Componist Study Tourney

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Componist Study Tourney"

Clara Hawkins
5 years ago
Views:

1 Componist Study Tourney Award by John Nunn 27 studies competed in this tourney, but two were eliminated as they had been submitted as originals to other publications. Unfortunately, the standard was disappointing. Many of the studies suffered from flaws which have become rather common with the use of tablebases and powerful engines. A tablebase position with some brutal introductory play generally does not result in a satisfactory study. For this type of composition to be successful, the tablebase position must be really surprising and should be understandable without the use of a computer. Moreover, the introductory play should not simply be a series of checks and captures, but should have some connection with the finale of the study. Despite my dislike of many compositions in this style, I have placed such a study in top position in my award. It s an example of successful tablebase composition, with a genuinely unexpected twist and a straightforward but attractive conclusion. Another problem affecting several studies was the addition of unnecessary introductory play and I would have regarded some of them more favourably had the introductory play been missed out. Tactics which are difficult to understand and unnatural starting positions blighted some studies which otherwise showed promise. After some consideration, I decided not to award any prizes but to give three honourable mentions to the best studies in the tourney. Some other studies, which were worthwhile developments of previously known ideas, received commendations. First, a few comments on some studies which did not appear in the award. Study 9 (Skripnik and Kalashnikov). Kovalenko s predecessor (2K5/k7/8/1P2B3/2P5/4r3/8/8, Comm. Krasnaja Gazeta, 1971) features an identical position to that arising after Black s 8th move in Study 9, and in my opinion the extra introductory play does not add a great deal. Study 3 (Becker). There is considerable similarity with Frolovsky (1q6/6n1/p1Q5/8/2B5/8/2kpK3/8, Russian Federation Team champ, 1998) 1 Bg8+! Kb2 2 Qf6+ Kb1 3 Qg6+ Nf5! 4 Qxf5+ Kb2 5 Qf6+ Kc2 6 Qg6+ Kb2 7 Qg7+ Kc2 8 Qh7+ Kc1 9 Qh1+ Kb2 10 Qh8+ Kc1 11 Qc3+ Kb1 12 Qd3+ Kb2 13 Qxd2+ Kb1 14 Qa2+ Kc1 15 Qc4+ Kb1 16 Kd1! Qd6+ 17 Bd5 Qa3 18 Qe4+ Kb2 19 Qe2+ Kb1 20 Qc4! Ka1 21 Qc2! a5 22 Qc4! Kb1 23 Qe4+ Kb2 24 Qe2+! Kb1 25 Qc4 Ka1 26 Qc2 a4 27 Qe4! Kb2 28 Qg2+ Kb1 29 Qg6+ Kb2 30 Qb6+ Ka1 31 Kc2. Indeed, the Frolovsky is the superior study with its subtle first move preparing an ambush by the white queen on h8. This anticipation was so serious that I was forced to reject Study 3. Study 13: (Aliev) The history of attempts to combine the two stalemates (on h1 and h3) is quite interesting. The earliest study I am aware of is Herbstmann (6B1/8/1P4P1/p7/P5b1/K4k2/5Pp1/7r, Pravda 1927) 1 Bd5+ Kxf2 2 Bxg2 Kxg2 3 g7 Be6 (3...Rh3+ 4 Kb2 Be6 5 b7 Rb3+ 6 Ka1) 4 b7 Rh3+ (4...Rb1 5 g8q+ Bxg8 6 b8q Rxb8) 5 Kb2 Rb3+ 6 Ka1 Rxb7 7 g8q+ Bxg8. Interestingly, although this study is marked as unsound in the 2010 van der Heijden database, it seems to be correct after all! Dolgov has also attempted the same theme. His study (8/8/1P3P2/k7/b4r2/8/1K6/3B4, Sachove Umeni 1971) had the intended solution 1 b7 Rb4+ 2 Ka3 Be8 3 Bh5 Bc6 (3...Bxh5 4 f7 Bxf7 5 b8q) 4 Bf3 Bxf3 5 f7 Bd5 6 f8q Rb3+ 7 Ka2 Rf3+ 8 Ka1 Rxf8 9 b8q Rxb8. This would have been a superior version of the same idea, except that it is unsound. Firstly, as the van der Heijden database points out, White can draw 1 Bxa4. Secondly, there is an additional flaw which is not mentioned in the database, namely that White can draw by 2 Kc3 instead of 2 Ka3. Dolgov attempted to correct the study as 8/3B4/1P3P2/k7/5r2/1K6/8/1b6, 1 b7 Rb4+ 2 Ka3! Bg6 (2...Be4 3 Bc6 Bxc6 4 f7 Bd5 5 f8q Rb3+ 6 Ka2 Rf3+ 7 Ka1! Rxf8 8 b8q Rxb8) 3 Be8! Bxe8 4 f7 Bxf7 5 b8q Rxb8, but although this removes the first flaw, the Kc3 cook remains. Indeed, this cook appears to make the idea very hard to rescue in Dolgov s form. The study by Iriarte (8/1p6/1NP5/k7/6br/1K6/8/8, El Arte del Estudio de Ajedrez, 1991) is perhaps the closest to study 13, even though the stalemates only occur in the side lines: 1 cxb7 Be6+! (1...Rh8 2 Nc8 Bxc8 3 b8q Be6+ 4 Ka3 Rxb8) 2 Kb2! Rh2+! (2...Rb4+ 3 Ka1! Rxb6 4 b8q Rxb8) 3 Ka1 Rh8 4 Nc8 Rh1+ 5 Kb2 Bf5 6 Ne7! Be4! 7 Nc6+!. In view of the volume of prior work on this theme, and the fact that Study 13 shows no clear advance on the previous efforts, I decided to leave it out of the award. Now on to the award itself.

