Чехословацкий журнал продолжил сомнительную традицию публиковать итоги конкурса в два приема. Пока неясно, сколько этюдов отметил судья Эмиль Власак. Написано, что всего участвовало 37 произведений 29 авторов. Десяток из них принадлежит главному любителю добавлять компьютерные тонкости в чужие работы. Оригинальность таких переработок Ярослава Полашека мне кажется недостаточной для участия в конкурсах, но судья умеет находить новизну, когда надо поощрить этюды друга. Первая часть содержит 10 этюдов.Первые два этюда сделаны по одинаковому шаблону и с одинаковым мастерством. После необязательного вступления с пренебрежением к принципу экономии средств черные придумывают тактический трюк, который тупо не срабатывает после простых ответов белых.
В третьем призовом этюде черные не показали контригры, потому что это было сольное выступление белой ладьи на пятой горизонтали. Механика симметрии в голом виде.
Не густо содержания и в российском призе. Черный король спешит вверх, но если он пойдет на g4, то пешка будет косвенно защищена, а на f4 он испортит планы своему ферзю пообедать кониной.
Словацкая пара продолжает собирать патовые конструкторы со связками фигур. А чешский мастер по ремонту старых этюдов продолжает утончать старомодные идеи.
А… ничего не меняется!
Мир все время по кругу болтается,
Напрягается, расслабляется, дурью мается, повторяется,
Всё куда-то течет, изменяется. А ничего не меняется!
НИ – ЧЕ – ГО!….. (Фрол Жуков)
Вышла вторая часть присуждения “Те, что хуже Г”.
I fully agree. Disappointing. None of the prizes is prizeworthy.
Согласен с Сергеем и Яном, хороших этюдов нет. Пока?))
Вторую часть итогов ждем с вопросом: “Какие этюды хуже, чем у Гатти?” 🙂
Кстати, сегодня международным день людей с синдромом Дауна. Подходящее присуждение к такому празднику.
Сергей, в этом ты не прав! Достаточно было гениев с синдромом Дауна. Может, и это тот случай?))
Да, нет страшнее этюдов, чем у Гатти! Помогите человеку, он же этюд искренне любит! Это мое мнение. Я? Я готов поработать со всеми такими. Если успею.
Гатти из породы необучаемых. Он не признает никаких художественных принципов. Как ты с ним будешь работать? Он не любит этюд, ему лишь нравится составлять непонятно что. Так что не разбрасывайся глупыми предложениями помощи. Твоя помощь ему не нужна.
Уж и пошутить нельзя.
Можно. Но этюды, как и компьютер – умных они делают умнее, а тупых тупее.
Oh wow! Many people talking about my horrible sketches! I’m honored (with an honourable mention, too! … ok, that was a terrible one).
Dear alcoholic friend Pervakov, I gently refuse your offer, ’cause I’m perfectly able to keep on composing such awful sketches without anyone’s help.
Actually I’m a bit sorry for the alcoholic friend Sergey, who still has to insert my moves and solutions every time they appear in a studies tourney award. I know it’s hard for you, but if you keep practicing, you will learn to deal with this without too much torment. Maybe an additional vodka tank could help you with the task.
“Gatti The Unteachable” 🙂
Don’t worry! It doesn’t take long to publish the awarded studies on the blog – upload a PGN file and give a link to it. That’s it. No need to play through the moves. But indeed sometimes I look into your studies instead of watching a horror movie. The effect is the same. Let me know when you finish reading your first book on chess studies.
Not bad! But now, could you just take one of those awarded horror movies – sketches of mine (maybe this last one, or the ones you prefer, there are many…), and explain your motivations about such disgust? If you have any motivation, obviously … Otherwise it will be clear that this place isn’t about discussing sketches, but just about insulting other people (the ones not-in-your-backyard) and auto-celebrating about prizes given each other.
Please, on your analysis, just facts: not alcoholic delirium tremens, if possible.
You are not ready yet. First, read my comments on the prize studies in the award. And read some books for beginners.
What’s your deduction about “you are not ready yet” ? I miss something. Ready for what?
