Mario Garcia-70

Тот случай, когда после публикации присуждения кажется, что конкурса не было. Марио Гарсия просто посмотрел в свой магический хрустальный шар, и увидел там лауреатов своего праздника.

Тематический раздел (A). Мат слоном или конем в центре.

Этюды на выигрыш (раздел B1)
Этюды на ничью (раздел B2)
9 комментариев
Межтекстовые Отзывы
Посмотреть все комментарии
Martin Minski
Martin Minski
4 лет назад

Dear “study experts”, I start with some technical terms.
What is a self-block?
Definition (according to Encyclopedia of Chess Problems):
“A piece moves to the square in its own King’s field
and blocks him.
The opposite side takes advantage of it.”
Therefore a piece which doesn’t move is NO self-block.
The term “active self-block” is a completely
redundant invention of some “study experts”.
One Example (among many): section A, 1st-5th prize Jasik,
1…Qf5 … 5.Be4# is a mate with only 1 self-block
because the bBb6 and bPc5 didn’t move.

What is an ideal mate?
Definition: (according to Encyclopedia of Chess Problems):
“A model mate in which all the force on the board, both Black and White, is necessarily used, including all Pawns and the white King.”
One Example (among many): section A, 1st-5th prize Jasik,
9…Ke6 10.Bc4# is not an ideal mate because the black pawns are not included in the mate picture. It is “only” a model mate.

What is a model mate?
Definition: (according to Encyclopedia of Chess Problems):
“Mate image where all the pieces of the mating side take part,
with the allowable axception of the King and the Pawns,
and each square of the mated side King’s field is either blocked, or guarded only once. In other words: a pure economical mate.”
See section A, sp. HM Kalashnikov 9.Bb7# is not ideal mate
because of the black queen and black pawn.
It’s not model mate because the square f3 is attacked three times!

These formal mistakes should definitely be eliminated.

Martin Minski
Martin Minski
4 лет назад

The jubilee has managed to award significantly more than 70 studies. That’s a dubious record.

A prize is the highest award for (almost) perfect studies.
It can not be that there are 30 prizes in one tournament.
This is too much!

I see some prize studies are not perfect or just with a small idea.
On the other hand, I wonder why for example
the 1st hm by Tarasiuk & Krug in the win section B1 is not a prize.
The judge has mixed good and bad studies. Who should be happy about it?

Martin Minski
Martin Minski
4 лет назад


What is this for a strange idea? I thought we were celebrating the 70th birthday of Mario Garcia. I think it is more appropriate to appreciate deceased composers elsewhere. I see a few corrections with captures of pieces which do not move. Why is this published if it is not good?

I like the correction of Vladislav Tarasiuk (1.Nf6!) about an old study by Velimir Kalandadze, but it has to be called «Tarasiuk (after Kalandadze)». It can never be a coproduction if the co-author was not asked!

Then there are some studies of «pensioners». As a judge, I do not care if a composer is 19 or 90 years old. I only rate the product. I can not imagine that one of these authors is happy to be in this extra section.

Martin Minski
Martin Minski
4 лет назад

Draw section B2, 2nd prize, Krug, 1.Qg6 !!

Compare with the 3rd prize of Chess Informant-50 2016

Minski & Pervakov with 2.Qg6 !! and a similar mate threat.

Aleksandr Kriuchkov
Aleksandr Kriuchkov
4 лет назад

Hello. Is it normal that in the first study (Andrzej Jasik, 1st-5th prize, Garcia-70-A) after 7…Bf5 white can win also with 8.Be2?