Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

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]

examples were quite easy to compose. It’s much harder, though, to come up with

something tolerably good, i.e. with a decent key and some possibly original play

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 Dijk’s 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)

In

What I quickly discovered was that bad

convincing tries, as in Saletic’s 16; (6) appealing interaction of Black and White force (very

). There

hard to be precise about this, but it is a feature of many of the best miniatures

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

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.

key, model mates, and an elimination mate 2.Qd6 after 1

Kd5.

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. Rice’s 31 is similar to Hernitz’s 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 Sikdar’s 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+

1.Se8! (>2.Bf7[A],Sc7[B],Qe4[C]) 1

[wdwIwdwd]

[dwdwdwhw]

[wdwdkHwd]

[dwdwdwdB]

[wdwdw!wd]

[dwdPdwdw]

[wdwdwdwd]

[dwdwdwdw]

--------

2

S×e8/S×h5/Sf5/Kd5

2.A/B/C/Qd6.

1.Qc4! (>2.Q×a2) 1

21 Sven Ekström

Schackvärlden 1944 C+

[wdwdwdwd] [dwdwdwdw] [wdwdwdwd] [dwdwdwdw] [wdw!wdwd] [$wdwdwdw]

[n0wIwdwd]

[dkdwdwdw]

--------

2

Sc1/Sc3/Sb4/Ka1

2.Qc2/Qd3/Qf1/Q×a2.

~ 2 ~

22 David Hjelle Nynorsk Vekeblad 1946 C+

[wdwdwdwd] [dwdwGwdw] [wdwdwdpd]

[dwdwdw0k]

[wdwdwdpd]

[dwdwdwdw]

[wdwdwdwd]

[dwdw!wIw]

--------

2

1.Qe5! (2.Q×g5[A],Qh8[B],Qh2[C]) g3/Kh6/Kh4 2.A/B/C.

23 A. Siotis Parallèle 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/R×c5/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/S×g5/Sf6 2.A/B/C.

26 Hilding Fröberg

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.

Set: 1

b6/b5

27 Niharendu Sikdar The Hindu 1970 C+

[whQdBdwd]

[dpdwdwdw]

[wdwdwdwd]

[iwdwGwdw]

[wdwdwdwd]

[dKdwdwdw]

[wdwdwdwd]

[dwdwdwdw]

--------

2 *

2.Bc3/Bc7; 1.Q×b7! (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],R×d3[B],Rd2[C],Re1[D]) d×e2/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/K×c1/e2 2.A/B/C.

Set: 1

30 Ian Shanahan (after H. Fröberg) The Problemist Supplement 1997 C+

[wdwdwdwd] [dwdwdwdw] [wdwIwdwd] [dNdQdwdw]

[wdwdw0wd]

[dwdwiwdw]

[Rdwdwdwd]

[dwdwdwdn]

--------

2 *

f3

dual after the key: 1 this!)

2.Qd4; 1.Sc3! (2.Sd1[A],Re2[B],Qe4[C]) Sg3/Sf2/f3 2.A/B/C. (But there is a ruinous

f3

2.Qd2works as well as the intention. Somehow, I overlooked

~ 5 ~

Set: 1

31 John Rice (after Z. Hernitz) The Problemist Supplement 1997 C+

[wdwdwdwG]

[dwdwdwdw]

[wdwdwdwd]

[Iwdpdwdw]

[wdkdwdwd]

[dpdwdwdw]

[wdwdPdQd]

[dwdwdwdw]

--------

2 *√√√

d4

2.A/B/C.

2.Qc6; 1.Qf2/Qg3/Qg6? b2[a]/d4[b]/Kc5[c]! 1.Qg7! (2.Qc3[A],Qd4[B],Qc7[C]) 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/R×e6/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.Q×c6[A],Qb4[B],Qd4[C]) Sc2/Sb3/K×c3/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/S×c8/S×c6 2.A/B/C.

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

~ 8 ~