I know principles of endgame studies, even if you think the opposite. I have studied and read books of composition in my life. Simply, for me there are no boundaries. And I prefer originality to doctrines. Instead of “composer”, you may call me “researcher” of chess. For you and your friends, instead, seems that boundaries are very, very strict. Maybe that’s the problem.
Delirium tremens is very good belgian beer :-))
I don’t think Sergiy drinks, actually. Otherwise he and Oleg would quarrel over whether Russian or Ukrainian vodka is best, instead of over sports and politics.
Obviously, mine was a joke. Since here it’s all allowed, including insulting other composers, why not partecipate? Still waiting a reply from the Mastermind, however …
Don’t go crazy wondering all the time what you are not ready for. You’ll find the answer one day when your studies get better. So, be patient.
Видимо, единственное, чему можно научить нашего алкогольного друга Гатти – пить русскую водку стаканами. Может, тогда и с этюдами попрет? Или тоже слабо, Даниэле?))
Даниэле, вы, как итальянец, должны быть, скорее всего, верующим. Завтра 100 лет со дня рождения 7-го чемпиона мира Смыслова. Он был глубоко верующим человеком, считал себя даже посвященным. Творчество в его понимании было прежде всего гармонией и красотой, тем, что приближает человека, по его мнению, к свой божественной сути. Вы же сейчас страшно далеки от этого, увы.
Incidentally, there is a wonderful Italian translation of Smyslov’s book “В поисках гармонии” under the title “Alla ricerca dell’armonia”. I bought it 10 years ago when I was playing a tournament in Alghero, Sardinia.
Caissa publishers have also other Italian translations of Russian chess classics. Yuri Garrett and his team are doing an excellent job.
Даниэле, я несколько раз был в вашей прекрасной стране, и жду не дождусь, когда мы побьем коронавирус! Чтобы снова прикоснуться к величайшим творениям человечества. И насладиться вашим итальянским гостеприимством. По паре литров вашего отличного вина от хозяев пляжей и маленьких ресторанчиков всегда с удовольствием принимал на грудь. А вам советую – приезжайте в Россию, узнаете поближе русских людей!)) Но водку – только стаканами!))
Dear Oleg, I’ve already been in Russia (and Ukraine too, for Sergey’s great joy!), many years ago, for a very very long trip along all the country, in which I had opportunity to know many people and also play chess with many strong players (on a 5 days train journey, what to do other than playing chess?). I had the pleasure to drink the surely best vodka in the world … The only little problem was that people continued offering me vodka until I couldn’t stand up. Someone got very mad with me when I refused to drink more, so my experience with Russian vodka was a bit unclear … good and bad at the same time. But I imagined that this was a part of the Russian hospitality =) it wasn’t so bad if accompanied with fresh fish directly coming from Bajkal lake.
I found Russia a place full of contrast. My journey was epic , but I still can’t tell you if it’s a pleasant memory or not.
By the way, I am not a believer.
And I suppose that everyone of us (me first!) is terribly far from celestial harmony and beauty, if there is one. So what’s the point about all this? Composing chess is an hobby. Hobbies should be funny , if they aren’t, they’re no more hobbies, they’re work, or something more deep.
As previously said , probably I’m in the wrong place . Just still trying to understand if visiting these pages could be useful to improve my composing skills or not . I still haven’t a definitive answer to this question …
Most composers don’t improve their skills at all. Afek and Pervakov composed their best studies right from the start. So, they don’t have the necessary experience to help you. But Martin Minski did improve a lot on his early composing attempts. He’s a good teacher.
I think if you want to improve you should stop considering studies a hobby. It is not a hobby for us. It’s much more.
As I guessed, it’s a matter of priorities. By the way, I would be glad to improve my technique and skills if there is opportunity. It’s not strictly necessary, for me, but if it’s possible, why not?
There is another thing to consider. As you may know, I composed mainly chess problems, not studies. Of every sort: twomovers, threemovers, moremovers, selfmates, helpmates, fairies, retros and so on. And the first problems I composed (I started with selfmates, quite atypical beginning for a beginner) are still my best works, the ones with the highest prizes and rankings. Seems that I’ve exausted my ideas on problems.
