370. Vyacheslav Kamenskiy Russia
|
1.Bh1! (~)
1... Kf5 2.Bf3 Ke6 3.Bg4#, 2... Kf4 3.Rf6:#
1... f5 2.Rg2 Ke4 3.Rg4#
Well known Indian, and two additional mates in by-play. [Milan Velimirovic]
What's new here? [Jorma Paavilainen]
|
371. Srecko Radovic Yugoslavia
|
1.Ra5? ~ 2.Scd5:#, 1... Rh8!
1.Rd8? ~ 2.Sbd5#, 1... Ra1!
1.Ka7? ~ 2.Ra5, 1... Ra1! 2.Ra1:? stalemate!
1.Kb8? ~ 2.Rd8, 1... Rh8! 2.Rh8:? stalemate!
1.e4? ~ 2.ed5#, 1... de4!
1.f3? (~), 1... Rh4! 2.Rd8 Rd4:!
1.f4! (~)
1... Rg1..b1 2.Ra5! ~,Kb6: 3.Scd5:,Ra6#
1... Rh2..h7 2.Rd8! ~,Kc7: 3.Sbd5:,Rc8#
1... Ra1 2.Ra1:
1... Rh8 2.Rh8:
Two tries with short threat are defeated by direct guard by BR moves to corners. Further two tries by WK fail due to stalemate motive. Key move puts black in zugzwang: BR must leave its focal position. [Author]
|
372. Leonid Makaronets Israel
|
1... Sc4 2.Sg6+ Kd5 3.Se7:#
1... Sc6 2.Sg2+ Kd5 3.Se3#
1.Kg3! ~ 2.Qg1/Qf2
1... Sc4 2.Qh6 ~ 3.Qe6:#
1... Sbc6 2.Qh7 ~ 3.Qe4#
1... Bb7 2.Qh6 ~ 3.Qe6:#
(1... Rd8 2.cd8Q/S)
(1... Rf8 2.gf8S)
A good key introduces changes for the defences 1... Sc6/Sc4. [Jorma Paavilainen]
|
373. Milan R. Vukcevich USA
|
1.Bf4?(A) ~ 2.Qe5+(B) fe5 3.Re5:#
1... Be7: 2.f3(C) Ra5:,Bd8 3.Se7:,Rd2#
1... Ba5: 2.Qe4+(D) fe4 3.Se7#
1... Re6!
1.f3!(D) ~ 2.Qe4+(D) fe4 3.fe4#
1... Be7: 2.Bf4(A) Ra5:,Bd8 3.Se7:,Rd2#
1... Ba5: 2.Qe5+(B) Kc6,fe5 3.Qd6:,Se7#
(1... Rd7: 2.Qd7:+)
A four-fold cycle of keys and second moves. Is this a Djurasevic theme, or did I miss again? [Author]
This is in fact no cycle, only two reciprocal pairs of moves. Keys and 2nd moves after Bxe7 make Salazar, threats and 2nd moves after Bxa5 make Le Grand, summarized it gives (I am not absolutely sure) Lender combination. Anyway nice and clearcut threemover. But no cycle! [Juraj Jörinc]
Reciprocal change of white second moves between try/solution. Solid skill, though WRh2 is rather lonely. [Jorma Paavilainen]
|
374. Mirko Markovic Yugoslavia
|
1... Rc4 2.Sf8+ Ke5: 3.Sg6#
1... Kf5 2.Qf3+ Kf4/Ke4 3.Qf3#
1.Sg6! ~ 2.Sde5+ Kd6 3.Bb4:#
1... Rc4 2.Qd5+ Kd5: 3.Sf6#
1... Kf5 2.Qe4+ Ke4: 3.Sf6#
(1... Kd6 2.Bb4:+ Ke6 3.Sde5#)
(1... Kf7 2.Sde5+ Ke8 3.Bd7#)
(1... Sb3/Sc6 2.Sde5+ Kd6 3.Qc6#)
(1... Bg5: 2.Sde5+ Kf6 3.Qg5:#)
Many variations of which the two WQ-sacrifices are the most impressive. [Jorma Paavilainen]
|
375. Borislav Stojanovic Yugoslavia
|
1.Ba6! e5(~) 2.b5 e4 3.b4 e3 4.Rb8#
2... Ka5 3.b4+ Ka4 4.b3#
1... Kc6 2.Bf4 Kd5 3.Bb7+ Kd4 4.Rd8#
2... e5 3.Be5: Kd5,Kb6,Kd7 4.Bb7,Re6,Bb5#
1... Ka6: 2.Rb8 e5 3.Bc7 e4 4.b5#
Good sacrificial key and good variety of mates. Interesting role of wPb2 which guards c3 in one variation and unexpectedely mates in threat. [Milan Velimirovic]
|
376. Borislav Stojanovic Yugoslavia
|
1.Rg1! ~ 2.Ra1: ~ 3.Ra8+
1... Bb2 2.Rc1 Bc1: 3.Kf7: e5+ 4.Kf6
1... Bc3 2.Kf7: e5+ 3.Kf6 e4+ 4.Rc3:
1... Bd4 2.ed4 etc.
1... Be5 2.Kf7: Bd6: 3.Be7+ Be7: 4.Rg8+
1... Bf6 2.Kf7: Bh4 3.Be7+
1... Bh8 2.Rc1 etc.
(1... Bg7 2.Kg7: --> #4)
It would be too ambitious to expect seven different variations after Bishop's defences along the long diagonal, so one shorter variation (after 1... Bg7) and same second move in three variation is not a surprise. Highlights are the Rook sacrifice after 1... Bb2 and consecutive checks after 1... Bc3. [Milan Velimirovic]
|
377. Hans Peter Rehm Germany
|
1.Sc4? Bxd5! 2.Se5+ dxe5,
1.Ba2? too slow, hence
1.Ra1 (thr. 2.Rf1+) Rxa1+ 2.Ba2! Rg1! (2...Rxa2+?
3.Kb8) 3.Sc4 (thr. Sxd6#) Bd5 4.Se5+!dxe5 5.Bxd5,
4...Ke6 5.Re8# If 1...c1Q then 2.Rxc1 Bxd5 3.Rf1+ etc.
As far as I know this is the first presentation of a
paracritical move played in Lepushutz form. It is possible
to make the problem more difficult: -c2d3a8h2 +white Pd2
+black sh2 pb7d4 since the solver is reluctant to leave
the free line a3-h3 by Ra3 and he will loose some time
to find 1...Rxg7 2.Bxe6+ Kxe6 3.Re1+ Kf7 4.Sd7!
But there are minor duals, and I do not like unthematical
rather difficult byvariations like 1...Rxg7. So I prefer
the more artistic version as given above. For a solving
contest the more difficult version would be better. [Author]
I am only reading amateur for logic school, but this manoeuvre (Ra1!, Ba2!, Sc4!) is very impressive even for me. The version with free 3rd row would be, in my opinion, absolutely unsolvable within reasonable time on solving competition. [Juraj Jörinc]
I wish I knew what kind of logical manouvres take place here! With 1.Ra1 (Beschaftigungslenkung?!??) white wins the necessary time for 3.La2 , a necessary critical move for 4.Sc4. [Jorma Paavilainen]
|
|