К участию в конкурсе допускались этюды с десятком (или меньше) фигур в начальной позиции. Поступило 26 этюдов от 18 авторов. Судья С.Осинцев нашел среди них 11 хороших работ. Ряды плохишей пополнили несколько неоригинальных этюдов. Два первых приза тоже имеют частичных предшественников. Судья рассказал, почему они несущественны:
“Все четко и красиво! Но найденный предшественник разрушил эйфорию. Сдвиг на одну вертикаль центральной позиции этюда привел к исправлению дефектов произведения Ю.Акобии, 2002. Пришлось сравнивать и взвешивать за и против. У Ю.Акобии позиция противостояния ладьи, слона и коня со стороны белых и ферзя со стороны черных возникает почти сразу же, а в этюде О.Первакова акцент сделан на точный выбор ходов с преодолением ложных следов. И дальнейшая борьба коня с ферзем проходит все-таки на разных полях. Все это предопределило право этюда на самостоятельное существование”.
“Аналогичные финальные ходы были найдены в этюде В. Нестореску, 1970. Но идентичные финальные картинки не дают основания и в этом случае говорить о предшественнике. Есть точная игра белого коня и логические ложные следы. Особенно хочется отметить оригинальную мотивировку лесенки белого ферзя во вступлении. Обычно ферзь шагает по ступенькам, чередуя связки и шахи. Здесь нет ни того, ни другого! Отличный этюд!”
The judge informed us that he only had a few days to prepare the award and
that it will be supplemented by further studies later.
Unfortunately the coproduction with GM Jan Sprenger is not in the top 5.
A really paradoxical idea 5.Qg6 !! and 7.h6 !!
The two pawns win against the queen.
Imagine it in a real game!
I just built the logical introduction.
My own study (1st hm) is pale compared to the Sprenger idea.
This is how you can demotivate new composers.
The other study by Akobia is the anticipation of the 1st prize.
Everyone can form their own opinion.
Martin, a good study, yes. But what about the logical try? Kf8 stay much good than on e8 – pawn f6, white king may go to g7. See my studies with Sumbatyan (dedicated to Bazlov) and Sumbatyan/Gromov (Bron-110). In logical try you must go pawn to e6, it will be the real logical try)). 7.h6 is not exciting,
only one move!
Yes, my logical try is not that deep.
That’s right.
But I recommended Jan that he shouldn’t overload the queen ending
with more pieces.
5.Qg5 – not a pointe, but a forced move (there is no alternative move). White shouldn’t play 5.Kh7?? Qxh5+
Vladislav, that is not right. After the 3rd move White has a slight draw, but he plays 4.Kg7! and already sees 4 … Qg5+ 5.Qg6!! Who would dare to do that in a real game?
Ja bi postavil odin vosklisatelnij znak k xodu 7.h6!
One question, Martin. Are you try to do logical try with pawn e7, not e6?
I do not think so. Perhaps it is an approach to get more out of the scheme.
You are welcome to try to find an improvement. Jan is definitely interested.
Martin, about my 1st prize of MT. I knew the study of Akobia, but it is not correct. If I only correct it – it is one problem. But I added a few thematic tries and interesting play, so I think the study is original. If I have another opinion, I did not sent it to tourney.
У Акобии, вообще, муть. Ферзь выходит, игра коня непонятна. Это не предшественник. А вот маршрут Ne3!!-g2-e1-d3 с подхватом полей f2 и с1 впечатляет. Четко, без мути.
You see, Martin, what think about your points another study composers. You are too predispose to your studies and did not able to score they really! Sorry.
No question about it, Akobia’s version is bad (even if it were correct).
No question about it, your version is better in every way.
I just wonder how this blog deals with anticipation. I remember a discussion about a study by Vladislav Tarasiuk in which the king marches into the corner a8. Everyone was immediately of the opinion that this is totally anticipated by Gurgenidze and Mitrofanov, although the scheme is different. Is there a double standard here?
