Mat Plus

RESULT OF THEME TOURNEY

Mat Plus Challenge No.1

Theme for this tourney (see the announcement) was indeed very challenging, thus justifying the header of the announcement. There were some objections to as demanding theme as this one was. For instance, Theodor Tauber wrote to me: "A very good idea, but if you want to popularize the tournament, I think you must propose more simple themes". Theo was right, but only partly. The purpose of the popularization should not be only to attract as many novices as possible. We must also think sometimes about the experienced composers and masters, who usually are not motivated enough by simple themes and occasionally need a more demanding instigation. The artistry of winning problem is the best argument in favor of this attitude.

The aim of this challenge was to attract the masters - and the masters were attracted! I received 12 entries by four World famous authors: Michel Caillaud from France (1 twomover), Aaron Hirchenson from Israel (7!), Marjan Kovacevic from Yugoslavia (2) and Yosi Retter from Israel (2). The overall quality was extremely high and ALL problems deserved the place in the award!

The judgment was not difficult since I could easily divide the entries into 3 qualitative groups: a prize-winning level problems recognized by either great originality or content extended beyond the thematic requirement, not to mention the exemplar composing technique; a honorable mention level problems without formal defects like same refutation for two tries (set-play form was a convenient way to avoid this); and a commendation level entries which have some kind of imperfection, but still are noteworthy achievements. I knew the names of authors beforehand, but this never influenced my judgment. The fact is that two problems by my countryman and a very good friend are between the prizewinners, but this is simply because both are - brilliant!

Theme required the cyclic mating permutations based on white errors (instead of so far almost exclusively used black weakenings), where in each phase one of thematic mates is prevented by some kind of white weakness (e.g. self-interference/obstruction, unguarded square etc.), while remaining two are separated by black defences. As mentioned in the announcement, the greatest difficulty the composer is here faced to is how to cope with black defence which is not a thematic variation in respective phase and tends to produce a dual mate. It was suggested that the most suitable way is to prevent the move in question to be a defence against the threat. I would add that in the set play phase, if present, this third black move can simply be ignored.


Marjan Kovacevic (YU)
1st Prize
r2S2B2b9p1p2Q1b4R4k2KR6S3P1pP1B4s






#2*v 10+8
*1... Se3,Ba3: 2.d3,Qf5# [2.Sf2??]
1.Rf3? ~ 2.d3#
  1... Se3,Be3 2.Sf2:,Qf5# [2.d3??]
  (1... Ba6 2.Bd5#)
  1... Sd2:!
1.Rf5! ~ 2.Rf4#
  1... Ba3:,Be3 2.Sf2:,d3# [2.Qf5??]
  (1... Kf5: 2.Bh7#)

1st Prize: No.12 by Marjan Kovacevic (YU). Fascinating problem in all respects: extreme originality, spectacular key, eye-catching construction with white pieces arranged along the edges of the board and no pieces in the black king's field. In initial position Sf2 is never mate since BK escapes to f4. White has to guard this square. 1.Rf3 does it, and at the same time, moving anticritically, threats 2.d3#. It seems that no weakness is done to white position, but now comes the climax of the idea: after 1... Be3 or 1... Se3 anticritical move turns out to be at the same time the critical one, since d3 is guarded no more! The key 1.Rf5 weakens the square f5 giving the flight to BK, introducing thematically less interesting, but due to the flight-giving first move more attractive phase (and rightly selected to be the solution since only here the only underused white piece, Se8, gets its role in guarding the square e6).


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
2nd Prize
9p1Sp7K3p4B2Rbsk1pSQ1R3p13rs






#2*v 7+10
*1... Bd2,Bd6 2.Qh8,Qf2# [2.Rc4??]
1.Sge5? ~ 2.Qf4:#
  1... Bd2,Sd2/Sd6 2.Rc4:,Qf2# [2.Qh8??]
  (1... Sg2 2.Sf3:#)
  1... Sd3!
1.Se3! ~ 2.Qf4:#
  1... Bd6,Sd2/Sd6 2.Rc4:,Qh8# [2.Qf2??]
  (1... Sg2/Sd3 2.Sc2#)

2nd Prize: No.4 by Aaron Hirchenson (IL). Try 1.Sge5? and key 1.Se3! both add the guard for 2.Rc4:#, but respectively interfere WQ mating lines from h8 and f2. At the same time, these moves cut the lines d6-f4 or d2-f4 this making the black defences Bd6 and Bd2 ineffective when unwanted. Light setting with no white pawns and additional change after 1... Sg2 - a masterly constructed twomover!


