Мартин и Олег, я бы вас убил за такой этюд. Какая гадость! Патология.
Мартин, если будешь показывать этот этюд на своей лекции, то так и называй его:
“Пат-Олег-и-Я”!
Перваков
5 лет назад
Решил Мартина поддержать, чтоб его не одного убивали))
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
Great! I always wanted to die for a study. 🙂
Oleg is innocent. I blackmailed him with Polish vodka. 🙂
The scheme is inspired from Oleg’s wonderful 1st prize in EG-50 AT 2016. It comes out when an amateur like me composes …
By the way, I have already received congratulations for this study.
But of course also ridicule, e.g.
“This is a task … ‘All pieces (7) from the initial position of a study are under attack.’ ;)”
I can live with the reviews.
To the critics I encourage them to compose a study with 3 pinned rook stalemates. You will notice, it is not so easy.
We have 3 knights pinned. What is so original about 3 rooks? Take a piece that suits best for such an idea (and Pervakov did it) and forget about ugly versions with rooks.
And I don’t compose studies with ideas that don’t interest me at all. So, stop challenging your critics! Behave like a man.
Oleg is really innocent in this case.
I implemented this idea alone, but I used Oleg’s mechanism.
That’s why I offered him co-authorship.
He tried to eliminate the obvious weaknesses of the study, but failed.
I thought that Michal Hlinka, the jubilee, would like this idea.
That is perhaps the main thing in this case.
Oleg showed 3 pin stalemates with pinned knight with technically
almost perfect realization.
I showed 3 pin stalemates with pinnend bishop at 2018 Olympics
with a different mechanism.
It is absolutely legitimate for me to show a 3 pin stalemates
with pinned rook.
It is a new task.
That is allowed!
As a real study is bad but as a task is very good!
Try to compose Babson task in study! I try to realize it nearly 20 years… In Album only 3/4 but wrong. But they in Album!))
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
I see there are some dislikes from composers who participated in the tournament
and did not appear in the award.
I respect Sergiy Didukh. He does not hide cowardly behind his dislike and is silent, but expresses his honest opinion, even though he writes a lot of nonsense.
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
Congratulations to Geir Sune for the successful presentation of double-pin stalemate with promoted pinned pieces!
I call this theme often shown by Bazlov – “a woman trying to squeeze into too tight jeans”. Anyway it’s not that awful as your studies in this tourney.
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
Sergiy, I’m listening to your comments.
You are the pope!
Without irony:
I like the little study of Mario Garcia and
I am glad that he now knows what an ideal stalemate is.
Here’s another stalemate with two promoted pinned pieces.
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
Sergiy, I have learned from you that the economics of the final scene is more important than avoiding bad exchange in the play. Now you solemnly present a study with good play, but with some static pieces and bad economics in the stalemate picture (in contrast to Geir Sune’s study). That is a contradiction!
You see a contradiction because you apply just one simple rule for comparing studies where the main content is the finale.
There are many other rules and to my mind the most important one is to evaluate the main idea – it can be perceived as something whole. In the study by Ostmoe it’s a stalemate with pinned promoted pieces, i.e not just a stalemate. Count how many pieces he used to realize it and compare with Yochanan’s study. I gave the study by Afek here so that you could compare and evaluate the idea. It’s not an anticipation but a mark of how the idea is difficult and how many pieces it requires.
In some cases when the idea is truly original and there’s nothing to compare it to, the judge’s composing strengh helps to make the objective evaluation. Even without Afek’s study it’s clear that Ostmoe’s decision to make a N-promotion at any cost was a mistake. His ambition ruined a rather attractive final play. So, your congratulation for his achievement looks like praising the dog for pissing on the chessboard.
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
I do not know what you want to explain to me.
You criticize the obvious weaknesses of a study
and show me another study with other weaknesses.
Such a task is a real technical challenge.
Geir Sune wants to continue trying to find a better version.
