Смотрим присуждение Кирякова.
В шахматах есть дебют с лошадиной фамилией. Нет, не Овсов! Он называется защитой двух коней. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6, допуская 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 и здесь 5… Na5! с отличной игрой за пожертвованную пешку. Взятие 5… Nxd5 раньше считалось грубой ошибкой из-за жертвы фигуры 6. Nxf7. Но когда двум современным шахматным движкам предложили доиграть вариант, партия закончилась ничьей.Эту ловушку знают почти все шахматисты, некоторые из них в курсе, что у черных достаточные защитные ресурсы, и почти никто не знает, что в этюдах тоже есть своя защита двух коней. Ее суть в последовательных прыжках двух незащищенных коней под два удара. Идея красиво реализована в первом призе: удалось и вступление, и финал. Образцовый этюд для словарей этюдных идей. Заслуженный победитель конкурса.
I like very much Sergiy’s funny rook-corner-prison-study! I think it deserves a prize.
I would choose another key position of our study because the first logical choice is 2.Kb3/Kb2.
1 prize, final is not original, see my study 1992 or 1993 year in Шахматный вестник. But I understand that this study is not the study of the final, but is it really the first prize? The choice 2.Kb3! is not good than 2.Kb2?
Oleg you can see right away what is right?
Kb3 or Kb2? You are a genius!
Why are you showing your mediocre study?
The domination of knight is as old as chess. A study with a known final is always better than a study without a pointed final. But you say it yourself, our miniature is about other things.
Martin, I only said that every good chessplayer moves immediately 2.Kb3 and do not think about 2.Kb2? Please ask about this Jan or other otb-gm. Also ask Petr))
Some days ago we composed the study with Gromov also with very-very known final and with logical try as in your first prize, but it is a real choice, not Kb3! and Kb2? I think in such studies it is necessary.
Martin, and I show my mediocre study because your study is also mediocre)) But my study did not win the first prize)) And in 1992 I was not a world champion and even not the second))
It is “comforting” that as a champion you also have mediocre studies. Then I can “experiment”. My aim is to find the optimal form for a scheme. I think we managed to do that in this miniature. Whether this is a 1st prize is a matter of taste. Another judge failed this study. So life is.
I look forward to your study with Gromov. You actually only did excellent studies with him. Yes, it would have been nicer if Kb2 were the solution and not the try. That would be more paradoxical. Unfortunately, chess is not a dream country. Let’s leave Petr “alive”. I think he did a good job in general. Perhaps that is what Sergiy will say, too, after overcoming the initial shock for the placement of his study.
I am not dissappointed. My study is not good enough for a prize. But I don’t think Peter did a good job. He awarded a prize to the study by Bazlov with an ugly dual and little content. Also he underestimated a study by Gurgenidze. And the Avni is shit.
Jan Sprenger has already explained to me that Bazlov’s study is not good enough. I like Bazlov’s study, but you have often said that I have no idea about studies. Then I prefer to listen to the experts.
Олег, я как-то начинал дискуссию на страницах блога о “натуральности и естественности” логических попыток. О том, что часто хочется слоном и ладьей подальше сыграть, чтобы не попасть под удары фигур, а королем “не под шах”.
Получил несколько назиданий, что все ходы и попытки имеют право на существование.
Пара примеров – всем известный этюд Мартина и Ко из Московского конкурса – 2019, 1-й приз ( https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/horneckers-minskim-nn-0401-11b4c7-mc/ )
3.Rh5 “делается рукой”, – подальше, чтобы не выпустить черную ладью на h.
Или этюд Сергея в данном конкурсе – к чему попытка 7.Ba2? ba2 8.Kf5? Что грозило на 7-м ходу? Почему не естественное 7.Kf5, а потом подумать – бить на а2 или нет? Вот 9.Ba2/9.Ke3 – действительно сложный выбор.
В этюде-победителе Kb2/Kb3 – тоже не самый очевидный выбор, надо считать, не попадет ли король под шахи. На моей памяти масса этюдов с очевидным уходом короля в угол доски “подальше от шахов” получили самые высокие отличия)
Финал “ладья против коня” конечно же, встречался. Мне кажется, это приятное завершение этюда – проигнорировать коня е2 под двумя ударами и поймать его позднее)
Ну не знаю, Петр. Я в СССР дорос лишь до кандидата, тогда считали не конкретные варианты, а мыслили схемами и планами, Кb2? никто, кроме Каспарова, и считать бы не стал, но Каспаров уже не та эпоха…
Претензий к твоему судейству лично у меня нет, я же не участвовал)) Кстати, это мой ответ Дидуху насчёт оценки своих этюдов. Судить свои этюды не собираюсь, это моя принципиальная позиция.
I agree with Oleg and Steffen that 2. Kb3 is more natural and that it would be preferrable if 2. Kb2 were the solution.
