Phenix 2021 16.07.2022 (20.07.2022) 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
Я бы дал приз этюду Пасмана и почистил бы решение от примитивных вариантов и сильных знаков в финале.
I was tempted to give a prize to Pasman’s study: it is a good composition. I particularly like that the introduction is connected to the final pointe (White first needs to force the black king to the a2-g8 diagonal). Also, the introduction does not require extra material and the general economy is good. And so the study comes across as very coherent.
However, I then looked a bit more closely. First, I concluded that the idea is a little bit too small to be prizeworthy. Actually, I was asking myself which idea is expressed in this study. For a pure foresight study, there are too many detracting sidelines. Paradoxical elements in the play or the foreplan are absent. The bishop promotion is definitely a great and unexpected finish, but of course, it is well known. If you want to describe the idea of the study in one sentence, it is not easy. And the play is fluent, but suffers (in my opinion) from the high tension in the initial position with three passers and the h6/g7 constellation. And so I decided to leave it at a honorable mention. But it is a study I enjoyed.
I agree with respect to removing the !! at least after hxg7. I upgraded 9… Qf7 10. g8B!! to the main line, by the way. Pasman gave 9… Re6 as mainline, but there the play sort of phases out.
For me the idea of this study is “Teamwork for stalemate”.
I consider every part of a coherent solution as one whole idea – the idea takes 10 moves.
But when a judge considers the minor promotion with stalemate (4) as the main idea and the other parts (1,2,3) are additional for him – the idea takes 2 plies and it’s not original.
Jan, I think you are lost somewhere in between these two kinds of judges. Neither fish nor fowl 🙂
I want to add to what was written :
I mentioned 2 main lines in my solution : 9…Re6 and 9…Qf7 . One of them queen promotion and second bishop promotion.
Both main lines are with the same idea of pinning on a2-g8 diagonal and also logical try is on the same theme – to force black king to stay on this diagonal.
I also think that some studies could receive prizes and some commendations ranked also higher. On the other hand, the study of Villeneuve (commendation) – is just some known endgame play that shows nothing new and interesting .
See for example the game Krause-Schroeder, 2014 :
The study is better with one main line – 9…Qf7 10. g8=B!
Krause-Schroeder is not a good example since
The position by Villeneuve is interesting because White decides to spend two moves on the f-pawn, which is then taken by the Black rook, and then to push the h-pawn, without making a single king move.
Books teach us that with pawn(s) against king, cooperation of king and pawns and shouldering the enemy king are the most important things. Also we should avoid ending up with the h-pawn since the player with the rook can often allow for promotion. Villeneuve’s study is an interesting counterexample to those theses and I don’t think most strong players are familiar to this type of drawing mechanism.
You are right, Jan, that the game is not exactly the same.
But you can look on study of Makletsov, 1976 . The only addition to that in Villeneuve’s study are moves f6 and f7.
As a judge I wouldn’t award this study for addition of these 2 moves, but of course, every judge has his own taste.
I am attaching the link with this and 3 other studies with 2 pawns for white vs black Rook (Seleznev,Krikheli,Pellier).
They are not exactly the same, but honestly , I like them little more then study of Villeneuve .