The agility of the a7-knight in preventing Black s knight from stopping the a-pawn is remarkable, and it s certainly a plus point that White s knight moves to all three possible squares in different

2 1st Honourable Mention: Study 14 (Arestov) A fine example of a study based on a tablebase reciprocal zugzwang. The starting position is natural, the zugzwang is genuinely surprising and the study is enhanced because the thematic try is more plausible than the actual solution. The agility of the a7-knight in preventing Black s knight from stopping the a-pawn is remarkable, and it s certainly a plus point that White s knight moves to all three possible squares in different variations. 2nd Honourable Mention: Study 21 (Neghina) As published the study was unsound, but the composer corrected it by adding the black pawn on b5 and shortening the solution slightly (the black king no longer plays to h1). Even though the initial position is heavy, it s quite game-like and the play is interesting throughout. The white pieces make strenuous efforts to sacrifice themselves to achieve stalemate, with both the white knight and the white rook displaying suicidal intentions. Unusually, it s not all checking, since at one point White has to offer his rook to the enemy rook with a nonchecking move. The duals near the end are rather unfortunate, but nevertheless the study creates a favourable impression.

3 3rd Honourable Mention: Study 12 (Akobia and Gurgenidze) A very game-like position leads to a position in which White has trouble exploiting a two-pawn advantage. Both sides would like to switch their rooks to the side of the b-pawn, in Black s case because it would allow him to win the pawn by...kc7. White can only prevent this by playing the remarkable 8 Kh1!. The position after this move is reciprocal zugzwang, but there is no thematic try leading to the key position with White to move. The motivation for playing the king into the corner is not loss of tempo, but rather it s the only way to prevent Black switching his rook to the fifth rank. It s an instructive endgame which should appeal to over-the-board players. 1st Commendation: Study 18 (Kovalenko) Draw This stalemate is more familiar from win studies in which the stalemate must be avoided by a bishop promotion. I am aware of only one prior example of this stalemate in a draw study, namely Afek (7b/1k5P/2bP3p/5K1P/8/p7/8/7R, Commendation, Kubbel MT 2002) 1 Rh2 Bd7+ 2 Kg6! Be6 3 d7 Kc7 4 Rd2 Kd8 5 Rf2 a2 6 Rf8+ Kxd7 7 Rxh8 a1q 8 Rd8+! Kxd8 9 h8q+ Qxh8 stalemate. However, closer examination showed this study to be cooked by 8 Rg8 after which Black cannot win despite his large material advantage. Therefore Study 18 offers a degree of originality, and the play leading up to the critical position is simple but attractive, involving knight sacrifices by both sides. A study for over-the-board players which is enjoyable to solve.

