Бабич-115 и Олимпиев-85 15.06.2022 Didukh your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard; alternatively your wordpress theme might suppress the html iframe tag from articles or excerpts
Зря добавили слона.
Наверное, коллективный автор посчитал, что нехорошо начинать решение с превращения пешки в ферзя. Даже без шаха белому королю. А потому и добавил белого слона, который приносится в жертву. В результате первый ход стал вторым.
Шпренгеру простительно – он еще зеленый, а гроссмейстер Мински не должен допускать таких художественных промахов.
Are we just talking about the personal taste of introductions or is there something else to do with the content?
The intromania in studies is not a personal taste. It’s on the same list as bad economy, exchanges, captures…
I don’t think that this is a case of intromania. From Qf8+ onwards the play is part of the scheme; this means that the proper introduction in the sense of “getting pieces to their places” is quite short (and also inevitable, given the necessity of engineering a black promotion on e1).
The real question is whether 1. a8Q or 1. Bd3+ Rxd3 2. a8Q. I think there are arguments either way. Martin mainly worked on the introduction and he suggested the sacrifice. I agreed because my thoughts were similar to Alexandr’s above. And I thought, perhaps it is good to have a defender close to the white king, the key Bd3+ is a more lively move than a8Q, and it suits the “noisy” scheme well.
The disdvantage is, of course, that we have diluted the pure major pieces scheme with an elephant. But I don’t know whether this is a case of an artistic blunder. It looks more than a tradeoff. And the study is, first of all, supposed to be entertaining and rich in action.
Of course, perhaps we were lazy and overlooked a third and better option.
Here’s a case of sacrificial intromania in my study
I was blamed by an experienced composer for adding the knight. It’s not good to add pieces not involved in the main idea. It’s an axiom.
I don’t know the name of the experienced composer, but I have a lot of sympathy for young Didukh’s decision to add the moves 1. Ng5+ fxg5. Doubled pawns in the initial position are ugly and having two of them (b and g file) even more so. The sacrifice sets the stage for the ambush in a lively way, like an orchestral prelude before the curtain is raised.
Sure, the knight is not part of the main idea. But the same holds for the two black pieces whose only function is to engineer the transition from the first to the second ambush (and to give White the opportunity to open the g1-a7 diagonal with e3-e4).
In this sense, our intro is more questionable because apart from the elephant we sacrifice on d3, all pieces have a role in the main idea. Even the black rook on c3 is important because without Rh3+, the simple Re7+ would work after Qf8+ Ke4.
Without philosophy, it’s an extra white piece (bad) vs. double pawns (not bad) or vs. promotion key (not bad). Easy decision.