Польский конкурс 2022 28.02.2023 Didukh your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard; alternatively your wordpress theme might suppress the html iframe tag from articles or excerpts
Спецприз М.Гальски исключен из предварительного присуждения из-за полного предшественника:
Мой этюд, получивший 3 приз, составлен после рассказа Халифмана. Я решил проверить варианты, но ладья выскользнула по пути вниз. Ход на g3 тоже оказался со смыслом – ладья тормозит, чтобы не притормозила черная пешка.
Стеффен рассказывал, что в его совместном этюде ладья выскользнула на поле f5. По-моему, он брешет ради байки (в отличие от меня). А этюд классный (лучше, чем мой). Твиттерятам очень понравился.
Steffen and Martin’s joint study is really nice. Of course, the idea of Rf5 is very limited, but still, what a move! Also the introduction is spotless. But I am not sure about the comparison to Serhiy’s, see below.
Rusinek’s criteria as a judge are incomprehensible to me. Perhaps there is a logic behind it, but I simply do not get it.
The first prize has a good second phase with the thematic tries 7. Sf5 and 8. Kf8, where Black needs to avoid the white stalemate ideas. Even if the ideas are limited, it is charming that Black either captures both knights (leading to stalemate) or none! He would need just one… But the introduction feels completely out of place. (I need to check for predecessors with SS vs. BB, though.)
The second prize is instructive for practical players and a valid contribution to endgame theory, but Michael has composed aesthetically more appealing studies.
The third prize is a very classical study. Stylistically, it could have been mine. Also the third prize is now my default result. 😉 But it isn’t. Even if there is nothing spectacular, I consider this a really good achievement by Serhiy. First, a quiet and natural starting position and an excellent key that sets up the theme. With the waiting move 3. Rg3 White loses time—the h-pawn promotes after d8=Q whereas the f-pawn in the try only advances to f2. But the positional factors prevail and this justifies to sacrifice a tempo for grabbing the f-pawn. The economy is perfect. Sure, I do not expect that Serhiy will include it in his next WCCI selection, but this is a great study to show at the club (as Steffen likes to say).
The fourth and the fifth prize do not require comment: I simply fail to perceive their aesthetic qualities, or at least the kind of qualities required for a prize study. Regarding the sixth prize, the combination with 7. Rd7 is nice, but I think I have seen the final position before. Somebody wants to help my memory?
Finally, in Serhiy’s special prize I do not think that the main ideas or the play justify the rough introduction and there is a lot of material standing around. The play in the other special prize (Halski/Proskurowski) is not bad, and I am willing to forgive the check in the initial position (Serhiy has written about this in EG 156), but most players would play the king to the center without even thinking (stop f-pawn and stay close to own pawns). It is clear that 1. Kb2 has no function. This devaluates the study quite a bit. For the rest, I can imagine that chessplayers will appreciate the resourceful play from both sides.
I believe the final move of the sixth prize reminds you of this position from Nunn’s Endgame Challenge.
В книге Р. Кофмана “Избранные этюды С. Каминера и М. Либуркина подробно рассказывается, как М. Либуркин составлял такие этюды.
Yes, the intro in the first prize screams that its author is an alien in the studies genre.
That was too long ago. Now I think the king in check is a serious drawback. That’s why I added queens in the intro to my special prize instead of starting from move 3.Nf5.
I just want to add that the judge was informed that the final position is known and was seen before. (It is very famous). On the other hand there is important logical try (4.Kb3 instead of 4.Ka3 that also finishes with 7.Rd7!). Here is the full pgn that was sent by me
Of course, it’s original. The classical finale received a nice tactical introduction with a drop of logic. I think it suits the final point Ka2! better than any careful maneuvering shown in the earlier studies.
I sent Rusinek partial anticipations to several studies but he replied they are not serious:
1st prize anticipated by Lewandowski no. 33542 in the database – an epic fight of two bishops vs. two knights in two main lines connected in the Banny mechanism.
5th prize is anticipated by Fischer 1936 (no. 90578). No zugzwang there but it has the try and the same winning maneuver of the white knight.
HM (Babiarz) All this is known from Vlasenko 1989 (no. 57895). Of course, Nf8! is great but the overall originality suffers.
I do not think that Nf8 is not great in Babiarz’ study. The h-pawn is beyond the Troitzky line. So White can never take the f-pawn and must try to block him asap. Nd7-f8-g6-h4/e5-f3 is simply the only route. What else should White play, assuming that he knows this tiny bit of endgame theory? I don’t see any aesthetic value here.
White could play 4. Kc2? waiting for 4…f5 5.Ne5+ and 6.Nf3. But 4… Kd5!
That’s why 4.Nf8! (avoiding domination) is the best move in this study which is not original because the idea to keep Ph3 alive is known long ago. Troitzky and Vlasenko showed this in their studies.
Что-то меня вообще организаторы бортанули. Полный игнор…
Не понравилась фамилия.
Да, видимо, так. Но грустно всё это.