That’s why I moved to studies … need to find new and wider ideas. Hope there are good margins of improvement.
Gatti’s study has only one simple idea (Rc8+!) but it is well constructed (the two pawn sacrifices fit naturally into play and with the material, there are no hanging pieces in the initial position, and no hard analytical lines). I have seen many studies lately which were worse by more experienced composers like him.
Thanks for your objective comment.
I’m afraid, however, that many people here won’t agree. And no one seems to be able (or to be willing) to explain me *precisely* the reason why!
The study is technically clean, as Martin said, but I think the idea is too small and not original enough to justify inclusion in the award. The skewer 3. Rc8+! (with the preparatory sacrifice 1. c6+!) is a well-known and not very interesting idea. Same for 7. Rd8+! and 8. Rd4. This is stuff we know from the textbooks.
I think it is a good calculation exercise for players, since it recalls familiar, but important motifs, and there are no hard sidelines. However, I fail to see a sufficient amount of artistic content.
In fairness to you, Daniele, the other nine studies are not better an average. I like Martin’s study, but there is a lot of crap on the first places: neither technically clean nor with an original idea. So I may finally come round to Martin’s judgment that a commendation can be defended if one appreciates this style of composing.
“No hanging pieces in the initial position” is a personal quality feature of Arpad Rusz. I do not agree.
Daniele Gatti’s only notable idea 7.Rd8+! is not original enough and too little for a commendation. I built a small study in 2011 and combined this idea with a battery and in-between-check.
I thought Gatti’s main idea is 3.Rc8+! and not 7.Rd8+! 🙂
The study is small but technically correct. That is what matters when someone just recently started composing studies. Maybe later he will have more complex ideas. I know very well that in 2021 one would like to see much more in an awarded composition.
I am sure I am not the only one who tries to avoid putting pieces en prise in the initial position of a study. The justification for this is that it is better if the tension builds up during play from a quiet position. Are you telling me that if you could place a rook on two squares (one attacked by the opponent, and one not) you choose randomly? Of course not.
This work got a HM at the Fide World Cup in spite of the spectator tribune on the h-file???
Еще немного и будет нормальная база этюдов. Ориентировочная дата – 1 апреля.
Yes, ok 3.Rc8+! is also good! I think overall you can give a commendation for it. Compared to Gatti’s first studies, this is of course much better because it is technically clean.
Of course I also avoid “hanging pieces”, but from my point of view it is absolutely not a quality feature. I would not deduct 0.5 points for this. I prefer to choose “hangig pieces” instead of “bad changes”. Not you!?
I agree that “hanging pieces” have too little impact (if any) on the overall quality of a study. I don’t agree that Gatti’s piece of shit is commendable. No ideas.
Thanks Sergiy! I’m relieved.
You hear it Daniele from the master personally. Your studies are not good enough yet.
We all just build studies so that we may be praised by Master Didukh at least once in a lifetime.
You have to get better at that. 🙂
I wish you success!
I’m really amused =) So that’s the objective. Gain the Mastermind’s approval. Nice!
Let me reply with this novel:
“A young artist exhibits his work for the first time … and a well known art critic is in attendance. The critic says to the young artist, “Would you like my opinion on your work?”
“Yes, ” says the artist.
“It’s worthless,” says the critic.
The artist replies: “I know, but tell me anyway.”
A perfect sum !
On Facebook it was about a coproduction with Prusikin. I built the introduction and really wanted to avoid bad exchanges. That was only possible with “hanging pieces”. Apard Rusz criticized that. I’ll add a second example (coproduction with Nielsen). Question to everyone else: Should you choose “bad exchanges” instead of “hanging pieces”? My worldview is shaking …
Yes, in your coproduction study with Prusikin, the position after 1.Rb4 Nb6 is much nicer visually for me. I guess you also wanted the black knight to move before it gets captured, and not just to lengthen the solution by another move.
“Bad exchanges” are bad in my view too. For this study, I would try to stick with the RN/RN piece material and add no more than one pawn for each side to get some intro.
At first sight, the published position definitely doesn’t feel to be the Letzform for this simple idea.
What could be a correct and exhaustive definition of “bad exchange” ?
