Судейство постоянного судьи польских конкурсов Яна Русинека не выдерживает критики. Он уже не помнит известных предшественников, не видит уровня техники составления, охотно раздает высокие отличия устаревшым идеям и перспективным польским композиторам.
Альбом ФИДЕ 1977-1979. № 676
Rusinek informed me in August:
“2nd Prize by Gromov turned out to be anticipated by Jindrich Fritz, 1979. I decided that the study will remain in second place but with J. Fritz & M. Gromow as coauthors. M. Gromov accepted my proposition.”
So, we have a new study by the late Fritz. This is a ridiculous decision.
I suggested either Gromov (after Fritz) or Fritz (correction Gromov).
А что, с 6-ым призом? Как можно, не знать такую классику…
Yes, I was wondering about that as well.
Такой этюд, даже если бы он был оригинальным, не заслуживает никакого отличия. Простая идея, ужасная техника.
Мне кажется судья недооценил – 2rd hm, M.Minski.
Absolutely. Very good study. The judges at the WCCI were more favorable.
Этот этюд судья оценил правильно. В отличие от судей WCCI. Дуали портят впечатление. Особенно дуаль Nd2/Nd4 – она портит главную идею.
“We see here the theme of dual avoidance with an effective play. Unfortunately duals in the both lines on move 10 and on move 14 in line B (in this case more than in the others) spoil the impression. There is a particularly unpleasant “contradiction” here: dual avoidance with duals. If not that, the study would have been much higher.”
The only reason to forcing the black king to a3 is a fork threat.
The Kg6/Kf6 dual is harmless since the plan is the same and everything transposes. I agree that the Nd2/Nd4 dual is annoying, but Martin is right that they both exploit the same disadvantage of Ka3, i.e. the vulnerable position of the black rook.
But regardless of how we evaluate the duals, there is a lot to like about this study! The reciprocal change of the desperado sacrifices of the white queen in the main lines is ambitious content and the introductory play is clear and attractive. Not easy to find a clean version with almost no pawns and queen and rook on each side.
Very nice first prize by Steffen, by the way.
Jan Rusinek was much more impressed by the first prize: “This study is one of the most beautiful studies I have seen (and I’ve been watching studies for almost 60 years!)”.
I am closer to his assessment than to the trivial compliment that it’s a very nice prize study by Steffen. His Qg5!! is as sensational as Mitrofanov’s Qg5!! was in old times.
Of course, 4… Qc5!! 5. Qg5! is a memorable sequence. This is a very good study because it shows a very uncommon theme with little material. But I don’t value it as highly as you or Rusinek.
1) While Mitrofanov’s Qg5 has a clear combinatory justification (deny the black queen an access to the a6-f1 diagonal), the difference between 5. bxc5, 5. Qa6+ and 5. Qg5 is based on a technical endgame with rather insipid lines. This dilutes the aesthetic impression.
2) I prefer when White makes the most paradoxical move. But the really paradoxical and difficult-to-find move is 4… Qc5!!. It is counterintuitive that Black has a way of escaping into an endgame with piece less and tempo less (after 5. bxc5) where he can still draw. Once this position is on the board (and the theme thus shown), 5. Qg5! is quite easy to find.
3) Relatedly, if you asked me to pick between 5. Qg5, 5. bxc5 and 5. Qa6+ without calculating any line, I would pick 5. Qg5, because the black pawn structure is destroyed. The refutation of the tries is actually non-trivial, but unfortunately they are less plausible than the solution.
4) The introduction does not add value. I understand that it is probably impossible to make the Bf6 move before it is taken, and I do not think this is required in this particular scheme, but the white pawn b7 should not be on the board. Yes, Steffen probably wanted the nice sacrifice 1. d4-d5, but still.
By the way, on the theme of two hanging ladies (who stare at each other), Steffen has this brilliant study. 6. a3!!, 8. a4!!. This looks rather sensational to me and I would have given more than a honorable mention.
Нашел у себя переделанную цитату какого-то мудреца: “Проблема сложных идей в том, что всегда найдется идиот, который поймет их не так и расскажет другим, как их следует понимать”.
Увы, понять замысел этюдов в деталях умеют примерно три человека. Остальные не заморачиваются: они считают фигуры, ходы и взятия. Для них, очевидно, надо уточнить, что идея первого приза в трех последовательных жервах ферзей под пешки. Какая разница, какая из них парадоксальнее или труднее!? Вес петуха не меняется, когда он стоит на одной лапе или на двух.
I was a little worried that this…
…would count as as partial predecessor. Otherwise I might have chosen the Polish study for my WCCI-selection.
I spent ages on this study. For a long time I had settled for a heavy setting before I discovered the idea of a pawn on b7. I don’t count this as a weakness at all (it is blocked and doomed).
Of course, you never know about these things, but I felt this might be the only possible setting with two consecutive quiet queen sacs to improve pawn structure. It is a little less a “full study” than the version for SK.
The fate of Bf6 is a clear weakness.
In theory, one could imagine a third consecutive quiet queen sac (or a perpetual!), but I will let others do that.
I also remembered your SK study. But I don’t think there is a big problem with originality. It is just one motif, Qc5/Qc4. Rather, I prefer the SK study because of its great economy and the clear lines in the resulting endgame. I also agree that it looks more complete.
I am a bit annoyed by the pawn on b7 just because it is blocked and doomed. It is clear that the author has put it there so that Black loses a tempo at some point because he has to capture it. But my general question is why we can’t start directly with 1. Se3 fxg6 2. Qxf6. The intro is not thematic and I do not think bringing the queen to f5 is worth two pawns. Moreover, there is tension in the initial position. (I don’t think the intro is bad—having d4-d5 just compensates for the b7 pawn—, but all in all I would not say that it improves the study.)
A perpetual pendulum of queen sacs would be great! I don’t think many others would be capable of making this work (certainly I am not).
Ok, I think beginning with 1. Ne3 would be about as good as my version. I added a little something at a little cost (in my view).
Yes, that’s probably a fair description and it may depend on personal taste after all.
If you start from 1.Ne3, then this is already a scheme, not a study.
Ильгам, ботинки не перестанут быть ботинками со шнурками или без них. Очевидно же, что Ян сам себе придумал недостатки в нормальном вступлении к прекрасному этюду и определяет оригинальность ботинок по цвету шнурков. Еще и персональный вкус приплел к оригинальности. Неисправимый баламут. Стеффен тоже шлангом прикидывается. Сам же написал про жертвы ферзей под пешки ради порчи пешечной структуры, и делает вид, что сомневается в оригинальности. В оригинальности переделок Тиммана из конкурса The Problemist 2020-2021 он не сомневался, хотя ее там недостаточно.
Ok, but in the 2016-18 WCCI the judges downgraded a study of mine even though I didn’t believe it to be seriously anticipated (by Jasik).
When these judges get smart enough to understand their mistake they will apologize to you. So, probably this will not happen soon.
Serhiy, our judgments are not so far from each other in the end. There is no need to start a polemic. I like Steffen’s study and would give 3 points for it. I find it original. I just don’t find it as sensational as Rusinek does, or perhaps you. This has mainly to do with the way the pointe is constructed (see my points 1-3), but sometimes, a scheme is also made more beautiful by the way it is introduced. I do not think Steffen’s intro has serious flaws, but on the other hand, the introductory play does not make you jump from the chair (my point 4). That’s why I would give it 3 points and not 3,5 or 4. Steffen has enough studies in that range, too. 🙂
Третий приз – самый позорный после итальянского плагиата, потому что этюд Ткаченко не менее известен, чем этюд Матисона. У поляка от него только финал.