Жизни не хватит, чтобы внимательно изучить все составленные этюды. Чем меньше времени остается, тем больше хочется потратить его на лучшие образцы творчества: найти в сокровищнице композиции красивые подзабытые этюды или взглянуть на известные шедевры более пристальным взглядом. В одной из своих последних статей Михаил Зинар дал решение знаменитого этюда Григорьева немного иначе, чем делали раньше. Он рассказал его как историю, где обе стороны поочередно пытаются усилить свою игру. При этом по пути к патам исполняются другие ходы, что избавило решение от органической дуали, действующей на нервы слишком педантичным композиторам.
Почти семь лет я высказывал свое мнение обо всех конкурсных этюдах подряд. «В 20 лет мы учимся мастерству составления, после 40 уже сами пытаемся помочь коллегам ценными советами, а в 60 приходит понимание, что наши замечания никому не нужны». Но если усиленно раздавать ценные советы, то можно все понять и в 45! Чувствую, что пришла пора больше дорожить временем, не отвлекаться на анализ плохих этюдов и ответы призерам, обидевшимся на мою критику. Да здравствует безразличие к пустым этюдам и злопыхателям!По тормозам!
Шедевр Пасмана! Белые тонко готовят превращение пешки, потом так долго ждут подходящего момента сделать последний шаг, что пешка перехотела быть ферзем и стала ладьей! Остроумная игра обеих сторон от начала до конца. Поздавляю Михаила с отличным творческим достижением.
Good study, yes! Pity that the final combination is anticipated (although I appreciate that in this study, it organically emerges from 8. Nc6+! and 9. d4!). I would also avoid the 1… Kc2 sideline and shorten the study: the RNP vs. RN endgame is a bit analytic and distracts the viewer’s/solver’s attention. (Yes, I looked at the computer evaluations, but I am not sure they are relevant.)
I would like to use this thread for following up on a discussion on purity of purpose in another (crowded) thread.Suppose White can try two different plans: plan A and plan B. Plan A is prevented by obstacle X and plan B is prevented by obstacle Y. So White decides to play another move first (let’s call it C), which forces Black to remove either obstacle X or obstacle Y. More precisely, one possible response by Black removes obstacle X and allows plan A to succeed (but not plan B) and the other response removes obstacle Y and allows plan B to succeed (but not plan A).
Does move C satisfy purity of purpose or not?
Personally, I am inclined to think that yes, because if the solver misses one of the obstacles, he would not choose C. In other words, C is determined by its capacity to remove exactly one of the obstacles (Black decides which). I was unable to find a similar case in the literature and would be interested in opinions.
In logical #3 problems, this is very common to see, and a big goal when reached with difficult themes. Two thematic tries (main plans A-B) are intercepted by correspondently unique thematic defences (X-Y), which are removed one at a time after the introduction of the auxiliary plan (the keymove C). After the removals, alternatively plan A and B become possible.
I don’t know if this is realized in studies, but it sounds to me perfectly coherent.
Thank you Daniele. I have a scheme with this structure (for a win study) and therefore I was curious about its realization.
The theme where White’s thematic moves are tries and mates is the Banny. Without mates this theme loses much of its charm. That’s why it’s a theme for 2-movers. In studies some composers call it the Banny because the mechanism is the same. But the realization is easy. Here’s an example.
It’s not a logical study or a logical theme. 1.d6! doesn’t add anything to improve on the tries, so we cannot talk about purity of its aim. It aims at nothing!
I wrote that Pasman’s study is a masterpiece (4 points out of 4), not just a good study as you write. Don’t you see that after 1…Kc2 the black knight can’t stop the pawn? White plays e7-Ra8 and queens. It doesn’t matter if the final combination is known because Pasman added enough originality before reaching the known part. That’s what matters!
Thank you Sergiy. I agree with your evaluation of the Kovalenko study. 1. d6 is basically a waiting move for obtaining more information from Black and not very interesting. To make the difference clear: in my scheme, the preparatory move poses a specific threat which forces Black to give up one of the two obstacles. Then Plan A or Plan B are implemented.
Regarding Pasman’s study: Did you see that the black knight returns after 9… Nf2+ followed by 10… Ne4? Yes, White is winning, but not completely trivially. The problem for the solver is that with this material combination (RNP/RN), you need to continue to calculate since you cannot evaluate the position based on general principles. The same holds for the positions with Q+P against R+N, where it is not evident that they are indeed fortresses.
All these are minor problems, of course, but I think if we can do without 1. Ra3+ Kc2, it is preferable.
Ok, you don’t want to calculate. 9…Nf2+ 10. Kf3 Nd3+ 11.Kg3.
The Banny mechanism in studies is not logical. White’s move/plan must add a motive (threat is not a motive) aimed to remove the obstacle.
Sergiy, the line does not stop after 11. Kg3. We can continue to throw variations at each other, but I can make better use of my time. The point is simple: in analysis we write +- when things are clear for a good human chessplayer. Not when it is very probable that White wins, but we still need to analyse the position.
In general, computer evaluations can be deceptive and when we use the engine, we often miss important candidate moves. Therefore I find it somewhat amusing that you are telling me “don’t you see that X?”, “you don’t want to calculate”, etc. If you have such good understanding of endgames and the tactical nuances hidden in such positions, you can offer your services to Magnus Carlsen.
