Судейство Мартина Мински в конкурсе журнала «EG» разочаровало (PGN). Его требования к содержанию и оригинальности этюда, претендующего на отличие, остаются катастрофично низкими. Поэтому в присуждение попало много неоригинальных слабых работ.
2 приз. Приятный хороший этюд с контригрой черных и идеальным матом. Второй вариант даже близко не главный. Обманывать нехорошо.
3 приз. Бывают такие одноходовые идеи, которые не позволяют нарастить приличное вступление. Здесь именно такой случай. До финального превращения пешки в слона надо было как-то завлечь короля и ферзя черных на свои места. Троица композиторов додумалась это сделать с помощью размена зажатого в углу слона на проходную пешку. Увы, облегчения это не принесло, поскольку очевидно, что слон больше ходить не будет, его единственный ход вызывает отвращение, а в напряженную до предела позицию можно добавить только грубые жертвы. Оценка варианта Фхb2 основана на выигрыше по Налимову ферзевого окончания с пешкой на второй горизонтали. Это муть. Вынужденные жертвы ферзей не могут компенсировать такие недостатки. Но вместо притормозить, композиторов понесло. Они азартно дули на угасающие головешки, пытаясь разжечь пламя борьбы. Наблюдая за их мучениями, я вспомнил шутку о незаменимости некрасивой девушки в походе – она отпугивает медведя. А еще у нее харя постоянно красная, потому что она следит за костром. Ужасный этюд, которому даже похвальный отзыв стыдно давать.
4 приз. Поначалу даже трудно понять, где в этом двухфазном разменном чудовище та изюминка, за которую можно его так высоко оценить. В чем тут дело, подсказали два восклицательных знака Крh3!!, поставленные сразу после хода Фхg6, заслуживающего трех вопросительных знаков (ферзь слопал ладью-инвалида). Оказывается, судья не знает этюдов с идеей времен Куббеля. В современном творчестве ее прекрасно реализовал Олег Перваков.
Спецприз. Плагиат. В состоявшейся дискуссии Мартин Мински заметил, что у этого этюда другое задание (ничья), чем в этюде-предшественнике Г.Каспаряна (выигрыш), поэтому новый этюд оригинальный. Изменение задания или перекрашивание известной идеи не имеют никакого отношения к оригинальности. Она определяется по новизне идейного содержания, схемы, использованного материала и наличию улучшения. Более детально об оригинальности я писал в статьях «Перекрашенный предшественник» и «Оригинальность этюдов». В спецпризе главная идея, схема и материал те же, что и у Каспаряна. Только ослиные гены (у вкусного сена нет предшественников!) могут помешать увидеть полное сходство этих этюдов.
Для опыта в работе с частичными предшественниками полезно сравнить: 1 приз (здесь совсем другая схема, материал и есть улучшение), 3 почетный отзыв (другая схема, улучшение), специальный почетный отзыв (та же главная идея – позиция цугцванга, в добавленных ходах нет ничего интересного).
Поскольку я считаю Мартина своим другом, то его ошибки меня очень беспокоят. После столь некомпетентного судейства поневоле задумываешься, а не пора ли вешать табличку в объявлениях конкурсов: «Осторожно! Конкурс судит судья ФИДЕ!».
The competition could have been stronger with original studies by Didukh, Pervakov and Nielsen.The competetion could have looked stronger without weak or unoriginal studies by Vlasak & Polasek, Avni, Rusz, Krug & Garcia, Hlinka & Kekely.
There are some names in the award that you don’t seem to reject.
That’s almost a praise for the judge. 🙂
When I see bad or unoriginal studies in the award I get angry and speechless for some time. Your award has hurt me a lot. I haven’t recovered yet in order to comment on the EG ty. Were you again influenced by some stupid consulters? Or are your criteria really so primitive? Maybe you are too afraid not to award a study by a friend? I am puzzled and disappointed …
I am very sorry Sergiy, but today I would write exactly the same award. I am convinced of my judging. That's my own opinion. Nobody influenced me. Maybe you expected more from me. I think that I don't have the level of you. Maybe you overestimate me sometimes...>> Гади Костефф со своим шедевром: Costeff-Loyd-Turton
Я так понял, что Гади проводил спирт… бр-р, спиритический сеанс и потому другие рюмки и стаканы на столе предназначались для материализовавшихся Лойда и Тертона? :))
В бутылках джины, исполняющие желания Хозяина. Иначе, Костефф поломает им кости.
In reality, Gady hardly drinks alcohol. He took only a small gulp, probably out of courtesy to the host family Roxlau.
Sergiy, I hope you agree that Gady’s study is the best in the tournament.
Or do you think this is too much anticipated?
Of course, it’s the best study. And it’s not anticipated because the idea is difficult to realize, the scheme is completely different as well as material. And the new study is better than his previous. But a study by Avni is fully anticipated. Rusz’s intro adds nothing valuable to the zz position — garbage bin is a good place for it.
I admit, there is no rational reason to give the two special awards. It’s my personal preference for tactical moves like 5.Rg7 !! I fell in love with this study and I think such a move is also appreciated by an OTB player. I think this is even more paradoxical than the similar move in Kasparyan’s win study. After all, Avni shows a draw version of this idea.
Rusz found a natural introduction for a crazy scheme. I think this idea is worth showing.
I prefer such «effects» much more than boring moves that nobody remembers anymore.
I received an e-mail from Mario Garcia requesting that the study co-production Garcia & Gyarmati # 21368 be awarded. All moves are correct, but there is not a move and not a position in this study that touches me emotionally. I will never include such studies in the award.
