Unbelievable to me

Okay, so I delayed posting another problem for a few days because I wanted as many people as possible to see the one in post #118. Anyone who hasn't yet seen that problem can still find it on the previous page. It's excellent, trust me!

Anyway, about this next problem - well, I don't really even know what to say, quite frankly. The last one I posted was among my all-time favorites... until realizing it was cooked, that is. When I committed to sharing a composition of mine from each calendar year, I probably should have given myself an "out" along the lines of "a problem counts even if it is quickly shown to be unsound", so as to avoid exactly this kind of predicament. 

Bottom line: nothing else I composed in 2015 is worth looking at. For the sake of completeness, I'll just choose the problem with the highest chances of being sound (mainly due to its simplicity), but will quickly move on to something much better tomorrow. The "puzzle" below requires no comment, and in fact, I've even replaced its original stipulation in order to (hopefully) avoid any needless controversy over such matters.

It's an OK-problem with an OK solution. It does have one weakness you are probably aware of: after retracting the bishop from e7, both e7xf6 and h6-h5 resolve the position, though h6-h5 must be retracted anyway on this or the next move. The second pawn retraction is essential for the validity of the problem! I needed quite some time to figure out what to do with the free capture in the diagram. That part of the retro-analysis is well founded. I would persionally place (Ph2) of h3 for parity tries but that is a detail. And I couldn't think of a better stipulation than the current one. Everything else would look artificial.

I saw this last night, albeit due to a bizarre accident. I had made an error when posting the diagram in post #122, carelessly placing a White pawn on h5 instead of h4 (good thing I corrected it in time). Several hours later, I noticed the intended solution wasn't working, and soon discovered why. I then wondered whether the same parity considerations could be embedded within a sound version of the problem. One thing I looked at was moving Ph2 to h3, which seemed to work, but I didn't trust myself to make hasty changes without falling victim to yet another oversight.

Yes, I was unable to prevent that. There are many potential fixes, but none are trivial to formulate properly. Another major shortcoming is that the [hopefully] forced sequence leading to the final position is cut 2 moves shorter than I'd have liked, due to a possible repetition.

I think there are actually a few decent compositions in my 2016 archive, so to make up for 2015 (which was a bit of a disaster), I'll post at least 2 from last year.

Here's something that's not really an upgrade over the previous problem in terms of difficulty, but is a whole lot better in terms of overall quality. This time, the original stipulation required no fundamental change, but I did rephrase it to make it clearer and a little more to the point:

I like that stipulation; a variation on the "illegal cluster". Will look at it.

My legal/illegal version for your #102 and my #118 problem was cooked! I retract it until I correct it!

Got it! Not all too difficult since the alternatives run aground quickly but definitely well constructed with a consistent idea! Only I wouldn't let both knights cover d2 which practically disqualifies the removal try of that pawn! May be (Nf3) -> h2?

You know about my hatred of free units so I took a stab at getting rid of the black stallions - without losing essential content, I hope. Well, there is the free white stallion but it is less of an issue. This is what I came up with: 

^ Very good. I think its biggest advantage over the original is being one unit "lighter", although you didn't even mention that as one of the improvements.

I was going to say that I'd personally consider Nh2 a free unit, but it looks like you edited the above post at some point, so as to preclude this observation.  I was also going to ask why you didn't simply place the wR on h1 instead of g1, but then realized that was a silly question with an obvious answer.

What's an illegal cluster?

Hi Cobra: this site has lots of good retro stuff in it, including definitions:

http://www.janko.at/Retros/Glossary/IllegalCluster.htm

Actually the purpose of removing the black stallions was to enable the retraction zz which can now follow the removal of Bf1. A white zz can never be achieved with the space surrrounding the wK and wR.

Like the white knight, one black knight wasn't really free since it was part of a try. The effort was to get maximized contributions from all units in the diagram.

Janko's site linked by anselan is the retro site for the basics on everything retro. If you haven't got it bookmarked, you're no retro guy!

This will spark a new science of proofs that justify the placement of thrown off pieces.  Whole books of problems will be created to where the person reading the workbook must write in a proof to justify the placement of a knocked off piece.  This is the future of chess!  Why study proofs in Geometry when you can do it in chess!

There was an issue with my laptop screen (apparently, the backlight has burned out) which rendered it unusable for the past several days. Replacing it could take awhile, as I tend to shop around a lot before making important purchases. Currently, I'm using a friend's computer, so I can only afford to spend a few minutes here (he won't let me borrow it! ).

Meanwhile, I've been unsure of whether to post a certain composition of mine from 2016. It is my best by far, but is unlikely to be appreciated since it's what you'd call a "free order" SPG. Eventually, I decided to make some changes to it, losing a tremendous amount of content in exchange for a "fixed order" SPG which will probably be more popular. The heavily reduced version will not be even remotely as difficult to solve, but a few remnants of the original do ensure that it won't exactly be a joke, either:

Okay, so now that I have access to a computer for a decent length of time, I can respond to a couple of comments I never got to look at (I'll reply to post #132 in a separate comment).

Thanks a bunch!   Perusing the content of other chess/problemist websites is not something I typically do, but your site does provide some very useful definitions. I'll sift through some of those definitions in greater detail once I've replaced my laptop screen.

Oh yes, I was aware of that. I just meant you were selling your creation short by not bothering to point out that it was a unit lighter, which already constitutes a major improvement even when it adds nothing in terms of content. The two extra tries in your version are a bonus!

Good point! I hadn't thought about it quite like that. One [arguably] free unit is probably the best one can achieve without significantly altering the problem's general structure.

Guess I'm not a retro guy, then... or at least, I wasn't one until 20 minutes ago. 

Wow... anselan and Arisktotle have officially left the building! 

This means I may need to actually tone down the level of difficulty (not that the last few I posted were especially hard ), in an effort to attract attention from the more casual crowd. So, with that in mind, I've come up with two new puzzles "on the fly" which are somewhat easier than the previous ones, and should therefore be more accessible to newcomers.

For the 1st puzzle, you merely need to show that the position can be reached legally.

For the 2nd puzzle, you must find a legal way to reach the position before Black's 10th move (or in other words, after exactly 9.5 moves or 19 half-moves).

@ cobra91 Yeah Arisktotle hasn't been on, hope he is OK.Glad to see you haven't quit.

@Cobra91: proof game sound hurray! Considered in isolation, there are two possible models for the White guys reaching their position in 10 moves, but considering the  Black guys (particularly the location of bK) gives the game away. Wonder if it's possible to have a proof game with two solutions: each with a different set of White moves 6-10.

Retro sound too hurray: last 17 single moves determined, I make it. You have a natural sense of placing tempo into your retro  constructions to give drama and excitement.

WHAT??????