Конкурс судил Стеффен Нильсен:
«Качество было неоднородным, но с некоторыми интересными и новыми замыслами в лучших этюдах. Глядя на этюды внизу присуждения, мне иногда казалось, что авторы не подозревают, какую роль неожиданность и парадокс должны играть в нашем жанре. Часто зритель имел дело с технически совершенными произведениями, где выигрыш или ничья достигались серией точных правильных ходов. Но такие этюды без глубины и парадокса останутся бесплодными и не смогут никого впечатлить».1 приз. На месте автора я бы даже не публиковал такой этюд. Четыре белые фигуры в начальной позиции ради хода ладьей под связанную пешку. Позор автору, судье и журналу. Журнал, конечно, не виноват, но опозорен.
2 приз. Если снять четыре вступительных хода, до судьи могло бы дойти, что это вовсе не масштабный этюд, как он посмел выразиться, а краткий анекдот про слона, который прячется по углам, чтобы заманить ладью на поле а5, укусить ее два раза подряд и выиграть последнюю черную пешку.
Ликбез. В комментариях к этюду Арестова судья написал про дуали в ложном следе, которые помешали ему оценить этюд выше. Эту глупость часто повторяют и другие недоучившиеся эксперты. Поймите, наконец, что альтернативные ходы черных в ложном следе ничего не портят, когда они не опровергают игру белых.
2-oj priz mne bolshe nravitsa… Xotja pomnju u kogo-to Ba1-Bh8 bilo
Such a strange judgment…
The judge comments that my study was not awarded because of “exchange on c2 prior to the mate” .
But at the same time he awards 1st prize with exchange on d6 on second move and 3rd place with exchange on d6 prior to stalemate…
There are many good such mate picture studies. Yours isn’t optimal and you’re complaining publicly here.
I think the only interesting and original idea is the first prize and you’re talking about technical side issues.
Ok , may be my study is not good enough. But still I don’t understand while the judge says (his words) that the study is good ( “Some interesting play in the introduction (for instance the amusing fact that 1. Qb2+ Bc2 is echoed on the 10th move after the queen has completed a switchback to b2 via b4 and e7)”, but the exchange on c2 is bad and that is the reason that the study was not awarded. But if I look on the first prize – there is an exchange of unmoved knight on d6 – and there is no problem with that. So I just want to understand judge’s principles
Of course you are right that the exchange on d6 in the first prize is a small flaw, but these are just small technical problems of the introduction. The main idea is crucial.
In a mate picture study it is much more serious if an exchange takes place shortly before the finale.
Please see mate picture studies by Bazlov. He is probably the best in this field.
It is certainly difficult to build a new original Mate picture study at this level.
By the way, I personally find it completely irrelevant whether a non-optimal study receives a commendation or nothing.
This mate is anticipated. The study by Garcia and Krug was judged by Arestov and wasn’t awarded either. Brutal realization of a boring idea.
The level of the competition was so-so, in my view.
I agree with Steffen that Pervakov’s and Didukh’s studies are stimulating, but not among their finest works.
However, I do not agree that the second prize has a tablebase feeling. The lines are quite clear, and so is the motivation of the white play. The point of 8. Bh8! is to avoid that after 8. Ba1?/Bc3? Rxf7 9. Kxf7, Black can defend the pawn from the bottom with 9… Rd1!/Rd3! followed by Re1/Re3.
With the bishop on h8, Black has first to play 9… Rh5 10. Ba1, and now there is only the a5 square left for attacking the bishop because the king blocks h1. But then, 10… Ra5 11. Bc3 Ra3 and now White can exploit the rook position with the double attack 12. Bb4. Nice!
The only slightly annoying line is 7… Rxd5, where Black has several options as the play continues. But the amount of analytics is acceptable, I think.
I really like Arestov’s study (3rd honorable mention) with inventive and clear play. Like Serhiy, I find the dual completely irrelevant. A prize can be considered for this instructive miniature, especially since there is no outstanding study in the competition. Steffen admits that part of the reason why he does not rank the study higher is his dislike of the material distribution. Perhaps not the best of all reasons, but tastes are different and it is good that judges are clear about it.
Aliev’s second honorable mention is very amusing.
The biggest question mark is the first prize. Steffen praises the “quality of the introductory play” with particular mention of 4. Bf8+!, but in my opinion, several things are wrong with this judgment. First, the (logical) Bf8+! decoy is part of the scheme and not of the introduction: otherwise the study would be completely trivial, a one-mover (Rhg4).
The idea of the study to decoy the rook with a sacrifice to f8 is good, in my view. Compliments to the author for that. But the introduction is way too rough. The white rooks do not move before the final (Rf4 never moves…), Nd6 is captured without having moved, Kf8 and Rg8 are almost in stalemate at the beginning, and there is a heavy exchange on the d6 square. I could accept one of these things, but not all of them together.
I agree that it is not easy to improve the introductory play. But this is just too far away from the optimal form. The study has an original pointe, but there are too many flaws for a prize.
I was misunderstood again.
Arestov’s idea is too small for a prize. I have nothing against the distinction awarded. The problem is that alternative black moves are not harmful at all if they are not refutations (we have only one – Qxa7).
