Тема чемпионата: В этюде возникает позиция, где правильным и ошибочным ходом белые активно жертвуют фигуру.
Композиторы могли оформить тематические варианты в цельный замысел (логическую комбинацию, перемену правильного и ложного ходов в вариантах) или сделать ставку на количество тематических жертв в механизме с висячими фигурами или в многофигурных построениях. Этюды со случайными жертвами не могли претендовать на высокие баллы при хорошем судействе. Вот содержание лучших этюдов:
- Логическая комбинация: 1, 2, 10, 14, 15, 18
- Перемена правильного и ложного ходов: 8, 9, 11, 13, 20
- Механизм с жертвами фигуры: 1, 2, 4, 12
- Набор жертв в громоздких схемах: 3, 5, 6, 9, 11
Качество всегда скрывается в деталях. В логических комбинациях ценится длина планов. За переменой ходов хочется видеть тонкость. Ничейные механизмы с бешеной фигурой давно надоели. Также раздражают жертвы фигур, не успевших своей игрой заслужить право быть в этюде. Подобных деталей много. Например, в этюде №20 не только перемена, но и чередование жертв: в каждом варианте после первой жертвы следует та, которая была ошибочной.
От деталей к пустякам. Пустяковые идеи и примитивные варианты мешают разбирать этюд. Но даже гроссмейстеры расписывают решения своих этюдов так, словно судьи самые тупые шахматисты в мире, и не видят вилки, маты, паты в один ход. Через два хода их пишут еще раз, на случай, если у судей проблемы с памятью. В этюдах для WCCT композиторы предпочитают указывать все доказательные варианты, чтобы застраховаться от протестов злобных конкурентов про вымышленные недостатки и дыры в них. В результате решение любого более-менее сложного этюда разрастается до устрашающих размеров, замысел утопает в мусоре. Решения первых двадцати этюдов приведены в презентабельный вид.
Место | Страна | Номер | DEN | FIN | GBR | ISR | ROU | Сумма |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | UKR | D50 | 2.2 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 9.0 |
2-4 | SVK | D21 | 2.8 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 8.6 |
2-4 | SRB | D70 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 8.6 |
2-4 | SVK | D05 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 8.6 |
5-7 | DEN | D63 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 8.4 | |
5-7 | UKR | D74 | 3.0 | 2.4 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.8 | 8.4 |
5-7 | DEN | D02 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 3.6 | 0.0 | 8.4 | |
8 | GER | D61 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 8.2 |
9 | GER | D07 | 2.4 | 2.6 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 3.6 | 8.0 |
10 | MGL | D19 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 7.8 |
11 | GER | D10 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 3.0 | 7.4 |
12 | ESP | D20 | 2.6 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 7.2 |
13 | GBR | D35 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 2.8 | 6.9 | |
14-15 | SRB | D45 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 6.6 |
14-15 | FRA | D33 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 3.0 | 6.6 |
16-19 | HUN | D68 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 1.8 | 2.6 | 6.4 |
16-19 | AZE | D04 | 1.6 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 2.8 | 6.4 |
16-19 | SVK | D66 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 2.4 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 6.4 |
16-19 | POL | D60 | 2.4 | 2.2 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 1.6 | 6.4 |
20 | UKR | D57 | 2.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 2.2 | 1.0 | 6.2 |
1. Украина – 17.4 балла. 2. Словакия – 17.2 балла. 3. Дания – 16.8 балла. 4. Германия – 16.2 балла. 5. Сербия – 15.2 балла.
Таблица со всеми оценками на сайте WFCC.
Congratulations to some Ukrainian for getting the first study in the 2022-24 album 🙂
Congratulations to Ukraine, and thank you to Serhiy for improving the presentation of the studies!
Before I go into the details, some general observations.
Here is my take on the studies in the ranking:
I also like the Serbian D45, like an old Miljanić study, and our D10.
Finally, where were the Russians? I guess—but I may be mistaken—that D28 with the reciprocal change of solution of try, and the unusual material of QNN vs. QBB, was one of theirs. That was one of the studies I noted when scrolling through the initial list. Other than that, I did not notice anything in the initial list that went missing.
In D19 we have the battery and logic. Yakimchik combines the battery and a minor promotion.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/yakimchikv-0341-20c7h7/
The play around the battery is an important piece of the content. D19 is original if the logical combination is important enough. That’s where judges’ opinions may differ.
I agree with Didukh’s comment about D33. Very nice.
Maybe the Danish judges (Rewitz and I) put too much emphasis on the wall of pawns in D50. But at least we agreed…
I didn’t even notice about 0 points for D02. It may have to do with my initial presentation where I (stupidly) put 13. Qxd5+ when 13. Qd7+ is a dual. But this was corrected after the claims, I thought. But perhaps not allowed?
(ok, I admit it is mine).
In my view D02 is way superior to D63 which was composed in the last week before the deadline. The f8Q! theme can be shown much more economically.
The Mongolian study is something to show in the club. Such a class work in classical style.
D61 is a great construction though perhaps not my cup of tea entirely (changed play).
I was convinced D70 was by Timman. Again great technique, but those waiting kings…
The middling scores surely also has to do with countries splitting the judging duties between several people.
Even so, the dual 13. Qd7+/Qxd5 is really irrelevant. First, it is at the end of the study and does not affect the content. Second, White needs to take the bishop, so Qd7+ is obviously a loss of time. I could not care less.
I notice that also the Serbian D45 also got clipped after 11. g3+. This is unfortunate since the dual 11… Kg4 12. Qd7+/Qd4 leads to the same position after 12… Kf3 13. Qd3+!, followed by 14. Rf8+ and checkmate. I think this line is important since it is an essential part of the justification of the white attack. The uniqueness of the queen check in move 12 is secondary.
Study composers don’t care about such duals, except some sick minds.
I think the Romanian judge gave no points to D02 because he wasn’t convinced that Qe4? was a real try and without this sacrifice the study is not thematic.
Yes, Mr. Fox, the pawns in D50 are probably sour anyway.
Actually, I was not convinced by D33. Everything is set up for stalemate play from the start and the starting combination is rather primitive. And poor Rc3. Admittedly, Qb8!! with the bishop decoy is nice, the motivation is clean and transparent, but one very good move does not compensate for a lot of drawbacks.
Martin’s study from the Polish tournament in 2021 (also in his WCCI selection as No. 2) is a better implementation of the WCCT theme with the choice of sacrifice field. The queen can sacrifice itself on two different squares after the rook discovery check, with change of try and solution in the two main lines.
You mean D66?
D66 is better because one 45cm pizza is bigger than two 30cm pizzas. Trapping the bishop in the end of the logical combination is also a good idea.
Все этюды с именами авторов добавлены в базу. Здесь менять уже не буду. Ищите их в базе по конкурсу – wcct11 или так – wcct 2021.
PDF и PGN на https://www.wfcc.ch/wcct11-booklet/