Петер Дьярмати присудил конкурс в журнале Phenix. Про судью я уже все сказал раньше. Вбейте его имя в окно поиска и посмотрите, не сильно ли я его хвалил. Мое мнение об отмеченных этюдах уже неинтересно даже мне самому! Грубые судейские ошибки вы увидите и без моей помощи… если будете оценивать замысел, а не тупо считать взятия и жертвы.
1st prize by Timman: 9.Bf5!! is an excellent idea! A worthy winner.
2nd prize by Krug: After 5.Bf5+ it is a good study. The introduction is not my taste (no connection).
3rd prize by Timman: 6.g3!! with a full board reciprocal zugzwang is very surprising.
special prize by Hlinka & Kekely: not bad, but the white rook on d5 doesn’t move.
Thanks, Martin, for your comments
but
they are full of mistakes
because
1) you forgot that Timman is now a composer whose studies, first of all, must be tested for anticipations. They are not original.
The first prize’s idea was shown in his own study (open PGN). The new study is a big step backward. Timman probably took this bad version from his archive.
Zugzwang in the third prize is primitive – every file is closed except one. We need two moves look ahead only. Compare this study with Becker’s 1st prize in the Kopnin MT 2009.
bR can be placed on three open files – g8, f8, e8. Black loses only with Rg8. Why? The answer is 17 moves ahead!
2) I think you consider special prize “not bad” because there are sacrifices and moves without captures. And you don’t care that the idea of stalemate with pinned pieces doesn’t arise a slightest interest because it is outdated.
Notice that in the second prize the judge is impressed by the second move 2.Kf7! followed by 2…Qxe4??? (artistic mark). Capture of the dead Queen.
Do these people know anything about artistic principles??
I wrote something to get your opinion about the prize studies. Very insightful!
Why are we the only ones who write our opinion? It’s a pity! Indeed, the 1st prize is anticipated. I thought the judge checked it…
In the 2nd prize I also don’t like the brutal 2 … Qxe4 followed by the forced exchange on h7.
Of course, the study by Becker is much more profound. I gave 3 points as judge in the FIDE album.
Recently I saw again David Gurgenidze’s famous 1st prize from 1985 with queen sacrifice, double check and double pin stalemate in the book by Mark Dvoretsky & Oleg Pervakov “Studien für Praktiker”.
This study inspired me to the following study: http://www.problemistasajedrez.com.ar/7th-international-internet-tournament-uapa/d-gurge-minskio-sec-b-2-no3-bview-php/
I have never composed something like that. You will reject it for sure.
Nice funny study. I’d give it a prize.