Судья-юбиляр получил 33 этюдных подарка. 15 из них ему понравились.
1 приз. Красивая позиционная ничья, где ферзь воют с ладьей, а слоны друг с другом. Их бои не междусобойчики: ведь белый слон теряет неприкосновенность, только когда ферзь развяжет ладью. Но если ладью развязать, она пойдет в бешеную атаку. А в случае защиты черного слона ферзем (расставить Qe3 и Bd3) белых спасает харакири слона Bh7! Предыдущая игра получилась еще увлекательнее: ход Ba2! сильнее немедленного превращения пешки в ферзя, так как выманивает белого слона на а6, но сразу на a6 нельзя (логический ложный след!), сначала нужно сбросить пешку f4!, в ответ черные жертвуют свою f5! по римским причинам. Интересно на каждом ходу.2 приз. Выступление гимнаста на перекладине. Программа состоит из трех сложных элементов с выходом на финальный прыжок. Неудачное приземление может перечеркнуть все хорошее, что было до него. Судье понравилось, меня не впечатлило.
3 приз. Вот такая вот логическая задачка с метаниями ферзя из угла в угол.
4 приз. Белый король намерен пообедать черной ладьей е5. Но после немедленного превращения пешки под боем оказывается белая ладья на а6. Если же ее увести предварительным шахом, черный конь находит удивительный способ защитить свою ладью. Уход белой ладьи нужно подготовить жертвой пешки g3. И все равно ладья е5 королю не достанется – черный король успевает ее защитить. Узелок тонких логических планов.
5 приз. Белые схватили черного короля за жабры так крепко, что его даже мама не спасет, даже две мамы. Приз-аванс.
Спецприз Гургенидзе и Неидзе. Семь пустых вступительных ходов.
Спецприз Кирякова. Поучительный пример как красиво спасаться с ладьей против ферзя.
The first four prizes are, in my personal opinion, also the most noteworthy studies. Let us look at them in more detail.
1st prize, Zaitsev/Pervakov: I liked particularly that 3. f4! is the logical „Mehrplan”: as opposed to the „Grundplan” Bc8-a6-d3 you do not also play for promotion of the pawn and Bc4 mate, but also for stalemate. It is not so frequent in stalemate studies that White has so rich attacking play. The play is natural, interesting and humanly understandable and the variation of the Siegfried rook theme at the end is witty.
To underscore the logical structure of the study, I would also give the thematic try 3. Bb7? Bxg5+ 4. Rxg5 fxg5 5. Be4 Kf7! 6. B/Kh7 K~. This shows the true benefit of 2. …Ba2! which is now somewhat hidden. Bb7 is in principle preferable to Ba6 since the e4 square is fortified and Rc8+/Bd5+ is harder to counter than Rc8+/Bc4+ (e.g., because of Qe6). This is why White must play Bb7 if Black promotes quickly.
I would raise 2. …e1Q to a main line. White reacts with a different bishop transfer and he also reacts differently to the Black counter f6-f5 (Bxf5 vs. Rxf5). True, the 2. …e1Q line has no logical subtlety like 3. f4, but the play is interesting enough and connected via the same motives and the thematic try 6. Bxf5?. (A pity that the refutation of 3. Ba6? is not unique!)
My only question is whether it was necessary that the kings are petrified on h6 and g8. Especially in a long stalemate study. I know that moving the kings often goes at the expense of the economy of the introductory play, but the composers are no beginners!
2nd prize, Nielsen: very elegant thematic study, mainly of tactical character, but with a nice logical add-on at the end. The only disadvantage is that there are some statists, but given the task that the author chose, I guess this is hard to avoid.
3rd prize, Tarasyuk: I love the operas of Wagner and the symphonies of Čajkovskij, Brahms and Mahler, but I find it more difficult to do justice to romantic chess studies. That said, the composition looks very good to me, all pieces have a clear function, elegant fight of bishop and queen, smooth „Vorplan” with indirect transfer of the bishop to d3, and no hack and slay on the way. If Vladislav continues to compose such studies, perhaps I will appreciate the genre one day!
4th prize, Didukh: economic construction and elegant play, especially in defense (5. …Rc7+!, 9. …Rg5!). I also like the logical try which the interesting defensive play (Nf4-e2-c3-d5!), but I do not believe in „studies within studies”. The relevant logical line in the try is 9. Qxc7 Nd5+ and no Kd4 is possible, but this relegates the author’s choice 9. Rg6+ with the interesting play that follows to an analytical sideline. And this is a pity. It might have deserved a separate elaboration. Like the judge, I also find the pointe 10. Rc6! a bit on the dry side.
The other compositions in the tournament stay behind this (high) standard.
5th prize, Smolkin: Everything is already set up for the mating attack, the motifs are well known and the play is rather obvious and not very elegant. Especially the resolution with 9. Bxd7+ is disappointing. For me at best a commendation.
Special prize, Gurgenidze/Veidze: I like the basic scheme, i.e., the perpetual against king or queen. However, the introduction could be less heavy (no black queen) and maybe also richer in content. The authors found a cool theme, but perhaps not the best possible implementation.
Special prize, Kiryakov: I usually appreciate the compositions of the author. Here, I am a bit less enthusiastic. Let us start with the good things. The theme is interesting and 7. Kf2? is a tempting logical try. It is instructive to see why it fails. My worries:
—relatively limited content
—The two designated main lines do not share a theme. (I suggest to eliminate 12. …Kf7.)
—The introduction is fluent, but does not hang together with the rest. Knight and bishop are alien to this type of study.