There’s nothing in the Harold’s article about black duals because they are not duals. The link is not helpful.
I like to call alternative moves in the refutation of a thematic try “black duals”, just for the sake of convenience. The point is for me (and I guess, also for you) that the reason why the try fails must be unique.
Yes, you are right that Harold’s article does not mention this topic, but I just got annoyed recently, when scrolling through the award of the WCCT that some judgments were punishing (rather harmless) duals quite heavily.
I have tried for two hours to improve the introduction, with extremely limited success. At least I would try, however, to get rid of the wNd6. I put a pawn there with wBe5, BTM: Black has the choice between 1… Rd5 2. Rh7! or 1… Rxd6+ 2. Bxd6 etc. But an exchange on d6 remains and there is no white key. So no real improvement.
Martin is more skilled at this than me. Perhaps he finds something. One can shift everything to the left, so at least there should be options.
I found better introduction for the first prize.
If Amatzia wants, he can use it for free.
I’m trying to improve it even more – I think it’s possible.
Good work, Michael. Now it’s a study. A commendation from me.
Excellent! The rook moves. Clear lines, no technical weakness and good black defensíve play with 1… Rc5. Now it is a really nice study.
Wonderful version, worth much more than a commendation.
Excellent version, Michael!
May be this
Perfect! Probably this is the optimal version unless we add material.
Congratulations, Michael: your technique is really remarkable. One needs to think about the position and to understand that Rh4 and Rh7 is such a strong threat in order to find the Rc5 defense. By contrast, I just mindlessly moved around the pieces.
Now this is probably the best study of the tournament. Excellent play, economic setting, no analytics, a great pointe with 4. Bf8+! and an amusing finish. So after all, the award looks fine to me. I hope Amatzia accepts the version.
Michael has shown everyone that he has excellent technique. For me he is one of the best composers.
I probably would never have thought of Rc5.
Serhiy should reconsider his aggressive tone towards the judge.
Michael has shown that he can improve one study by Avni.
Don’t use the non-existing terms such as “black duals”, “position X” which are meaningless for the theory and I will be less critical of you. It’s not my fault that you can’t see that Avni’s study is a commendation level even in the best setting.
I think every judge accepts your competent advice, but stay factual!
I think the idea in Avni’s study is the best. In Pasman’s version it is a study without blemish.
Which study do you think is better in this tournament ?
Mine. Pervakov’s, Aliev’s and Arestov’s studies are better too. Their ideas are better and more impressive.
Don’t make me angry with your stupid ask for facts. Don’t you see them here? They are in every my comment. But your comments are always full of lies. When you say there were many mate pictures shown in Pasman’s study – it’s a lie. There were only two. One was shown here. And I know that because I used CQL for search.
I have two questions on this; they are honest and not rhetorical.
I guess most people do not use “black dual” as a proper theoretical term, but as a convenient shorthand for “two alternative moves for Black in a thematic try, which correspond to two different refutations of the white play”. Does this make sense?
I do not like “position X” either, but it can sometimes be helpful to highlight the moment where the difference between the try and the solution becomes clear. Why is it so bad to use it?
(Of course, the difference should not be in the visual image of the position, but in the removal of the obstacle. So I usually try to describe the difference in these terms. But if one does not want to comment extensively, the “position X” indication can help to identify how the obstacle has been removed. Especially if the judge is lazy. 😀 )
The “duals” Steffen writes about are not refutations. Look at the study first before starting your philosophy. They are this move and that move. And the refutation is another move.
Positions X may have several differences. But it doesn’t mean the combination is not pure in aim. Position X is an invention to help beginners but when used constantly it makes them lazy and stupid. People forget the true meaning of purity.
Serhiy, I agree with you both on that Steffen should not have used the word “dual” and on the purity of purpose in Arestov’s study. That was not the point. I asked a general question about terminology. Your answer regarding the term “position X” was useful (and agrees with my own impression, btw).
I agree “dual” is the wrong term. I am not questioning that the logic is pure in aim.
But still these extra black opportunities influence my overall impression of the study (in the same way minor White duals do, or muddy sidelines or other flaws). They might not be logically important but the are humanly important, because they influence the clarity of the tale.
Do these black opportunities bother you in the main line? Or do they bother you only in the try?
I guess the point is that the alternative bK moves (8. … Kb2-Kb3-Kb4) are just alternative moves, and not duals, because the refutation is the forecoming Qxa7 if White delivers check in a7 (which is the logical culmination of the sequence).
Alternative White King’s pathway duals are often pointed as minor ones: Black ones are even more irrelevant.
Am I right?
Yes, they are irrelevant, harmless, meaningless, not worth being mentioned in the solution.
Thank you, Martin. I was also a bit lucky to find Rc5 move and that such nice defensive move existed in the position. I agree with Jan, that now it is 1st prize study. There is also a good flow with all those rook moves. Before that in my opinion, it was commendation study, because of bad introduction. As I already said, Amatzia is free to use this version – I don’t want to have any part on it.
In my next award, I promise I will not write poorly about the studies of anyone in our little debate group.
Please, don’t! What would our days be without these amusing quarrels? A ton of boredom! 🙂
My next award is YCCC. Then I will be back!