4 2nd Commendation: Study 1 (Afek) The finale has been seen in previous studies and even in over-the-board games such as Minasian-van Wely, FIDE World Cup, Khanty-Mansiisk 2005, but the initial pawn sacrifice and precise manoeuvres by the white bishop add a worthwhile refinement to the basic idea. It s especially surprising that the bishop must be transferred to b6, which blocks the most direct route back for the white king. 3rd Commendation: Study 15 (Foguelman) Here the finale with Nb5 and Nc3 is familiar, but the attractive introduction adds an extra knight sacrifice plus switchback and creates a pleasing impression. In conclusion, I would like to thank Arpad Rusz for giving me the chance to judge this tourney and for his help during my work. Harold van der Heijden provided his usual invaluable assistance with checking for anticipations.

5 Solutions (Arestov) 1.f6! [1.Nb5 Kg3 2.Nd4!? (2.a7? Nd1! 3.a8Q Nf2#) 2...Nxd4 3.a7 Ndxf5=] 1...Ng3+ [1...Kg3 2.f7 Ng4 3.f8Q Nf2+ 4.Qxf2+ Kxf2 5.Nc6+-] 2.Kg1 [2.Kh2? Ng4+=] 2...Ne2+ 3.Kf2 Ng4+ 4.Ke1!! [4.Kxe2? Nxf6 zz 5.Kd3 (5.Nb5 Nd7=; 5.Nc8 Ne8 6.a7 Nc7=) 5...Nd7 6.Kd4 Nb8=] 4...Nxf6 [4...Ke3 5.f7+-] 5.Kxe2 zz 5...d4 [5...Ne4 6.Nb5+-; 5...Nd7 6.Nc8+-; 5...Ne8 6.Nb5+-; 5...Ke4 6.Nb5 Nd7 7.Nc3+ Kd4 8.Na4+-] 6.Nc6! [6.Nb5? Nd5=] 6...Nd7 7.a7 Nb6 8.Kd3 Kf5 9.Kxd4 +- (Neghina) 1.Nxb5 Other moves lead to normal positions with Black being a pawn ahead. The variations are just sample lines with Black winning. [1.Rdg1 Nxg2 2.Rxg2 e5 3.g5+ (3.Nb5 Rc6 4.Nxd6 Ra6+ 5.Kb2 Rxd6 6.a4 Rd2+ 7.Kc1 Rd3 8.b5 b6 9.Kc2 Bb7 10.Rf2 Bf3) 3...Kh5 4.Nb5 Rc6 5.Ng3+ Kxh4 6.Ne4 Be7 7.Rh2+ Kg4 8.Rxh7 Bxg5µ; 1.Rgg1 Nxd1 2.Rxd1 Rd7 3.Rf1 e5 4.Nb5 Rd8 5.Nxd6 Rxd6 6.Ng3 Bxg4 7.b5 Rd3 8.Ne4 Bf3 9.Ng5 e4 10.Kb4 Kh5 11.Kxc4 Rd7 12.Nxf3 exf3 13.Rxf3 Kxh4µ; 1.Rd2 Nxg2 2.Nb5 e5 3.g5+ Kh5 4.Ng3+ Kxh4 5.Ne4 Nf4 6.Rh2+ Bh3 7.Nbxd6 Kg4 8.b5 Bg2µ; 1.g5+ Kh5 2.Rd2 Nxg2 3.Nb5 e5 transposing to the previous variation] 1...Nxd1 [1...Nxg2? 