THE TOTAL COMBINATIVE SEPARATION THEME IN 2 MINIATURE

Dr Ian Shanahan, 20.v.16.

T HE M ATHEMATICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF COMBINATIVE SEPARATION
Combinative separation [hereafter c.s.] involves the presentation of every possible subset of a set
of n objects = {1, 2, 3, ..., n} (wherein { } denotes an unordered set), thus: the empty set {}; {1},
{2}, {3}, ..., {n}; {1, 2}, {1, 3}, ..., {n1, n}; {1, 2, 3}, {1, 2, 4}, ..., {n2, n1, n}; {1, 2, 3, 4}, {1, 2, 3, 5},
..., {n3, n2, n1, n}; and so forth up to and including itself. This array of all of the subsets from
is known as the power set of , or () itself an unordered set (of sets!). A moments thought
should reveal that whenever contains n elements, () will embrace 2n elements: either each
object within is a member of a particular subset of , or it is not. (Alternatively, via Combinatorics,
we have: 2n = nC0 + nC1 + ... + nCn1 + nCn, with nC0 and nCn matching {} and respectively; and, in
general, nCk = n!/[k!(nk)!] with 0 k n, where k! = k(k1)(k2) ... 321 and 0! 1, divulges
the number of subsets from which hold k objects. These cardinalities unfurl symmetrically,
because nCk = nCnk as can also be observed for the kth row of numbers from Pascals triangle,
which consists of the binomial coefficients in the expansion of (x + y)k.) Practically, within the
orthodox 2, n 4; and within the orthodox 2 miniature, n 3. It ought to be noted that c.s.
problems are by no means obliged to parade the 2 equivalent of {}, so that the minimum
requirement is actually 2n1 elements i.e., 7 for a miniature encapsulating 3 objects.
COMBINATIVE SEPARATION IN CHESS COMPOSITION
What exactly are these n objects? Typically, in a 2, they are threats (primary or secondary).
Therefore, being an offshoot of the Fleck theme, the set of 3 or 4 threats in c.s. is separated
individually, pair-wise, in trios (and so on) respectively into single mates, duals, triples (etc.) in
response to each defence. Again, the elements of both and () are unordered, so that c.s. is
utterly antithetical to all cyclic themes (where order is crucial): if the latter make Cyclones [P.
Gvozdjak], then c.s. generates a Hurricane [I. Shanahan]!
Within this article, we are dealing solely with primary threats. (Thus far, the economy record for the
c.s. of 4 secondary threats is 12 units, held by the great Gerhard Maleika; and I have not yet
encountered a c.s. of 3 secondary threats in miniature, that task having been accomplished, at least
twice, most economically with 9 men.) So, the essential c.s. pattern for 3 primary threats is: Key: 1.X!
(>2.ABC) 1...a/b/c 2.A/B/C; 1...d/e/f 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...g 2.ABC; and optionally by analogy with
{} at least one elimination mate, 1...h 2.D. (If the number of threats = n equals precisely the
number of elimination mates = n, then we speak of the problem as a combinative Karlstrm-Fleck.)
Any additional variations that merely repeat one of the mate-combinations yields a partial c.s.
problem; but where no such redundant variations exist, the c.s. is labelled total. (Here I do find the
normal terminology to be defective: total c.s. is not at all homologous to the Total Fleck theme, but
instead does correspond exactly with the Ideal Fleck theme; far better, then, would be the descriptor
ideal c.s.)
The miniatures I intend to present herein all exhibit total primary combinative threat-separation.
Much of their artistic merit lies not so much in the algebraic c.s. pattern per se but, rather, in the
mechanisms by which the various threat-combinations are forced uniquely within each variation. All
of these miniatures suffer from strong unprovided-for Black defences (e.g. a bK-flight or flightacquiring moves) which seem to be an integral part of the separation mechanism, or instead thwart
cooks (as with my own 7s try). As one might imagine, this theme is extremely difficult to master and
encompass using (at most) just seven units I know of only nine examples, all of them proffered
below, in chronological order! whereas the c.s. of a blend of, say, two primary threats and some
other mate in miniature (something which Gerhard Maleika has achieved around a dozen times) is a
much easier challenge to realize.
I would be most grateful if any readers could point out to me further examples of this theme in
miniature that I have accidentally overlooked; even better yet would be the composition of some
new miniature c.s. problems! For any further correspondence on the subject of c.s. 2 miniatures, I
can be contacted at: 57 Yates Avenue, Dundas Valley NSW 2117, AUSTRALIA; or via e-mail
< ian_shanahan@hotmail.com >. And now to the nine problems themselves:
~1~