(I know the term, but who or what decides if an exchange is bad or not?)
The question is strange because the answer is obvious.
Bad exchange is a capture of a piece followed by an immediate recapture. It’s always bad. We can only compensate for this drawback by other virtues. There are even masterpieces with bad captures. For example, see the 6th prize in the Nielsen-45 ty.
Danielle, the first time I met Martin face-to-face, he talked to me about an exchange on f7 in one of my studies. I had no idea what he was talking about since there was no exchange (by my definition at the time) on f7 in the study, only a beautiful queen sacrifice Qxf7! (capture of pawn) Kxf7.
But this queen sac counts as an exchange as well in the study world, I have come to accept that. Of course, the stronger the pieces being exchanged, the bigger the flaw. An outright queen exchange really needs some strong compensation in the surrounding play.
In Avni and Tarasiuk’s study for my tourney, I did not consider the exchange on a5 a major flaw. It has something to do with the quality and intensity of the play that surrounds it and of course with the choice of captures on a5.
I noticed some time back that Afek has a tendency to make 4-5 introductory moves, then an exchange, and finally again some moves leading up to the main point of the study. It works pretty well, this rhythm.
An exchange on the moves just before the climax, I consider a big flaw. The build-up without exchanges ideally has to be longer. An example is my study with Minski and Gurgenidze for the Timman 65 JT. There the main idea 8. Rh5! comes right after the exchange on f5. This is not ideal, but the compensation lies in the slow build-up from move 1-6, which I really like.
By the way, I believe two consecutive captures on the same square is worse than two consecutive capture on different squares. I have never seen anyone bring up this point before, but I think most experts agree about this?
Avoiding pieces being en prise in the initial position I consider icing on the cake. Something you are very pleased to accomplish, if everything else already fits. Recently I had the choice in a small win study. The White rook had to move first. In the end I put it on a square where it was en prise, because the alternative departure square would give White a sideline where he was two pawns up. The line was drawn, but it was a computer draw. In that case, I deselected the icing to make the cake more eatable as a whole.
I agree. I don’t like exchanges either, but I am not radical as Martin. When an exchange is harmoniously integrated into the play and does not occur immediately before the pointe, it does not disturb me. It also depends on the type of study: I find it in technical studies more acceptable than in tactical and sharp ones.
Regarding pieces en prise in the initial position, I am probably a bit stricter than you and Martin, but not as much as Arpad. Sometimes it is the only way to make things work without allowing for exchanges or uneconomic use of material. In Martin’s study with Prusikin, capturing a knight that has not moved would be a major flaw whereas hanging pieces in the initial position is just a minor flaw. That said, I don’t like about the initial position is that the rook hangs *twice*…
Dear Steffen! Thanks for your advices.
I have a question: does a White piece, en prise in the initial position and being captured at fist black move, represent a big flaw? The piece unfortunately does not work in the solution, it only stands here and it’s immediately captured (but it’s not an exchange since the first White move is quiet), but it’s directly involved in an interesting try, and his presence helps to avoid a cook in a sideline.
Compensation for this, in my view, should be the first White move: a quiet and neat sacrifice of another piece of same value, supported by many tries which are not sacrifices, and more “likely” moves, but wrong for a subtle Black defense.
What’s your opinion? (I’m asking you but everyone can answer)
“does a White piece, en prise in the initial position and being captured at fist black move, represent a big flaw?”
YES. Pieces must move. In particular, White pieces must move. And the worst is when a white piece is captured before moving. Avoid at all costs. Try a different way of making your main idea work, even if it is perhaps a bit less beautiful.
Yes. A big weakness. I just went through my 250 studies to prove that I would never even consider doing anything like that, and yikes…I did it once and even with a White queen going down on the first move. No rule without exceptions, will be my excuse.
12 times Black’s first move was a capture of an unmoved White pawn. That is much more acceptable, though of course not desirable.
In a single of my studies I began with a capture (of a Black pawn). This is also a bad weakness. I won’t do that again. Probably Black to move” is even to be preferred. I have 5 studies with Black to move.
Thanks to Jan and Steffen, I’m including this on the “not to do” list 🙂