[Ndwdwdwd]
[dRdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Ra1! (2.Sc1[A],Sac3[B],Sab4[C]) Ka4/Rc5/Ka6 2.A/B/C.

~3~
 25 Ottavio Stocchi
Norsk Vanforetidsskrift Miniature Ty 1954 (V) C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdw0wdn]
[wdwdQdwd]
[dwdwIw)k]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdNdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Kf5! (2.Qh6[A],Qg6[B],Qf7[C]) Sf8/Sg5/Sf6 2.A/B/C.

26 Hilding Frberg
Springaren 1964 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wIwdw$wd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdBGkdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[ndwdwdwd]
[dwdRdwdw]
--------
2

1.Kc5! (2.Bd5[A],Bd3[B],Re1[C]) Sc1/Sc3/Sb4 2.A/B/C.

27 Niharendu Sikdar
The Hindu 1970 C+
________
[whQdBdwd]
[dpdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[iwdwGwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dKdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2 *

Set: 1...b6/b5 2.Bc3/Bc7; 1.Qb7! (2.Bc3[A],Bc7[B],Qb5[C]) Sd7/Sc6/Sa6 2.A/B/C.

~4~
 28 Klaus-Peter Zuncke
Land og Folk 1979 C+
________
[wdwdwGwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dw$pdwdw]
[wdwdRIwd]
[hwdkdwdw]
--------
2

1.Bh6! (2.Rc1[A],Rd3[B],Rd2[C],Re1[D]) de2/Sc2/d2/Sb3 2.A/B/C/D.

29 Ian Shanahan
The Problemist Supplement 1997 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dKdN0wdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwGkdwHR]
--------
2

1.Sf4! (2.Sgh3[A],Sf3[B],Sge2[C]) Ke1/Kc1/e2 2.A/B/C.

30 Ian Shanahan (after H. Frberg)

The Problemist Supplement 1997 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwIwdwd]
[dNdQdwdw]
[wdwdw0wd]
[dwdwiwdw]
[Rdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdn]
--------
2 *

Set: 1...f3 2.Qd4; 1.Sc3! (2.Sd1[A],Re2[B],Qe4[C]) Sg3/Sf2/f3 2.A/B/C. (But there is a ruinous
dual after the key: 1...f3 2.Qd2 works as well as the intention. Somehow, I overlooked
this!)

~5~
 31 John Rice (after Z. Hernitz)
The Problemist Supplement 1997 C+
________
[wdwdwdwG]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[Iwdpdwdw]
[wdkdwdwd]
[dpdwdwdw]
[wdwdPdQd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2 *

Set: 1...d4 2.Qc6; 1.Qf2/Qg3/Qg6? b2[a]/d4[b]/Kc5[c]! 1.Qg7! (2.Qc3[A],Qd4[B],Qc7[C]) a/b/c

2.A/B/C.

32 John Rice
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdNdwd]
[dwdp4pdw]
[wdwdkdwd]
[!wdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwIwdw]
--------
2

1.Kd2/Kf2? d4/f4! 1.Ke2! (2.Qd3[A],Qe3[B],Qf3[C]) f4/Re6/d4 2.A/B/C.

33 John Rice
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdw!wd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwG]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdw)pdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdpdwdwd]
[dwdkdKdw]
--------
2

1.Qf2! (2.Qd2[A],Qe2[B],Qe1[C]) c1S/c1Q/e3 2.A/B/C.

~6~
 34 John Rice
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdB]
[wdwdwdwd]
[Iwdwdwdw]
[wdwdw0wd]
[dwdwdwdQ]
[k0wdwdwd]
[gwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Ka4! (2.Qa3[A],Qb3[B],Qe6[C]) b1Q/b1S/f3 2.A/B/C.

35 John Rice
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdBdwd]
[dw0wdwdN]
[wdwiwdwd]
[dQdwdPdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwIwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Kd4! (2.Qe5[A],Qc5[B],Qd7[C]) c6/c5+/Ke7 2.A/B/C.

36 John Rice
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdpdw]
[Rdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdw0k]
[wdwdQdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdNdwdwd]
[Iwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Se3! (2.Qh7[A],Qh1[B],Qg4[C]) f6/f5/g4 2.A/B/C.

~7~
 37 Gianni Donati & Ian Shanahan
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdpdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[BdkdK!wd]
[dw)wdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[hwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.Ke5+/Ke3+? Kd3/Kd5! 1.Qd6! (2.Qc6[A],Qb4[B],Qd4[C]) Sc2/Sb3/Kc3/c5 2.A/B/C/Qd3.

38 Gianni Donati
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwHwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdw)wd]
[dwdkdwdw]
[wIwdNdQd]
[dwdwdBdw]
--------
2

1.Qf2! (2.Qd4[A],Sc3[B],Sg3[C]) Kc4/Kd2/Ke4 2.A/B/C.

39 Gianni Donati
Original 1998 C+
________
[wdBdwdwd]
[hwdwdwdw]
[wdRdwdwd]
[iwdwGwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dK)wdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
--------
2

1.c4! (2.Ra6[A],Bc3[B],Bc7[C]) Sb5/Sc8/Sc6 2.A/B/C.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~8~