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.

Командный зачет по сумме баллов двум лучшим этюдам:
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.

11 комментариев
Межтекстовые Отзывы
Посмотреть все комментарии
Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
6 месяцев назад

Congratulations to some Ukrainian for getting the first study in the 2022-24 album 🙂

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
6 месяцев назад

Congratulations to Ukraine, and thank you to Serhiy for improving the presentation of the studies!

Before I go into the details, some general observations.

  • The judging by the different countries showed great differences in individual approach and taste. For example, Romania gave very high marks to taskish studies, while Denmark preferred studies with light construction and good play. Israel appreciates the Plachutta theme in D02 much more than Serhiy does. (By the way, what justifies the 0.0 points to D02 from Romania? Cooked or anticipated?)
  • As a result, the votes tend to be more middling than in normal tournaments or even the WCCI. No single study is above 9.0 points, and even the 9th place is still 8.0 points. And so on in steps of 0.2 points. When we talk about “winners” and “overrated” and “underrated” studies, we must take into account that differences are in reality very small.

Here is my take on the studies in the ranking:

  1. I guess D50 (UKR) is Serhiy since he has not added an evaluation at the end of the study. I tried to like this study, but it is a bit like when your parents try to talk you into liking a particular girl. Does not really work. The setting is heavy, especially with the Chinese wall of Black pawns on both sides of the board, and all the different sidelines are just a bit too much for me. Also I would like a more prominent (preferably logical) try with sacrifice in this kind of study. That said, I do not deny that there is lots of content.
  2. D21 (SVK) is an interesting mechanism, but suffers from the heavy introduction. As Serhiy wrote. Not sure the content makes up for it.
  3. D70 (SRB), where you have to put the sacrifices in the right order, has similarities with a direct mate problem. Not without charm, although I would perhaps be less enthusiastic than the judges from GB and Romania.
  4. Frankly, I do not understand how D05 (SVK) got to such a high ranking. The play is linear, predictable and not very original. I am tempted to make a joke about vodka-drinking countries. 😉
  5. I appreciate the exchange of tactical blows in D63 (DEN) more than Serhiy does. First of all, I like opposite colored bishops. Then, 4. f4! followed by three promotions and the Tf2! counter. Finally 9. Qe4+ as the final blow. Good Saturday night entertainment!
  6. D74 (UKR) is a study where I don’t find it easy to come to a final verdict. It is good that the two phases are kept together by the try 5. Re7+?, but there is still a lot of a bit random-looking action before the real scheme is developed. Finally: I understand that the author(s) like 1. Nd3!, but the initial position is rather crammed as a result.
  7. The double Plachutta in D02 (DEN) is combined with fluent play and a position that is relatively light and game-like, given the uncommon geometrical theme. Notable technique and round aesthetic impression.
  8. D61 (GER) is among my favorites, but of course I am biased. Agree with Serhiy’s description.
  9. I am not so happy any more with our D07. The original scheme had less sacrifices, but decent black counterplay and then we changed it toward a taskish study because “this is what judges want to see”. Perhaps not the best decision. The play is a bit one-sided for me.
  10. D19 (MGL) is a really wonderful study with great play and economy, even if the theme is not as prominent as in other studies. Not sure how much it is a problem that the attack on the battery is not (cannot be) new.

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.

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
6 месяцев назад

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.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
6 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Steffen Nielsen

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.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
6 месяцев назад

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.

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
6 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Jan Sprenger

You mean D66?