He told me that Richard Becker has already showed
it with two pinned underpromoted knights.
I think it is legitimate to publish studies with
small flaws but with attractive ideas.
This may help to find the optimal scheme someday.
We are allowed to compose everything we want.
There is no “wrong” idea! It is a free world.
Your criticism is exceptionally sharp here.
I dont understand this.
Please show your sophisticated technique and compose this task better!
Again challenge. I am sick of such task ideas. If you doubt my technique you can continue doubting and I don’t care if you do.
1. I tried to explain to you that there are laws of harmony that dictate the composer which way is best to follow in the development of a certain scheme or when it’s time to stop. Ostmoe didn’t feel it. If he wanted to reailze the idea of pinned promoted pieces, he should have looked for another scheme. This one is not good for such task. Can’t you see it?
2. The composer should always compare his new study with the existing ones that have similar content. So as to know what the study is worth. You don’t want to compare your study to the Pervakov’s because it contains fucking Rook’s pins, not knight’s. You don’t want to compare Afek’s study to the Ostmoe because you think their schemes are different. You will learn nothing without comparing. You will never see that Ostmoe and you composed trash. And published it. Shame on you.
Martin Minski
5 лет назад
When I look at a study award,
I am particularly interested in the ideas of the new compositions,
regardless of the technical perfection.
Yes, I immediately noticed the study by Geir Sune,
even though I saw the many exchanges.
There are studies that seem technically perfect,
but where I can not see a real idea.
I forgot these studies after a week.
Мартин и Олег, я бы вас убил за такой этюд. Какая гадость! Патология.
Мартин, если будешь показывать этот этюд на своей лекции, то так и называй его:
“Пат-Олег-и-Я”!
Решил Мартина поддержать, чтоб его не одного убивали))
Great! I always wanted to die for a study. 🙂
Oleg is innocent. I blackmailed him with Polish vodka. 🙂
The scheme is inspired from Oleg’s wonderful 1st prize in EG-50 AT 2016. It comes out when an amateur like me composes …
By the way, I have already received congratulations for this study.
But of course also ridicule, e.g.
“This is a task … ‘All pieces (7) from the initial position of a study are under attack.’ ;)”
I can live with the reviews.
To the critics I encourage them to compose a study with 3 pinned rook stalemates. You will notice, it is not so easy.
We have 3 knights pinned. What is so original about 3 rooks? Take a piece that suits best for such an idea (and Pervakov did it) and forget about ugly versions with rooks.
And I don’t compose studies with ideas that don’t interest me at all. So, stop challenging your critics! Behave like a man.
Oleg is a coward. He’s afraid to tell you and us his opinion about this study.
Oleg is really innocent in this case.
I implemented this idea alone, but I used Oleg’s mechanism.
That’s why I offered him co-authorship.
He tried to eliminate the obvious weaknesses of the study, but failed.
I thought that Michal Hlinka, the jubilee, would like this idea.
That is perhaps the main thing in this case.
Oleg showed 3 pin stalemates with pinned knight with technically
almost perfect realization.
I showed 3 pin stalemates with pinnend bishop at 2018 Olympics
with a different mechanism.
It is absolutely legitimate for me to show a 3 pin stalemates
with pinned rook.
It is a new task.
That is allowed!
I am not a coward. At the time of Pushkin I would challenge you to a duel for such words, Sergey!))
My opinion: any task has to have a chance to see it. You open the new horizons, and your followers will improve them!
The question is:
IS THIS STUDY GOOD OR BAD?
As a real study is bad but as a task is very good!
Try to compose Babson task in study! I try to realize it nearly 20 years… In Album only 3/4 but wrong. But they in Album!))
I see there are some dislikes from composers who participated in the tournament
and did not appear in the award.
I respect Sergiy Didukh. He does not hide cowardly behind his dislike and is silent, but expresses his honest opinion, even though he writes a lot of nonsense.
