Ceskoslovensky Sach 2022

18 комментариев
Межтекстовые Отзывы
Посмотреть все комментарии
ab
ab
4 месяцев назад

К итогам конкурса этюдов-миниатюр, организованного журналом «Семь шахматных нот» в 2022 году. Нашелся сильный идейный предшественник к этюду В. Кузьмичева, ранее удостоенного специального приза. Это этюд, который составили братья Л. и В. Кацнельсон. В форме близнецов они реализовали  очень интересный замысел.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/katsnelsonv-katsnelsonl-0103-02f4g1-tw/
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/katsnelsonv-katsnelsonl-0103-02f4g1-tw-2/
По содержанию этюд  Л. и В. Кацнельсон намного богаче, чем этюд В. Кузьмичева. Как судья конкурса, я считаю, что миниатюра В. Кузьмичева не имеет право на существование. И потому она должна быть отстранена от участия в конкурсе и лишена ранее полученного отличия.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
4 месяцев назад

I really like the black plan in the first prize by Halski. It reminds me distantly of the famous Lasker study, but it is more subtle, especially because Black cannot play 7… Kh5 immediately (8. Rf4=), but has to take the route Kh4-g5-g6-h5. Similarly in the try after 15. Rc5+. Very instructive. Moreover, unlike the Lasker study, this is a winning plan that we could execute also on a chessboard with 20, 30, 40, or 1000 rows. Wow!

There are some minor things that bother me, though. First, it would be good to have this as as a winning study, to see the plan unfold in its full glory. Second, as a pure rook endgame; the Sa2 feels alien to the position. (Perhaps more a bit of wishful thinking. Of course 15. Sc3 is a great move.) Third, the try 12. Sc3 with the underpromotion 13… f1=S! does not add much since White can instead repeat moves with 12. Rc5+. In other words, 11… Rg1 is not a real Black attempt to make progress.

Still, all in all this study is full of interesting ideas and a worthy winner of the tournament.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
4 месяцев назад

I had this alternative version of my study, by the way, but I went in the end for the economic version. Still, I am fond of the white king finding a way to hide behind the black lines. Who would bet that White’s eighth move is Ka8?

Steffen Nielsen
Steffen Nielsen
4 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Didukh

I actually think it is better. Perhaps not according to conventions, adding two bishops who are not necessary for (or logically connected to) the stalemate play. But we are also in the story telling business and I can easily imagine showing this study to an audience, asking them “where must the White king go to be stalemated?”. This should count for something.

Martin Minski
Martin Minski
4 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Steffen Nielsen

This forced introduction is worth nothing because it is not thematically necessary and there is an additional technical pawn on e2. The white king’s migration is also impressive from b6.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
4 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Martin Minski

I simply found myself in a dilemma.

The shorter version is more focused and has a better economy, but we have seen escapes into stalemate a million times. This raises the bar for showing some non-standard content in any study where stalemate is the main theme. Here we have the geometry of the queen movements and the technical achievement of getting the king to a8 without captures, but to me, it still feels like a sequence of moves rather like a story being told. Also the final after Qc6+! is a bit lame.

The longer version has the better storytelling, as Steffen highlighted. Moreover, because it is longer, the lameness of the Nachspiel weighs less heavily. I also don’t find the introduction particularly forced since Black has several options and his idea is far from obvious. (Martin, if you even consider Ba4+! over the board, you get a beer next time we meet.) The initial position is quiet. The long movements of queen and bishop (e.g., in the line with Ka4 Qg4+ and Qxg8+) also fit the study well and a single technical pawn that is eliminated does not do harm. (I would never have added any rook or knight to this scheme, btw.)

But of course, the play is not thematic and may be seen as diluting the content rather than adding to it. That remains a good reason for preferring the shorter version. Best would be a thematic introduction, since I still feel that the study is in need of completion, but I have not been able to find it so far.

Ilham Aliev
Ilham Aliev
4 месяцев назад

Сергей, я ждал несколько дней, думал, ты сам напишешь. Хотелось бы послушать тебя насчет твоего этюда. Ведь ты всегда плохо относился к обработкам известных идей и Мински тоже. Ты обычно писал или версия, или улучшение. И вдруг такое… И Мартин тоже сильно удивил своим судейством, не слишком ли он завысил твой этюд? Он же обычно таким этюдам давал 0 очков. Или вы оба изменили свои взгляды?

Ilham Aliev
Ilham Aliev
4 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Didukh

Я все читал. И переписку Мински с Жуковым в фейсбуке тоже. Я не против новых версий этюдов. Но ты же обычно в своей сайте приводил предки разных этюдов, даже очень далеких и не соглашался с судьями, с их высокими отличиями. И Мартин тоже обычно просто снимал такие этюды. Ну, если бы дал специальное отличие, это можно как-то понять, но 2 приз, мне кажется слишком высоко.

Ilham Aliev
Ilham Aliev
4 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Didukh

Воспитанность у тебя, конечно, зашкаливает. Не можешь нормально поговорить. Какая еще пропаганда? Такими темпами ты на своем сайте один останешься. Ты в курсе, сколько этюдистов покинули твой сайт? Готовлюсь в командировку, поэтому не могу подробно писать. Как только найду время, сделаю, хотя наверно это будет после командировки.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
3 месяцев назад

Petr Kiryakov brought my attention to two partial predecessors to the first prize by Halski: Bilek’s 1971 study and his own 2020 study from EG (you can find it among his WCCI entries). Does not surprise me that somebody found the rook mechanism before.

I mention Petr’s message so that everybody can form his own opinion. Personally, I am now a bit less enthusiastic about the first prize than I was before, but the addition of the white knight and the surprising jump to c3 and e4 is still original. Also as a whole, the study leaves a good impression. Since the second prize is somewhat similar—it adds original elements to an idea by Zhukov—, I would not change the order. But we will see what the judge decides.

Jan Sprenger
Jan Sprenger
3 месяцев назад
Ответ на  Didukh

Well, Serhiy, you are pushing me a bit. So I shall also be nasty. 🙂

What you write about counterplay is certainly true of Halski’s study. Change of color, so Black has the play with the rook mechanism whereas White defends tactically with the knight fork ideas. Well in balance from beginning to end.

Black and White are not as balanced in your study. The main idea starts with 5. Kc1!! (really a nice move, by the way), everything before is (non-thematic) introduction. All your counterplay is in the introduction as a means of defending against the immediate white threats (e.g., the tactic Rh4+Ne7). This is no thematic counterplay to the white main plan as in Halski. So yes, the black counterplay is there, but it is decorative, not essential.

The main merit of your study is that you found a good expression of Zhukov’s scheme with a quiet, non-forced king move before the rook sacrifice.

I don’t think, by the way, that Zhukov deserves that much criticism. He is great in finding small-scale spectacular ideas. Many people like them a lot. That’s different from building proper studies, of course, but it is fully legitimate and sometimes, these tactics even inspire world champions. 🙂

I also like Kiryakov’s study, but I prefer Halski’s (Nh1 passive, complicated lines, mechanical counterplay).