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
3rd Prize
5b1B6sK2ppR1P6kp3rP2p1sQP3P5R8S1B






#2*v 11+9
*1... Rd4:,Rc3: 2.Se3,Be4# [2.Qf7??]
1.R6e3? ~ 2.Rf2#
  1... Rd4:,Se6 2.Qf7,Be4# [2.Se3??]
  1... Sh5!
1.R6e4! ~/Kf6 2.Rf2#
  1... Rc3:,Se6 2.Qf7,Se3# [2.Be4??]

3rd Prize: No.7 by Aaron Hirschenson. Thematic moves of BRc4 in the set play separate two Somov mates. After the flight-giving removals of WRe6 these mates are possible when BSg7 opens the guard by WBh8 to f6. However, duals in neatly defeated try and in actual play are avoided by white self-obstruction, while the destinations of white key piece alternatively make one of BR moves ineffective so that mate 2.Qf7 appears after different black moves in respective phases. Interesting and attractive conception!


Marjan Kovacevic (YU)
4th Prize
5RrS3r5s2p5P1k6p1R7B7Q3Kb






#2*v 7+7
*1... Rd5,Rf7 2.Re4,Qd4:# [2.Sf7??]
1.Bc6? ~ 2.Re4#
  1... Rd5,Sd5 2.Sf7,Qd4:# [2.Re4??]
  (1... Bf4: 2.Qf4:#)
  1... Rg4!
1.Qh4! ~ 2.Qf6#
  1... Rf7,Sd5 2.Sf7:,Re4# [2.Qd4??]
  (1... Rg5,Rf8:/Rg6 2.Qg5:,Sg6#)

4th Prize: No.11 by Marjan Kovacevic. The same method as in the winner, now with diagonal anticritical/critical line. In spite of a perfect setting the problem did not match the artistry of its counterpart. Anyway, this is by all means an excellent twomover. A small imperfection in possibility of alternate try move 1.Bb7? is not worth disturbing the exemplar economy by adding e.g. BBc8 or BPc6.


Yosi Retter (IL)
5th Prize
6Q6qp3Pp3bR5s3P1P1R3BkP3P1S1r2r1sKS1B






#2vv 13+9
1.Bd4? ~ 2.Sb2#
  1... Qf1:,Qb7 2.Sb4,Se1# [2.Qd5??]
  1... Qf4!
1.Be1? ~ 2.Sb2#
  1... Qb7,Qf6 2.Qd5,Sb4# [2.Se1??]
  1... Sd2!
1.Bb4! ~/Kc4: 2.Sb2#
  1... Qf1:,Qf6 2.Qd5,Se1# [2.Sb4??]

5th Prize: No.8 by Yosi Retter (IL). This is the best entry without the set play, which is by no means easier form as someone might suppose. The difficulty arises from the obligation to avoid the "dual-threatening" black defence twice (in the set play it can simply be ignored), and to embed different refutations for two tries. Here it is done very well, with witty pinning of Sd1 after 1... Qf1.


Michel Caillaud (FR)
Spec. Prize
23Q1B1K6P3SB5S5Pkp1R






#2 3 Sol. 9+2
1.Se3! (~)
  1... Kf3:,Kd3 2.Rf2:,c5# [2.Qe3??]
1.Sf2:! (~)
  1... Kf3:,Kf1 2.Qe3,c5# [2.Rf2??]
1.Ba4! (~), 1... Kd3,Kf1 2.Qe3,Rf2:# [2.c5??]
  1... Kf3: 2.Bd1#

Special Prize: No.10 by Michel Caillaud (FR). Another extremely original and unexpectedly unusual presentation of theme with all thematic defences being the black king's flights. The only example with new mate after "third" defence (1.Ba4! Kf3: 2.Bd1#). The realization with flight-taking first moves and three solutions is not quite conventional, but the fascinating conception deserves this special prize. Note that key moves by Sg4 could have easily been converted to tries, e.g. by addition of BPa5 (with same refutation 1... a4! for 1.Se3?/Sf2:?), still in Meredith form.


