Ян Тимман-70

Martin, Oleg does not use fecal language, or only very rarely so. He uses genital language. While we Germans swear using words like shit, asshole, etc., Italians, Serbians, Russians, etc. swear using words like dick, cunt, your mother’s pussy, etc. Which is arguably more entertaining. Italians give a special twist to this by replacing the mother by the Madonna (=the Virgin Mary), but they are still no match for Serbian/Croatian.

Here is the overview of swearing cultures around the world.

(End of off-topic rant. I reply to your post below.)
 

Martin, on the topic of asking OTB players. I agree that this should be done with great caution, and only on very specific aspects on which they are competent. For example, are variations and evaluations really as humanly clear as the author writes? Are important candidate moves missing? It is possible to solve it at least in principle, or does one get lost in a dense web of variations? Does it really show something surprising or paradoxical? I think on these aspects strong OTB players have something to contribute, and you can synthesize their input with your own judgment.

Of course, they are not—or at least not automatically—qualified to judge greatness of idea, originality, economy of construction, build-up of tension, etc. But I don’t think that Jan simply averaged his score with Erwin l’Ami’s, but that he asked for an opinion on specific aspects.

Martin, I see you like milk and beer in one glass? Good luck!))))

Of course this is a personal opinion and not a rule. I am happy to explain my opinions, because I believe they are well founded.

For instance, I probably put more emphasis on the aesthetics of the initial position than other judges (on the other hand I probably care less about all pieces moving than other judges). So let us take a look at Pasman’s initial position.

A) There are two pawns on the seventh rank. I keep forgetting who first called this “miraculously unpromoted pawns”. My dislike of these pawns has two reasons. 1) Why did Black not earlier promote a pawn instead of advancing a second pawn? 2) Two pawns on the seventh rank breaks with the convention that tension should build up (and be released) during the solution. Here the tension is already there in the initial position. This is perhaps my main critique.

B) The rook on b1 and the rook on e1 stare at each other. It seems to be generally accepted, that this tension should be avoided if possible in the initial position (I have heard noone argue otherwise). In my own 4th hm I also have a queen en prise on a6. I was unable to create the introduction without it and probably Pasman had the same issue in his study.

C) The White pawns are on the e and f files, the same files as the Black pawns (there have been cross captures in the previous play). This is minor, of course, but still something that I would like to avoid in my own studies.

D) This is very minor and probably nitpicking: But in tactical studies I prefer that the White king is further down the board than its counterpart. Here they have swapped places. This is purely to make it more game like.

Ok, these are all minor parts of the study composition and I break my own rules all the time for the sake of ideas and ambition. Still it is something to be considered. In the initial position of Pasman’s study there is absolutely nothing that reminds me of a game position. Like already stated I like the tactical flow of the rest of the study very much. Flow can be the idea as well (I know you people will disagree on this).