Your rule is:
When I like a study it’s not anticipated.
Stupid rule!
Avni’s study is not fully anticipated, but partially. That’s a fact, because one is a win study, the other a draw version.
The scheme of Ibran is not a study, because there is no move! The introduction by Rusz is the first version of a study for this scheme. Who has a problem with a special hm (except you)?
We both agree that Costeff’s study is a masterpiece and not anticipated, although there is another study by him with similar content. There are certainly judges who have seen this study as anticipated.
Anticipation is never «black or white». It is always a matter of interpretation of the judge.
Believe me, I wrote this award very carefully.
Idea, its complexity, scheme, material, improvement — are ingredients of originality.
Win-draw, black-white, secondary ideas, introduction — do not make a study original.
Avni — win-draw — not original (and Kasparyan’s study is better).
Rusz — adds not interesting intro — not original. The only interesting (but not very much) thing is the zz-position (idea), which is not original.
You are completely incompetent!
Be careful!Sergiy, I don’t want to upset you anymore.
I admit that maybe I’m the only judge to give a special prize to Avni’s study. But I stay with it. It’s my award and I chose it because I “feel” that it’s a prize. I can not convince you with logical arguments.
Logical arguments ))
There’s not a grain of logic in your arguments! Learn to play chess first!
I already played chess when you shit in diapers!
Sergiy, I am not absolutely incompetent and I can play chess. You should not write something like that about me here. On the other hand, I am often praised by you. That is a contradiction. You are sometimes too radical.
We agree on the 1st and 2nd prize. You can find weaknesses in all other studies. I wrote a lot of that in my award. For the most part, I see your criticism the same way. There is only one difference. I do not judge as radically as you do. You can not ask me to do that either. Apart from the two top prizes, it is a mediocre tournament. Unfortunately, there are no studies by Didukh, Pervakov, Nielsen, Bazlov and other top composers. I can only rate the studies that are available.
Maybe an OTB grandmaster will see the award and discover Avni’s special prize. He will like the move 5.Rg7 !! That’s important to me!
What do you want to achieve with this voting? Many of my «fans» will not vote because they refuse to sign up for your blog. Therefore this is not representative for me. I have already received a lot of positive feedback. I realize that every other judge would do a bit different than me.
I know that you are only concerned with the truth, not with insulting me. I also agree that this award annoys you very much. Please understand that I will not make any radical changes to this award. I admit that I was unsure how to deal with, for example, the 4th prize from Avni and the special hm from Rusz. The aforementioned composers know that too. The office of the judge may be much harder than to compose a few studies.
Thank you for your opinion! For me, these are experiences that I will incorporate in the next award.
The voting is not for your “friends”. I am planning to do it after every award in order to to make people think, analyze and learn. What can they learn from your award? — That plagiat work can receive a prize, that a commendation is given to every correct study. How can they know that it’s a mediocre tourney if you give 5 prizes and a ton of other distinctions. You say one thing and do the opposite.
Of course, you won’t change anything in the award because you cannot become competent so quickly. You are not AlphaZero.
No, I will not change anything, because I’ve thought it over carefully before. If I change something now, then it’s not the award from Martin Minski, but from Sergiy Didukh.
If a tournament is mediocre, then I also give prizes for studies that might only get one hm in a strong tournament. That’s not my invention. I’ve seen some judges act that way.
It is not true that I distinguished every correct study. Almost all studies were correct. I have integrated 15 out of 37 studies. Maybe too much. Ok. I only praise studies that I like somehow (even if they have weaknesses).
Once again to the special prize of Avni. I do not agree. If I thought it was a plagiarism, this study would not be in my award! Please accept that I sometimes disagree. Often I agree with you.
Of course, you can do what you want on your blog, but a poll with just 10 votes is never meaningful. You wrote that yourself about the study of the month.
It’s true that you awarded every correct study — because this means you awarded too many bad studies (not litterally every one).
Are these clever judges who award a prize to a hm-level study? For me, they are not.
The voting can tell me if people are interested in my comments and draw conclusions. If they are not, I may stop writing. That’s it.
I admit, tonight our discussion annoyed me.
I’m starting to seriously wonder if I’m going on with studies.
I was reading a good book that touched me very much. Maybe it’s better, I only read books. Then I do not have to annoy me anymore.
You should not stop writing. Your blog is important.
I just realized that it’s not always funny to argue with you.
Ok, Martin. Fuck the voting! It’s not so important, after all.
В отличие от судьи автор спецприза А.Авни признает в своей статье «The ambivalence of being anticipated» (Variantim 71, 2017) неоригинальность своего этюда. Так как схема была придумана в результате «несознательного вспоминания», то автор не получил от своего творчества даже радости «повторить идею великого композитора».
Но поскольку автору не хватило мужества отозвать свой неоригинальный этюд из конкурса после обнаружения предшественников, то его самобичевание в статье, всего лишь, показуха. Он не подтвердил свои слова делом.
Minski was fully aware of the partial anticipation of Ke3/Kh8. First, he got the issue of Variantim; Secondly, I mentioned this anticipation in my e-mail to him on 24/10/2017, before he wrote his award.
Next time check your facts before the ususal offensive accusations.
I have assumed that you regarded your study as being seriously (fully) anticipated because:
1) the first two studies in your article have full anticipations and you feel happy to repeat the ideas of the great composers.
2) you are dissapointed that your study from EG is anticipated. Why would you be if you think it’s original enough?
To my mind, if a composer thinks his study is not original, he should ask the judge to throw it out. And you just informed …
But if you think your study is original enough (anticipation is only partial) — then your article looks suspicious.