However, I don’t agree with Oleg that 2. Kb3 is almost automatic or “immediate”. I don’t think this is a position where you can reason in terms of schemas and plans. Even if you grew up in the Soviet chess school. 😉
The RN vs. RN endgames are almost always very concrete, have surprising tactical resources, and here there is even a passed pawn. Here you have to take Kasparov’s approach. 😉 So I do think that 2. Kb2 is a proper try or “Verführung” (temptation), as we say in German. Note also that the natural 2./3. …Na4+ does not work out and once this is clear and the player has spotted 3. …Ne2!, 2. Kb2 gets a great deal more attractive, because there are no checks on d4 (as Petr mentioned, too).
Most strong players would, in my opinion, think seriously about the king move, then notice that they are unable to calculate everything, play 2. Kb3 and hope for the best. But this is different from an “immediate” move. And the above reasoning may lure some of them into playing 2. Kb2, and it is hard to blame them for it.
The choice between two almost equal moves (shorter-longer, solid-risky) spoils nothing. It’s a good choice, good start of the logical idea. In studies you have to calculate everything: before the move or after.
Pervakov’s attempts to determine on every occasion that one move is more natural than another almost as natural move can be compared with Martin’s exaggeration of the harm from bad exchange. Simplistic approach. Comfortable for lazy experts.
An exchange is always bad. You explained that to Daniele Gatti.
Of course, sometimes I also tolerate exchanges. For example, in your 1st prize of 64, I tolerate your exchange on b6. Jan Sprenger thinks this exchange is much worse than I do. So don’t accuse me of dogmatism.
You throw everything into one pot here and stir until you can’t see anything anymore.
Maybe the comparison was bad indeed. An exchange is always bad. But the choice between two equal moves is not bad at all. Pardon.
Side remark: Sometimes I tolerate exchanges, in fact, I do so more frequently than Martin (I think). What annoys me in Sergiy’s study from “64” is that a bishop is placed on a5 with the exclusive function of capturing the white pawn as soon as it advances. Then it disappears from the board. This goes against the principle of economy, especially in a study with so few pieces.
Jan, an additional piece always has the “function” for exchange. 🙂
I suppose it is technically not possible without it. Sergiy will have checked that carefully.
For me it is crucial that the idea is unique and that it is worthy to show it. If I have the choice, then I take the little weakness before I don’t show this idea.
The idea was too difficult to realize. The knight had to trap them both: queen and king. And make it in a stylish way galloping from one side of the board to the other with excellent tactical nuances.
So, I don’t know what exchange you are talking here about. 😎
Ok, Jan, I agree with your arguments. And not agree!)) You know the solution, you know the counterplay Ne2!, but question: can you see this very nice move in game immediately? If not, then you never think about Kb2? I am right or no?
Why I ask you, Jan? Some days ago we celebrate the 100 years of great Smyslov. One day we discuss with him about counterplay in game, and Smyslov told me very interest idea (for me): If I feel that the opponent has a counterplay, but I do not see it immediately, I make the strongest move. I think Smyslov go Kb3! without any doubts.
If I see 3. …Ne2!, I will consider 2. Kb2 very strongly. If I don’t see it, and/or if I have little time, I will play 2. Kb3 fast. But with sufficient time, odds are on that I spot 3. …Ne2.
The Smyslov story is a nice anecdote, but not a serious argument. 😉
Of course 2. Kb3 is more natural. Would have been better if 2. Kb2 was correct. The try adds a little but not much. The study is about the 3. Ng3 Ne2 sequence (and general good play), at least to me.
Петр, в отношении претензий к этюду Сергея согласен, да он и сам не возражает, как я понял.
Я не возражаю, потому что этюд без цельного сюжета, без большой идеи, я такие не люблю. А рассказы Петра про “хочется сыграть – не хочется играть” – это не оценка, а манипуляции. Здесь нет никаких проблем. Белые решают: оставить слона или держать оборону с ним? Оставляем. Спускаемся королем вниз до d2 – не держится из-за цугцванга. Значит, размениваем слона сразу – снова не держится из цугцванга. Нужен точный момент для размена. Вот такой замысел.
Interesting discussion on “naturalness” of logical choice.
I admit it: Oleg is right that Nb3 is intuitively more obvious.
How did the logical try Nb2 come about? It was included in the scheme. We didn’t “invent” it, just lucky that the moves remain clear (in the thematic try).
Steffen and Sergiy are right, it’s about the two interesting moves Ng3-Ne2. The “random” logic is just a small improvement.
I disagree with Petr, about Rh5! at the 1st prize from the Moscow Ty 2019. Every other rook move has a clear logical try. It is not a “coincidence” there, it is composed. Not important how “natural” the move Rh5!
Ребят, что вы тут муру разводите? Естественная попытка, – неестественная… Классный же этюд 1 приз! Миниатюра, красивая тонкая игра, приятный финал, – общее впечатление для решателя отличное! Что еще нужно для высокой оценки? – 4 балла.
Этюду Базлова я не дал бы призового отличия, конечно же! Кстати, этюд Гургенидзе с тем же материалом в финале, не хуже.