I like Martin’s 1st honorable mention and I don’t say it because he is my teacher. Quasi-aristocrat miniature with two thematic mainlines and a visually brilliant pointe. On the downside, some analytical sidelines.
Baslow’s 3rd honorable mention has a very nice finish, but I do not think the added logical structure with the try 3. c5? justifies the capture of a rook on e5 that has not moved. I agree with the judge that this is a bit too much. The author is an eminent composer, so perhaps he can improve the introductory play. Yes, champions don’t need to follow rules all the time, but I somehow feel that this is not the ideal version of the study.
Finally, Timman’s 1st commendation looks underrated to me.
Ah, and I have a question for Sergiy. Personally, I would reverse the order of my two studies in the award. (None of them is a prize study, of course.)
In my individual work, 5. Bd3!! is spectacular and the escape to stalemate is surprising, but also a bit primitive. Moreover the play before and after 5. Bd3 is not connected thematically.
By contrast, the study with Robin Swinkels misses a stunning visual effect, but has a coherent theme from beginning to end—fight for the white squares—, interesting counterplay and an elegant implementation.
So I told Robin we were a bit unlucky that the judge ranked my individual study higher than our joint work. What do you think? Robin is even newer to composition than me, and I don’t want to teach him bullshit.
Jan, I agree. Your 2nd hm is “spectacular and a bit primitive”. In short, Minsky-style.
While the co-study shows an interesting QQ-duel started by a quiet Qa8. Black deflects Q to another corner by Rh1! so that his Qd3 wasn’t met by Qc8+. White reacts with the Nowotny deflection Ne3! I prefer logical moves to random tactics.
Logical tries in my study begin on move 4: 4.c8Q? and 4.Rh6? The try 3.g3? is not logical. This line can be easily removed by placing bRd5 on d1 after two introductory moves. But I decided to keep it. Of course, “study in a study” is not the idea of my study and Rc6 is not the point. The points are 4.g3!! and 5…Nd5!! (after 4.Rh6?).
Other remarks to Jan’s comments.
It’s not necessary to raise 2…Qe1 to a main line in the 1st prize. It’s an additional line, this means the line adds to the content, but there’s no need to write the word “main” before every additional line like weak composers often do.
A nice Rd6! at the end of the 2nd prize is logical of course, but such two-move long logical add-ons are such trifles like switchbacks, poenixes, skewers … Not even worth mentionning. I don’t use the term ‘logical’ for short lines in my comments, as well as stupid things like ‘position X’.
Для полноты картины в нашем этюде можно показать вариант 8.B:b1? Q:b1 9.Rg6 Qc1+ 10.Rg5 Qe3! (единственный способ выигрыша) 11.Кg6 Qe6#.
С Новым годом!
Второго варианта в этюде Гургенидзе + Неидзе, увы, нет: на 7…Кb6 ничью даёт и 8.а8N+ Ka7 9.Nc7=.
Spasibo Oleg. Eta moja vina, vremeni bilo malo, vojna, zabolel koronovirusom…
Ильгам, как бы Давида заставить всё-таки этюды не в уме и на пальцах проверять, а на компе? Ну ведь пара минут нужна! Или написать в Федерацию шахмат Грузии, чтоб ему программу купили? И обучили пару клавиш нажимать))
Поправляйся!
Финал исправляется легко, например, переставить пешку с3 на а3, а ферзя на е3.
Thank you, Sergey. I have to admit I looked a bit superficially at your study and I did not check 4. Rh6 and 4. c8Q. These lines clearly increase the content.
That said, I would have appreciated a more Minski-style resolution at the end of the mainline. 😉 From a logical point of view, there is nothing wrong, but a lot of action is in the tries and in the defensive play.
I agree with your evaluation of two-move logical add-ons. I also agree that not every line that adds to the content is “main”, but the connections between the lines 2. …e1Q and 2. …Ba2 are quite strong (Ba6 vs. Bb7, same defense f6-f5, Rxf5 vs. Bxf5). For the evaluation of the study, this is unimportant of course.
Happy New Year and lots of creative ideas to everybody!
Судья конкурса Мурадов и директор Алиев исключили этюд Гургенидзе из финального присуждения. Хотя Перваков выше написал, что этюд легко исправляется перестановкой пешки с с3 на а3. Сохраняется все содержание.
Гургенидзе послал исправленный этюд в Аргентину, но исправил его по-своему, добавил две пешки на вертикаль h.
Мораль истории: Даже в мелком этюде можно увидеть безграничность человеческой глупости.
А рядом с этюдом Гургенидзе композитор из Уругвая показал нам один очень известный этюд, правда, почему-то под своей фамилией.
Sergej, a ti uveren? Pomojmu ne ispravlaetsa. Gurgenidze tozhe napisal, shto perestanovka peshki na a3 ne pomogaet…
Ферзя еще нужно переставить на е3, а вступление выбросить. Но вместо вступления выбросили В.Неидзе.
2-go ferzja? )))
Na schet Neidze ja uznal u Gurgenidze, eta oshibka sajta, ona budet ispravlena
Perhaps Neidze was removed because he wouldn’t have accepted adding pawns.
It is a pity that this pretty idea is not shown in a good shape. The author has a lot of time.
Реализовать красивую идею красиво достаточно сложно, пробовал. Видимо, надо перегнуть себя через колено и уйти в другой материал, например, Л+К. А там возможен по Ильгаму)) и второй ферзь. Но добавлять тупо две пешки при отстойном вступлении, это не комильфо, Дато!
ok, probably not that easy.