Польский конкурс 2021

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.

23 комментариев
Межтекстовые Отзывы
Посмотреть все комментарии
ab
ab
29 дней назад

Альбом ФИДЕ 1977-1979. № 676

Ilham Aliev
Ilham Aliev
29 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

А что, с 6-ым призом? Как можно, не знать такую классику…

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
29 дней назад
Ответ на  Ilham Aliev

Yes, I was wondering about that as well.

Ilham Aliev
Ilham Aliev
29 дней назад

Мне кажется судья недооценил – 2rd hm, M.Minski.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
29 дней назад
Ответ на  Ilham Aliev

Absolutely. Very good study. The judges at the WCCI were more favorable.

Martin Minski
Martin Minski
28 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

The only reason to forcing the black king to a3 is a fork threat.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
28 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

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 Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
25 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

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.

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
25 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

I was a little worried that this…

https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/nielsens-4013-22c2g2/

…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.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
24 дней назад
Ответ на  Steffen Nielsen

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).

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
24 дней назад
Ответ на  Jan Sprenger

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).

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
24 дней назад
Ответ на  Steffen Nielsen

Yes, that’s probably a fair description and it may depend on personal taste after all.

Ilham Aliev
Ilham Aliev
24 дней назад
Ответ на  Steffen Nielsen

If you start from 1.Ne3, then this is already a scheme, not a study.

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
23 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

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).
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/nielsens-3234-12e8g7/

It happens.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
23 дней назад
Ответ на  Didukh

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. 🙂