1 Gerhard Maleika
3 HM Deutsche Schachzeitung 1982 C+

________
[bdwiwdnd]
[dBdwdpdw]
[wdwIwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdQdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
-------2 *

Set: 1...S~ 2.Q()e7; 1.Qb5? (>2.Qd7) 1...Sf6!; 1.Qg4! (>2.Qc8[A],Qd7[B],Qg8[C]) 1...Pf6 2.ABC;
1...Sh6/Ke8/Bb7 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sf6/Se7/Pf5 2.A/B/C. It is entirely appropriate that the all-time
master of c.s. in the 2 be the very first to demonstrate c.s. in miniature. Rightly, 1 is memorialized in
the relevant FIDE Album. With its set-play, try, and beautiful flight-giving key, it arguably remains the
best miniature example of this theme.
2 Gerhard Maleika
Deutsche Schachzeitung 1985 C+

________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdndwdw]
[wdwdwdNd]
[dwdwdRdw]
[wIwiwdwd]
[dwdpdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdw$wdw]
-------2

1.Rf4+/Sf4? (>2./Rd5,Se6) 1...Kd5/Se5!; 1.Se7! (>2.Sc6[A],Rd5[B],Rf4[C]) 1...Sf8 2.ABC;

1...Sc5/Sb6/Sb8 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sf6/Pd2/Se5 2.A/B/C. The bS has a strenuous workout. A sweet
construction!
3 Gerhard Maleika
The Problemist xi.1989 {C7773} C+

________
[wdwdwdRd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[pdwdwdwd]
[dwdw!wdw]
[wdw0wdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdpd]
[dKdkdwdw]
-------2

1.Rg2/Rg3? (>2.Qe2/Rd3) 1...Pd3/Kd2!; 1.Re8! (>2.Qd4[A],Qe1[B],Qe2[C]) 1...Pa5 2.ABC;

1...Pg1S/Pg1R/Pg1B 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Kd2/Pd3/Pg1Q 2.A/B/C. Besides the regular c.s. pattern
(which is further enhanced by the 2 tries), 3 also displays a Black Allumwandlung [AUW]. The bPa6 is
there simply to provide the ABC variation, suggesting that it might be possible to show c.s. with just a
mere 6 units!

~2~

4 Michael McDowell
The Problemist xi.1992 {C8297} C+

________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[pdwdwdwd]
[dw0Rdwdw]
[wdwdwdwI]
[dwdwiwdn]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdQdw]
-------2

1.Qd3+? 1...Kf4 2.Rf5 1...Kf2!; 1.Rd3+? 1...Ke4!; 1.Kg3! (>2.Qd3[A],Qe1[B],Qf3[C]) 1...Pa5 2.ABC;
1...Sg5/Ke4/Pc4 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sg1/Sf2/Sf4 2.A/B/C. 4 is really just a preliminary version of 8.
5 Robert A. Lincoln
The Problemist ix.1995 {C8847} C+

________
[w$wdwdwd]
[dwdndwdw]
[wdwdwdwG]
[dwdw0wdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdBdwIwd]
[dwdwdwdk]
-------2

1.Be4+/Rb1+? 1...Kh2/Kh2!; 1.Rb3/Rb4? (>2.Rh3/Rh4) 1...Kh2/Pe4!; 1.Rh8? (>2.Bh~) 1...Sf8 2.Bf8

1...Sf6!; 1.Bf4! (>2.Rb1[A],Rh8[B],Be4[C]) 1...Pe4 2.ABC; 1...Sc5/Sf8/Sb6 2.AB/AC/BC;
1...Sf6/Pf4/Sb8 2.A/B/C. It is a pity that 1.Bh~? is defeated by three bS moves; yet otherwise, the
five genuine tries 1.Rh8? most of all add a great deal of weight to this excellent specimen of the
c.s. theme in miniature. All of the rich line-play here certainly makes 5 unique among these nine
compositions. And although its give-and-take key does, alas, take the (unprovided) flight, the wBs
sacrifice is quite unexpected.
6 Alexandre Zarhs
Smena 1995 C+