Martin, yes, three years ago, some of the critics here, in the blog, were too harsh in relation to my research by Dvoretsky MT … I don’t think these were double standards. My mistake was that when I was sent to the tournament, I did not mention the study by Mitrofanov and Gurgenidze. This would remove many questions later in the award …
In the study by Tarasiuk the scheme is different, the idea is almost the same.
In the study by Pervakov the idea is different, the scheme is almost the same.
Next thing is improvement. The Pervakov improves, the Tarasiuk does not.
Сергей, у меня не просто схема иная, а максимально экономичная (в основной игре задействовано всего 6 фигур). Разве это не достижение в “почти” такой же идее!? Речь идёт не о полученном отличии или призе, а вообще, об этюде с элегантной обработкой известного маневра, который, кстати, впервые был реализован ещё раньше, в одной из задач. До этюда М & Г.
Максимально экономичная схема – это улучшение схемы. Улучшение схемы – не то же самое, что улучшение идеи.
“Почти” – это вступление и прочие второстепенные варианты. Идею этюда они не меняют и не улучшают.
Да, вторую Барсу сегодня смотрим, увы…
Ja uluchshil V.Nestorescu 1970.
Oleg, I showed the study to many strong players. Everybody starts with 1. f6 and discards Kg7 ideas due to Qg5+. And the queen seems to stand better on b5 than on b4. It is really not obvious that Qb4+ is the better try.
I agree that the study is not at the level of some of the Nielsen 45 prizewinners, mainly because the content is limited. But when I see the majority of studies in Osintsev’s report, who are not more than solid, I cannot understand why it was not included. It is logical, has interesting play from both sides, elegant piece movements, no messy side lines and a spectacular tactical resolution. What else do you want? Each solver I talked to was impressed.
Jan, I also don’t understand, why your study with Martin did not include in report. I think it is not complete report, but in any case your study more good that, for example, my 2-nd hon.mention.
Jan, you start in Endgame composition and it is very good! I like when otb-playes go to studies. But you must learn the history of study… bla-bla-bla))))
Sometimes I also do not understand some judgement, for example, how our study with K.Sumbatyan (1-2 prize in Tata Steel and 2-nd place with only 0,1 from winner Arestov study of the year) did not include in Album FIDE!
Osintsev is not a bad judge, but he have his own opinion. You must ready to see that also from another iudges, from me, for example))) I am waiting your study for my JT!
Oleg, I just returned from holidays, so the response is delayed. But thanks for your encouraging words! I did not want to attack Osintsev personally, I just failed to understand his judgment (and in the meantime, I understood that an extended report forthcoming where he will explain his choices).
I agree that I need better knowledge of the history of endgame studies. I read Gurvich 1960 (“Etyudy”) with pleasure and I think I learned a lot, but I would be grateful for other suggestions of classic reads. If possible, translated into a Western European language. I can read Russian if required, but it would be hard and I would miss lots of nuances.
For your memorial tournament, I will definitely send something.
Jan, Not Memorial, but Jubilee, I hope)))
Your study had the unlucky number – D12 in the list.
Oh my God! That’s true! The curse of D12. 🙂
Ну что, Сергей? Я даже 0-0 поимею) Игра равная)
Ничья, допвремя, пенали
Все знаки за ПСЖ. Или я их неправильно трактовал. Думаю, что ПСЖ победит.
Так и думал, что будет 1-0. Но забыл вам сказать 🙂
Опубликованы полные итоги конкурса.
“Корону” тоже уже опубликовали…
За многочисленными разменами фигур в отмеченных этюдах конкурса (кроме 1 приза) совсем не чувствуется короновирусная тема в чистом виде, которую предложил Игорь Ярмонов…
Да, Влад, зачем эти потуги? Я до 12 фишек дошел, но зачем эти говно-размены? Этюд он и при любой теме должен быть прежде всего этюдом!