Все комментарии

У меня тоже всё плохо? Хоть поругай, что ли, буду знать что исправлять в себе.

I am surprised that this study was not awarded. I can’t understand what is wrong with zugzwangs here.

Сергей, а у меня совсем мусор? Эхо-варианты показались любопытными. Или гонка короля совсем ни к чему?

First prize (Gromov and Pervakov): An original and interesting idea with several subtle moves. The king hides from the queen and comes back when the dust has cleared. Certainly a prize candidate. Two small criticisms: the logic with 6. d4? is not particularly interesting since it is obvious that White needs the pawn on d2 or d3 in the pawn endgame. I am also not a big fan of the static pawn configuration in the beginning, with the black king already nailed into his prison. But I see that this is difficult to improve without destroying the economy of the study.

Second prize (Katsnelson & Katsnelson): Enjoyable. The main combination 7. Ba6! is prepared by the 5. Rg1+! check. But despite the harmonious play, the idea is too small for prize level: 12 pieces ask for more demanding content. The exchange on a1 is also annoying since it happens in the introduction. Still, good work by the decani (“deans”) of St. Petersburg study composers.

Honorable mention (Sprenger): I agree that this is a HM level study. The idea is simple and executed with elegance and diligence (to use Serhiy’s words). There is one point where I disagree with the judge, however: the 2… Kxd5 line is humanly understandable and no case of bad analytics. White plays Bb3+ and Bf7 and simply has a fortress. The d2 pawn is completely irrelevant. I also wrote this in my original comments. White does not need to play precisely: every normal move draws and zillions of defensive configurations are possible. If the judge had looked more closely at the position, he would not have written about “difficult material”, “200 moves” and that “only the computer knows”.

Commendation (Sprenger & Minski): This study is underrated. I guess the judge’s comments about “dirty preparation in one line” pertain to the fact that in the 2. Ke5? h3! try Black can draw even without immediate h1=Q (e.g., by Kg2). The e6 pawn does not only prevent the skewer, but also helps Black to draw all kinds of endgames after exchanging queens. So it has a double function: field control and material. — Yes, of course a strictly logical try would have been better. But I think we achieved already a lot; both sides make intelligent moves (2… e5+!, 5… Ke2!), play is fluent, and the chameleon echo (found by Martin) raises a simple idea to a different level.

Commendation (Hlinka & Kekely): Usually I am snobbing the studies of the Slovak duo, but this one is enjoyable. The idea is expressed in an intense way, that said, the introductory play and the initial position could be improved.

PS I worked hard on this individual study for UP 22 and sent one of my best studies to the tournament because I felt the judge was particularly competent, especially in logical studies.

I had no idea what was happening here…

It seems to me that Serhiy wants to introduce new dogmas (like Johann Berger did back then with his arbitrary laws of art). But that would restrict creativity. Somewhere (maybe at Grasemann’s) I read that an obstacle can have a simple motivation. This has no influence on the value of the logical combination. It is about the purely of purpose to eleminate the obstacle and the depth of the idea. I find it still difficult enough to fit constructively logical elements into a study. Of course, the motivation in every study should be to implement the planned idea as economically as possible. But one should not strictly forbid adding a logical combination to a tactical scheme if one needs more pieces to do so.

In my single study of PU 22, the obstacle is white’s pawn on c2.

178. Minski=M 1/2-1/2

It is about a later opening of the c-file for the white queen. The motive is of course simple, but not immediately obvious. Also, it’s paradoxical when white material is eliminated to give black a disadvantage (usually it’s the other way around). It is important to me that the technical implementation of this idea is realized as elegantly as possible. An exchange is not nice, but justifiable. Otherwise they are good moves and sacrifices in my study.

Basically, according to Serhyi’s dogma, a logical study with selection moves would be better than a logical study with pre-planning, because less material is usually required for the selection moves. For me, these are only formal aspects and they have nothing to do with the actual idea of ​​the study and I have not read that anywhere from the founders of the logical school.

My second study from WCCI (from Polish Chess Federation 2021) has a logical choice.

Minski=M — (=4304.11h7b1)

It took me about a year to construct the introduction so elegantly (5…Ne4!) to avoid a bad exchange on e4. According to Serhiy’s dogma, I shouldn’t have built this study at all, since many pieces were added to realize the difference (Ka2/Ka3/Kb2). This study got 9 points and will appear in the next FIDE Album. Luckily, the judges haven’t heard about Serhiy’s new rules yet.

I like the Pasman study in PU 22, but it doesn't have nearly as much appeal to me as it did to Serhiy. pawn forks are certainly not particularly original. The fact that there are threats of forks in the introduction is certainly appropriate, but that seems rather random. For me, this study has a good flow, but the effects are rather superficial in my view.

Steffen wrote to me that our coproduction in PU 22 contains a more interesting tactical scheme (Ba4!) than the taktical scheme (…Be3+!) in my individual study. I can accept that. I do not accept that my individual study will be thrown in the dirt by new, arbitrary rules by the judge.

I will not be forbidden from building studies with tactics and logic in the future, even if it requires additional material. Long live creativity!

And finally, Pasman’s light study scored better than any other, more powerful, because it has this charm of “deceptive simplicity” Mitrofanov wrote about. Is it easy to build the final position playfully or not?