________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdpdwdw]
[wHwdkdKd]
[hwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[!wdwHwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
-------2

1.Qf8/Sc8/Sc4? (>2.Qf6/Qd6[A],Qe7[C]/A,Qe3[B]) 1...Ke5/Ke5/Sc4!; 1.Sf5! (>2.ABC) 1...Pd5

2.ABC; 1...Pd6/Sb3/Sb7 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sc6/Ke5/Sc4 2.A/B/C. All three tries are very probably
unintentional and are by no means convincing, yet their play does deliver the Rudenko theme.

~3~

7 Ian Shanahan
The Problemist v.1996 {C8946} C+
~ Dedicated to Michael McDowell ~

________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dndwdwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
[wdwdwiPI]
[dwdwdNdb]
[wdwdQdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
-------2

1.Se5? (>2.Sd3,Sg6) 1...Bg4!; 1.Sg5! (>2.Sh3[A],Se6[B],Qe4[C]) 1...Sa5 2.ABC; 1...Sd6/Sd8/Bf1

2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sc5/Bg2/Bg4 2.A/B/C. The key is passable even reasonable given the theme.
Unity in this problem is achieved through the fact that all of Blacks moves utilize the very simple
strategic element of guard to generate each specific combination of the seven mates. It took me nearly
four years of hard work to attain the goal of c.s. of three primary threats in miniature.
8 Michael McDowell
Comm The Problemist 1996/I {C8947} C+
~ Dedicated to Ian Shanahan ~

________
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdpdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dRdwdw0w]
[wdwdkdwh]
[dwdwdw!w]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdKdwdw]
-------2

1.Qg4+/Re5+? 1...Kd3/ 2.Rb3/ 1...Ke3/Kd4!; 1.Ke2! (>2.Qe3[A],Qe5[B],Qg4[C]) 1...Pg4 2.ABC;

1...Pf5/Pf6/Sf5 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sg6/Sg2/Sf3 2.A/B/C; 1...Kd4 2.Qd3. Certainly an improvement of
Michaels own 4, and to date the sole example to incorporate an elimination mate! The two tries are
fortuitous and entirely incidental, although the first try does generate a mate by the wR. Superb White
economy, and the bK is nicely mirrored pretty indeed. I am most grateful for the dedication.
9 Ian Shanahan
Die Schwalbe x.2012 {No.15313} C+

________
[wdwdKdwd]
[dw0wdwdw]
[ndwdkdwd]
[dQdwGwdw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwHw]
[wdwdwdwd]
[dwdwdwdw]
-------2

1.Bf4/B~(a1)? (>2.Qc6[A],Qe5[C],Qf5/A,Qd7[B],C) 1...Kf6/Kd6!; 1.Bd4! (>2.ABC) [1...S~ 2.ABC];

1...Pc5/Pc6/Sb4 2.AB/AC/BC; 1...Sc5/Kd6/Sb8 2.A/B/C. In addition to the c.s. pattern, we see the
Rudenko theme in the try-play. (Notice that the two tries are real, in the sense that that they both
~4~

activate their own refutations!) The lovely, hard-to-see flight-giving key allows and yet provides for
1...Kd6, by guarding c5. There is a spoof imaginary move allowing all three threats to appear as
mates; i.e., only six of the seven possible combinations in reality manifest themselves during the postkey play (a fatal weakness?). Observe that if all of the units are shifted one square to the East, then
1...S~a i.e., bS to a4 or a8 actualizes all three threats after the key; but the choice of squares by
the bS is an inaccuracy, hence a serious flaw. Note that wSg3 may be replaced by a wPg4 (C+): this
option is certainly more economical, yet a wSg3 makes the try 1.Bf4? appear far more plausible (i.e.,
with merely a wPg4 instead, why not 1.Bh2?). I still wonder which of the four proposed versions is the
best...

~5~