(I once showed a in my view rather simple study to a GM friend for solving. Two days later, he told me that he tried and that the position was too complicated. The play in Pasman’s study is humanly understandable after the rook sacrifice because now there are few candidate moves at every junction, but after 1…Kc2 it branches out a lot. This is why I made my suggestion to find a version without this line.)
I had time to look at the line 1…Kc2. It is not complicated.
I always analyze the study before making any suggestions or evaluations. And you?
Ян!!!
В конкурсе “Василий Платов — 140” Вы “выдвинули” сочинение Гонсалеса на второе место. Там “две ладьи” выигрывают у “ладьи с конём” “по таблицам”. При этом в своём “докладе” Вы не указываете “этот вариант”. При “окончательном присуждении” Вы не вспомнили “об этом” (“опечатку” в решении О.Первакова (белая ладья побывала на h3) сейчас не будем вспоминать). Гонсалес не дал нам “совет” при достижении “табличного выигрыша” —- “показал слабый результат”? Он не может быть призёром с таким результатом??
Thanks to Sergiy for the compliments to my study.
Jan , about the final position it was already explained here, but I want to add, that today most of the finals in studies are not new and appeared before in some way. And it does not matter that there are some additional pieces in the study. I can give you lots of examples – but take for example M.Minski 1-st prize study from Polasek and Vlasak (Ra8#). Look for example on final position from I.Sindler study (1956) or Minski himself study (Schach,2020). And you can add to this lot blitz games which ended with this kind of mate. So we are not looking on the final position, we are looking through all the solution. I think you agreed with that.
About 1.Ra3+! I want to add to what has been already said here. Composing studies is an art, it is not only for solvers. So if there is beautiful, artistic idea, it is completely Ok to add it, in my opinion, to the solution. And if you want to show this study to solvers – it is fine to show it from second move . Ask Cyrus Lakdawala – how many times he publishes studies from the middle of them in his books, according the level of the reader, exactly as games are often published from specific position . But the move 1.Ra3+! before 2.Ra1 adds some important logical try to the study (forcing the black king to move to b4), much easier move is 1.Ra1 immediately and 1.Ra3! is very uneasy move to find. May be it has very small disadvantage as you say, that it is not so easy to understand, but on the other hand it adds much more positive points to the study then negative . And I am sure that in this case it is very important to include this first move.
Thank you for the explanations, Mikhail. I am not sure I would have made the same choice as an author, but I can follow your reasoning. Compliments with the study!
Vasily: You may want to read the final award. Selivanov will also soon publish the Russian version. I discuss the Gonzalez study on pp. 5-6 and Oleg’s study with M. Gromov on p. 23. Regarding the 2… Rf1 variation in the former, I think a white win is extremely plausible despite the modest computer evaluation (knight is cut off, king endangered, etc.). And I find the study a very original work with pleasant play and without technical flaws. For Oleg’s study, I have corrected the typo in the notation and explained my judgment better.
One of the latest study with the Banny mechanism and threat.
https://eg.org.ua/?p=87171
Ян!! Я вчера хотел продолжить нашу беседу о “ЧУДОВИЩНЫХ позициях”. При составлении “конкурсного сочинения” мне пришлось продолжить вариант до 68-го хода.
Попробуйте отгадать правильный ход за белых. Гонсалес в аналогичной ситуации “принудил” “болельщиков” применить таблицы. Свою позицию я отправил на конкурс. Эта позиция может быть ценнее, чем 67 моих ходов.
Василий, Вы нашли ошибку в таблицах? Даже если это так, в чем я очень сомневаюсь, в чем смысл угадывать здесь ходы? Думаю, это неинтересно ни композиторам, ни практикам, ни решателям. Кстати, количество ходов в решении вообще никакой роли не играет, главное идея!
Чига !
Я “оказался” “без спортивного аппарата” 16.08.21.
13.10.21. – вернулся в игру ….
“Таблиц” у меня нет …. , поэтому эндшпиль “Кр.+С.+С. / Кр. + К.” мне пришлось
“посмотреть другим способом” ( в 1983 году было объявлено, что “96% расстановок” “дают победу слонам”) …. “До 67 -го хода” “белая троица” “прижимала” “чёрную пару” к “борту” ….
В этот момент нужно вспомнить “сотрудника церкви” Сааведру , нашедшего “парадоксальное превращение” пешки в ладью ….
На 68-ом ходу я “вступил в соревнование” с “САМИМ СААВЕДРОЙ” (???) …
В конкурсе “Василий Платов – 140” “мои алфавитные соседи” составили сочинения А21 и А25 …. Мои А22,А23 и А24 признаны Яном “менее успешными” … Судья решил , что два сочинения “алфавитных соседей” “поучительнее” , чем А22,А23,А24 …. В А22 и А23 я “сделал” “прогноз атаки” ….
Мой соперник Гонсалес не сделал “набросок атаки” , не воспользовался таблицами …. , но его сочинение поставлено даже выше , чем сочинения “моих алфавитных соседей” …
Я задал Яну вопрос о “набросках атаки” ….. 68 -й ход в “набросках атаки”
может оказаться “десятимиражным” (10 неточностей в 134 ходах) …
Может ли 68 -й ход принести победу в конкурсе , если достигнут “уровень Сааведры” ????
…