Support for Ukrainian chess problemists

Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the World Federation for Chess Composition imposed a number of sanctions on Russia and its ally Belarus. These sanctions were approved in the World Congress held by the organisation in Fujairah UAE, November 2022, and they are in line with those enforced by FIDE and the IOC. Russia and Belarus are banned from participating in WFCC team competitions for problem composing and solving. Problemists from the two nations are allowed to take part in events for individuals, but they must do so without country designations. Some proposed penalties, such as expelling Russia and Belarus from the WFCC, did not gain sufficient votes to be passed by the Assembly, but sanctions that were introduced remain in effect today.

Ukraine is one of the strongest nations in the world in chess composition, as evidenced by its preponderance of titled composers: 11 GMs, 17 IMs, and 8 FMs, according to the WFCC site. In fact, at the annual World Chess Composition Tournament (roughly equivalent to the Chess Olympiad), Ukraine achieved second place out of nearly 40 countries for the last three years. During these extremely difficult times for our Ukrainian friends, you can show your support by making a donation. Such contributions are organised by Peter Gvozdjak and Vasil Dyachuk (Slovakian and Ukrainian problemists*, respectively), as described in this Mat Plus Forum post: Financial help for Ukrainian composers and solvers. For more details, write to Peter at this email address: peter.gvozdjak{at}gmail.com.

Below is a small selection of problems by contemporary Ukrainian composers. Other examples found on this site include: Weekly Problem No.504 by Anatoly Vasilenko; No.545 by Fedir Kapustin & Sergiy I. Tkachenko; No.578 & No.703 by Andrey Frolkin; No.584 by Mikola Vasyuchko; No.606 by Viktor Schtscherbina; No.607 by Valery Kopyl; No.686 by Vasil Dyachuk; No.692 by Mikhail Marandjuk & Volodimir Soldatov; No.707 & No.721 by Aleksandr Semenenko.

This two-mover by a pair of GMs combines a number of modern themes. The incidental set variations, 1…S~ 2.Sc5 and 1…g5 2.f5, stay unchanged throughout the solution, but White must prepare against the three moves by the black bishop (marked [a/b/c]). Three tries take care of different pairs of these defences, but the remaining bishop move refutes – this generates the cyclic refutation scheme. After 1.Qh1? (waiting), the queen targets the potential flight on d5, 1…Bxe4 [a] 2.Qxe4, 1…Bxc4 [b] 2.Bd3, but this is defeated by 1…Bxc6! [c]. The second try 1.Sce5? [A] (waiting) adds a guard on d7, 1…Bc4 [b] 2.cxb7, 1…Bxc6 [c] (self-pin) 2.Qxb3 [C], but 1…Bxe4! [a] is unanswered. Thirdly, 1.Sd6? [B] controls f5 and threatens 2.Bf5, 1…Bxc6 [c] 2.Bxc6, 1…Bxe4 [a] (self-pin) 2.Qxb3 [C], but 1…Bc4! [b] refutes. These tries produce a pair of changed mates for each of the principal defences. The key 1.Qxb3! [C] (waiting) forms a masked battery with the c4-knight, 1…Bxe4 [a] (self-pin) 2.Sd6 [B], 1…Bxc4 [b] 2.Qxc4, and 1…Bxc6 [c] (self-pin) 2.Sce5 [A]. Since in the post-key play, all three mating moves against the bishop defences are changed yet again, the maximum nine distinct variations are achieved in this demonstration of cyclic refutation.

Furthermore, two sequence reversals are incorporated in the full solution, as indicated by the white moves marked [A/B/C]. The try play 1.Sce5? [A] Bxc6 2.Qxb3 [C] and actual play 1.Qxb3! [C] Bxc6 2.Sce5 [A] see a reversal of White’s first and second moves, against the same defence. Such a pattern, which involves the same mating picture arising from battery and non-battery play, is called the Salazar theme. A similar reversal, 1.Sd6? [B] Bxe4 2.Qxb3 [C] and 1.Qxb3! [C] Bxe4 2.Sd6 [B], means that the idea is doubled. This complex blend of cyclic and reciprocal pattern themes is enhanced by traditional effects like the three firing batteries and self-pinning defences.

Aleksandr and Valery Semenenko are twin brothers, both of whom have attained GM status. Their joint helpmate features the Umnov theme, in which a white unit moves to a square only after it has been vacated by a black one. Originating in directmates, the theme is not that paradoxical in helpmates, but an intensive rendition like this one can be still very attractive. In part (a), the king is mated on e6 by a pawn; this requires three self-blocks by black pieces that should not be captured by White. 1.Rf7 Sf2 2.Qd7 Sg4 3.Sd6 e4+ 4.Ke6 d5. All four black moves are followed by white ones to the just vacated squares. In part (b), the king stays on d5 to be mated by the knight, and two new self-blocks are needed. 1.Sf5 Sg3 2.Se3 Sf5 3.Sc4 e3 4.e6 Se7. Strikingly, the Umnov effect is again shown in every move of the solution, with no thematic squares repeated across the two parts.

Andrey Frolkin is an IM best known for his retros. His collaborator here shares both a first name and a last name with another prominent Ukrainian problemist (this must cause some confusion among chess problem editors!). Sergiy Ivanovich Tkachenko is an FM who composes mostly directmates, helpmates, and retros, while Sergiy Mikolaevich Tkachenko is an IM who specialises in endgame studies.

In this proof game, White is missing only the c-pawn while Black is also missing one pawn. The black units that left their home squares have used up all 16 available moves, though it’s not immediately clear which file the c2-pawn comes from. This pawn has just delivered mate with a capture, and a white pawn wasn’t taken since it would have prevented the king and queen from exchanging places. That means White’s c-pawn must have promoted, before either returning to c2 or replacing another piece that got sacrificed there. The promotion took place on b8 after cxb7 – not cxd7+ disrupting the black king; hence the black c2-pawn comes from d7. 1.c4 d5 2.c5 Kd7 3.c6+ Ke6 4.cxb7 Sc6 5.b8=Q Ba6. White promotes quickly in order to release the black bishop and rook, since premature moves by Black’s d-pawn or knight would trap the white king. But now 6.Qbb3? would interfere with the original queen, which needs to go beyond c2 to let the king out. So instead, the two queens execute a manoeuvre that entails switching their expected roles. 6.Qa4 Bc4 7.Qbb3 Rb8 8.Kd1 Rb6 9.Kc2 Sd4+ 10.Kc3 Rc6 11.Qd1 Sb5+ 12.Kc2 d4 13.Qe1 d3+ 14.Kd1 Qd4 15.Qc2 Qc3 16.a4 dxc2. Thus it’s the promoted queen that ends up on e1, after visiting its counterpart’s initial d1-square, while the original queen is captured on its counterpart’s initial c2-square. The clearance manoeuvre shown by the queens – a kind of Turton doubling – is well-known in directmates but very original when performed in a proof game.

*Thanks to Peter Gvozdjak who indicates that in 2016, Vasil Dyachuk became a Slovak citizen.