Congratulations to Geir Sune for the successful presentation of double-pin stalemate with promoted pinned pieces!
Ugly presentation. No compensation for the horror intro.
The best thing about the 1st prize in win section A seems to be
the name of the composer.
Who can explain the wonderful in this study?
I call this theme often shown by Bazlov – “a woman trying to squeeze into too tight jeans”. Anyway it’s not that awful as your studies in this tourney.
Sergiy, I’m listening to your comments.
You are the pope!
Without irony:
I like the little study of Mario Garcia and
I am glad that he now knows what an ideal stalemate is.
Shown by Kling 150 years ago.
I had guessed that it must be anticipated.
Here’s another stalemate with two promoted pinned pieces.
Sergiy, I have learned from you that the economics of the final scene is more important than avoiding bad exchange in the play. Now you solemnly present a study with good play, but with some static pieces and bad economics in the stalemate picture (in contrast to Geir Sune’s study). That is a contradiction!
You see a contradiction because you apply just one simple rule for comparing studies where the main content is the finale.
There are many other rules and to my mind the most important one is to evaluate the main idea – it can be perceived as something whole. In the study by Ostmoe it’s a stalemate with pinned promoted pieces, i.e not just a stalemate. Count how many pieces he used to realize it and compare with Yochanan’s study. I gave the study by Afek here so that you could compare and evaluate the idea. It’s not an anticipation but a mark of how the idea is difficult and how many pieces it requires.
In some cases when the idea is truly original and there’s nothing to compare it to, the judge’s composing strengh helps to make the objective evaluation. Even without Afek’s study it’s clear that Ostmoe’s decision to make a N-promotion at any cost was a mistake. His ambition ruined a rather attractive final play. So, your congratulation for his achievement looks like praising the dog for pissing on the chessboard.
I do not know what you want to explain to me.
You criticize the obvious weaknesses of a study
and show me another study with other weaknesses.
Such a task is a real technical challenge.
Geir Sune wants to continue trying to find a better version.
He told me that Richard Becker has already showed
it with two pinned underpromoted knights.
I think it is legitimate to publish studies with
small flaws but with attractive ideas.
This may help to find the optimal scheme someday.
We are allowed to compose everything we want.
There is no “wrong” idea! It is a free world.
Your criticism is exceptionally sharp here.
I dont understand this.
Please show your sophisticated technique and compose this task better!
Again challenge. I am sick of such task ideas. If you doubt my technique you can continue doubting and I don’t care if you do.
1. I tried to explain to you that there are laws of harmony that dictate the composer which way is best to follow in the development of a certain scheme or when it’s time to stop. Ostmoe didn’t feel it. If he wanted to reailze the idea of pinned promoted pieces, he should have looked for another scheme. This one is not good for such task. Can’t you see it?
2. The composer should always compare his new study with the existing ones that have similar content. So as to know what the study is worth. You don’t want to compare your study to the Pervakov’s because it contains fucking Rook’s pins, not knight’s. You don’t want to compare Afek’s study to the Ostmoe because you think their schemes are different. You will learn nothing without comparing. You will never see that Ostmoe and you composed trash. And published it. Shame on you.
When I look at a study award,
I am particularly interested in the ideas of the new compositions,
regardless of the technical perfection.
Yes, I immediately noticed the study by Geir Sune,
even though I saw the many exchanges.
There are studies that seem technically perfect,
but where I can not see a real idea.
I forgot these studies after a week.
I wish I could forget that horror I saw in this tourney.
Black and white are just the chess pieces. You will understand that when you are older.
Ok. Could you tell us if Pervakov liked your study? Do you know why he showed a fake interest in your study? Why is he co-author if he did nothing?
OK, Sergey, one question. What do you show us by your horror study 1-5 prize from Tarasiuk?
As a real study it’s bad but as a birthday present it’s very good.
And I answer by yourself: you want to congratulate Vladislav. And I want to congratulate (with Martin) Michal!
Draw! 1-1.