In case you share Troitzky’s views who proclaimed that the content is primary and the form is secondary, you may dance from the content to decide whether the idea you want to add into the scheme is strong enough to make the study better. The usual logical sacrifice of a pawn in one move is not a challenging idea even if it needs 10-moves foresight. But you can try one of these:

• Unusual or long removal of an obstacle;
• Removal of an obstacle in two or more stages;
• Removal of two obstacles (synthesis of plans);
• Decoy of a black piece by the sacrifice of a white piece (active or passive) in the try and solution.

The last one was in the 2^nd prize. 

The logical problem school is not an invention of individual study composers. It was developed by important problem composers in the last century and was later transferred to the study genre. It is essentially about the beauty of thought. The purpose of removing an obstacle should be economical, i.e. purely for a purpose. Everything else said here is a purely arbitrary attempt to ask for additional things like “thematic” pieces. It has nothing to do with the logical school. The women’s dress gets tighter and tighter until it bursts.

Meanwhile in reality this game was played:
https://lichess.org/broadcast/robert-byrne-memorial/round-7/b2F5fnao/RJQG0ap9

A selective judge who only included five studies: two prizes, one honorable mention and two commendations. Let’s study them in turn.

I also like the elegant play and the clear lines of the first prize. Clearly the implementation is impeccable. The question is whether the content is sufficiently interesting to deserve a first prize. Short lines without real thematic tries (the refutation of 3. e4 is not particularly interesting). A good and enjoyable study, but a first prize?

The second prize is perhaps the most expressive study of the tournament. The key position before Ba4 is really spectacular, and so is the resolution. I also agree with the authors that the logic with 2. Rf8!! is worth the technical knight on f1. But still, it is a weakness. Pity that it was probably impossible to remove that weakness: it would have been a good candidate for the study of the year. Like this, the study feels a bit like a beautiful evening robe with a ketchup stain on it.

The first honorable mention with its two main lines is remarkably economic and the twofold capture of the black queen keeps introduction and finale together. Still, the content is perhaps not too interesting and the play is quite standard. A cheer for the black counterplay 2… e4!, however.

The first commendation (by myself) features the WCCT theme: sacrifice in solution and try, here shown with reciprocal change in the two main lines. Although the team decided not to select the study in the end, I think it is certainly not worse than the studies that finished in the prizes of the WCCT, for the most very “expensive” in material without having remarkable content. Yes yes, as an author I am biased, but I challenge you to implement reciprocal change of sacrifical solution and try with interesting sequel play and just nine pieces. The study has spotless economy, but however also a weakness: the lines are not of equal interest. The 3… Bd5+ line finishes after 6. b6 because after 6… Bc8 (forced) White can play either 7. b7 Bxb7 8. Nd7+ (the intended solution) or 7. Nd7+ Bxd7 8. b7 Rc6+ 9. Kb5. This is a bit annoying. The Nachspiel in the main line is interesting, but it breaks the symmetry with the second line.

The second commendation is a charming and humorous study with good implementation of the lock-in/domination and fork themes and several interesting turns in the play. At first sight I thought it was too lightweight, but the more I look at it, the better I like it.

All in all, I think that Serhiy has selected five good studies and that different rankings of the works would have been possible, according to personal taste. The studies score high on different criteria.

I will also comment on Martin’s individual work and reply to his statements. We already talked about it on the phone. I love 9… Be3+!!, but I am not certain that this is the most convincing presentation of the idea. In general, I also like the combination of logic and tactic, but the logical element should cohere with the main content of the study and be made (ideally, at least) by a thematic piece. Here the comparison to Minski & Nielsen (second prize) is useful because 2. Rf8!! connects the logic much better than the somewhat accidental 3. c4!!, which also requires a whole battery of non-thematic pieces to make the play work. Of course, in the co-production there is a prize to pay (capture of immobile wNf1), and again, it boils down to what one finds important, but Martin’s individual study resembles, for me, a bit his World Cup 2019 study, which has similar strong and weak points. I gave 2,5 points on the site, but thought about 2 points only. However, the WCCI showed that my judgment was idiosyncratic. And I had almost talked Martin out of including it! For similar reasons, I see his PU study not at prize level (as Martin claims), but at commendation or honorable mention level (but it would not surprise me to hear divergent opinions). I agree with Serhiy’s viewpoint in general, but see enough interest and technical skill to include it into the award.

When rooks are in danger, just play Ba4!

Что-то меня вообще организаторы бортанули. Полный игнор…

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.

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.

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.

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.

Спецприз М.Гальски исключен из предварительного присуждения из-за полного предшественника:

Lerch=J — (+0031.11d4a4)

Sometimes a study can have too much content, too. Steffen’s 4th prize is impressive, but it feels like a six-hour Wagner opera, without breaks. There is much to like, but at the end you are above all happy that the black king has finally been checkmated. (I do not mind the passive sacrifice of the white queen, by the way.)

Timman’s Qf6!!! is a worthy winner of the tournament. But with that exception, I am not too impressed by the middlegame studies.

Too bad Oleg sent his 1. e2-e4 study to a GM who usually opens d2-d4. (Although recently there are also some e2-e4 games.) I think it deserves more than a commendation: the play is witty and humorous and the key move is surprising.

And I would have ranked Hornecker/Minski higher. Delightful miniature with wonderful economy.