[Retros] a problem by Július Sunyer

[Joaquim Crusats]

I need some help with a  problem published by Dr. Július Sunyer in 1930.



Jordi Breu, a Catalan composer now aged 81 is preparing a new home-made
edition of "Selecció dels Problemes compostos per Josep Paluzie" (in Catalan
language, "Selection of  Problems composed by Josep Paluzie") mostly for
historical reasons so that some copies can be preserved in the National
Library of Catalonia for future chess composers interested in the history of
chess composition in Catalonia. The book includes the problems that "El Club
d'Escacs Barcelona" (Barcelona Chess club) published in "Els Escacs a
Catalunya" (Chess in Catalonia) in 1930 in a homage dedicated to Josep
Paluzie. Among the problems there was the one below by Július Sunyer,
another well-known Catalan composer of retros (as I have found out in the
Retrograde Analysis Corner). The problem, which I did not find in the PDB
Server, is the following:



8/pppppp1p/8/6N1/8/5P1P/P1NPPP1k/rb3Knn

Add two white pieces (none of them on g3) and then white #1

ELS ESCACS A CATALUNYA, December,1930, pages 670-671.

The solution by Sunyer was published in the same magazine, February 1931,
p.718.

Solution: Add a wBd1 and a wRg4 and 1.Rg2#



The main ideas in  Sunyer's solution are the following:

Black played last, the only possible move was b1=B. All captures by black
took place in black squares, thus the wB initially in f1 must still be on
the board. Since it is not the piece that can deliver the mate it must be on
d1 because when black promoted, the bRa1 couldn't be checking the wK.

Now there is some reasoning to exclude a mate by the wQ. Owing to the fact
that all the knights are still on the board, and given the pawn structure,
the first capture had to be gxQf6. Since the wB on dark squares can not
mate, the only possible solution is the one above.



However, Dr Sunyer was very self critic about the need of the statement
(none of them on g3). Paluzie wondered whether or not the problem could be
improved.



So I would be most grateful if you could comment on the following points:



a) is the problem cooked? The initial position (including the two additional
pieces) seems to be easily legal,

b) has the problem been reprinted somewhere else?

c) can you see any way to improve the problem keeping all the original
content in such a way that a mate by a wQ cannot be initially ruled out (and
ideally the mate by the wQ should be also unique as the intended one by the
wR) without the need of any additional statement added to the stipulation?



J.Breu would like to use the comments in the new edition of the booklet, but
of course only if you agreed.



Thanks in advance,
Joaquim Crusats
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pairlist.net/pipermail/retros/attachments/20090110/bbba9c2d/attachment.htm>