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
1st Hon. Mention
7bp1KS2P5p4p1kBp2S1b1sQ3s1p5P4q8B






#2*v 8+11
*1... Qg7:,Qb2: 2.Sc3,Sf6# [2.Qd6??]
1.Bc3? ~ 2.Qe5#
  1... Qg7:,Qh2/Qg3 2.Qd6,Sf6# [2.Sc3??]
  1... Bg7:!
1.Bf6! ~ 2.Qe5#
  1... Qb2:,Qg3/Qh2 2.Qd6,Sc3# [2.Sf6??]

1st Hon. Mention: No.1 by Aaron Hirschenson. Excellently constructed half-pin based matrix, but inferior to the second prize.


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
2nd Hon. Mention
1b5K2B1sPS2P4p1pQ4p3BkrqR1R5S1P2P2p2b






#2*v 12+10
*1... Qf7:,Qf1 2.Se2,Se6# [2.Qe5??]
1.Be2? ~ 2.Ra4/Qc4#
  1... Qf7:,Qc7: 2.Qe5,Se6# [2.Se2??]
  1... Qd6!;
1.Be6! ~ 2.Ra4/Qc4#
  1... Qf1,Qc7: 2.Qe5,Se2# [2.Se6??]
  (1... Sd5,Ba2:/Bd3 2.Qd5:,Rd3#)

2nd Hon. Mention: No.3 by Aaron Hirschenson. Again a half-pin based matrix. Double threat is a small flaw.


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
3rd Hon. Mention
3B2R2p2q1s5R2r4pP1pp3Pk1p5P3Q1P5K2SS1B






#2*v 12+9
*1... Qc5,Qa3 2.Sd3,Qe5:# [2.Qh2??]
1.d3? ~ 2.Qc1/Qd2#
  1... Qc5,Sf5: 2.Qh2,Qe5:# [2.Sd3??]
  1... Qb4!
1.d4! ~ 2.Qc1/Qd2#
  1... Qa3,Sf5: 2.Qh2,Sd3# [2.Qe5??]

3rd Hon. Mention: No.2 by Aaron Hirschenson. Also thematically correct example, but double threat which remains effective after (non-defending) king's flight spoils the impression.


Yosi Retter (IL)
1st Commendition
17r2R3r2p2p1bq1k4Q1pPR1B7BK2S1S






#2vv 9+8
1.Re2? ~ 2.Bf2#
  1... Qd6,Qf8 2.Sf3,Be5# [2.Se2??]
  1... Kc5!
1.Rf3? ~ 2.Bf2#
  1... Qd6,Qb2 2.Se2,Be5# [2.Sf3??]
  1... Kc5!
1.R3e5! ~ 2.Bf2#
  1... Qf8,Qb2 2.Se2,Sf3# [2.Be5??]
  (1... Kc5,Re6: 2.Rd5:,Qb4:#)

1st Commendation: No.9 by Yosi Retter. Harmonious and economical, but both tries are defeated by the same BK move.


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
2nd Commendition
BbS8Kp1S2P4Q5k1P4sp1P1p5P2r6B3r






#2vv 10+8
1.Se6? ~ 2.Qg7#
  1... Rf2,Sc6 2.Bd4:,Qf5# [2.Qe6??]
  1... Se6:!
1.Sf5? ~ 2.Qg7#
  1... Rb6:,Sc6 2.Bd4:,Qe6# [2.Qf5??]
  1... Sf5:!
1.Se7:! ~ 2.Qf6#
  1... Rf2,Rb6: 2.Qe6,Qf5# [2.Bd4??]
  (1... Rf1 2.Qe4:#)

2nd Commendation: No.5 by Aaron Hirschenson. Again half-pin matrix, unfortunately with cruel refutations.


Aaron Hirschenson (IL)
Special Commendition
5B2KQ7pp1pp1rpP1kS1s5q2R1S2R5P1s8B






#2*v 10+10
*1... Qh7,Qc2: 2.c4,Qd7# [2.Sb6??]
1.Sc4? ~ 2.Qc6:#
  1... Qh7,Sd4 2.S(c)b6:,Qd7# [2.c4??]
  1... Rh7!
1.Sd7! ~/Kc4 2.Qc6:#
  1... Qc2:,Sd4 2.S(d)b6:,c4# [2.Qd7??]

Special Commendation: No.6 by Aaron Hirschenson. Good, but not quite thematic since white knight mates from different departure squares.


  Milan Velimirovic
International judge