2.Rxd6 Re7 3.Na7 Bd7 4.Rb6 Be8 5.Nd4 Nxh4 6.Nc8 Rc7 7.Nd6 Bc6 8.Nxe6 White has equal material now and enjoys a powerful initiative...] 2.Nxd6 [2.g5+? Kh5 3.Nxd6 Rc6 4.Nxb7 Bxb7 winning for Black] 2...b5 [2...e5 3.Rg1 Nf2 4.Rg2 Nd3 5.Ka4 Be6 6.Rg1 Nf4 7.Ng3 Bxg4 8.Nge4 Be2 9.Rg5 Re7 10.Ka5 Bd3 11.a4 White has the position under control; 2...Rc6 3.Nf7+ Kg7 4.b5 Rb6 5.Kb4 Ne3 (5...Kxf7 6.Kc5) 6.Rg3 Nd5+ 7.Kxc4 Kxf7 8.Kc5 Ke7 9.c4 Rd6 10.cxd5 b6+ 11.Kc4 Rxd5 12.Nc3 White has the position under control; 2...b6 3.Nxc8 Rxc8 4.Ka4 Ra8+ 5.Kb5 Rxa2 6.Rg1 Ne3 7.Nf4 e5 8.g5+ Kg7 9.Ne6+ Kf7 10.Nd8+ Ke7 11.Nc6+ Kd6 12.Re1 White has the position under control] 3.g5+ [This move order does not work: 3.Nxc8? Rxc8 4.g5+ Kg7 5.Nd4 Ra8#] 3...Kh5 [3...Kg7? 4.Ne8+ Kf7 5.Nxc7] 4.Nxc8 [This move order does not work: 4.Nf4+ Kxh4 5.Nxc8 e5 winning for Black] 4...Rxc8 5.Nf4+ Kxh4 6.Nxg6+ Kh3 7.Nf4+ Kh4 8.Ng6+ Pattern1: draw by repetition: Knight/^s eternal check 8...hxg6 9.Rg4+ Kh3 10.Rg3+ Kh2 11.Rg2+ Kh1 12.Rg1+ Kh2 13.Rg2+ Kh3 14.Rg3+ Kh4 15.Rg4+ Kh5 16.Rh4+ Kxg5 17.Rg4+ Pattern2: draw by repetition: Rook/^s eternal check [17.Rh5+? Kf4 18.Rf5+ Ke3 19.Re5+ Kf2 20.Rf5+ Ke2 21.Re5+ Ne3 winning for Black] 17...Kf6 18.Rf4+ [18.Rxg6+? Kf5 19.Rf6+ Kg4 20.Rg6+ Kf3 21.Rf6+ Ke2 22.Rxe6+ Ne3 winning for Black] 18...Kg7 [18...Ke7 19.Rf8 (19.Rf7+? Kd6 20.Rd7+ Ke5 21.Rd8 Nxc3 22.Rxc8 Kd4 winning for Black) 19...Rxf8 stalematea) 19...Rc6 20.Re8+ Kf7 21.Rxe6 Rc8 22.Re8 Rc6 23.Re6 draw; b) 19...g5 20.Rxc8 Nxc3 21.Kb2 Nd5 22.Rb8 g4 23.a3 c3+ 24.Kb3 Kf7 25.Rxb5 g3 26.Rb7+ Kf6 27.Rb8 Kf7 28.Rb7+ Kf6 draw; c) 19...Nxc3 20.Rxc8 g5 transposing to the previous variation; draw; d) 19...Rc5 20.Rc8 Rd5 21.Re8+ Kf6 (21...Kd6 22.Rd8+ Ke5 23.Rxd5+ draw) 22.Rxe6+ Kg5 23.Re5+ Kf4 24.Rxd5 Nxc3 25.Rd8 g5 26.Kb2 Na4+ 27.Kc2 g4 28.Rf8+ Ke4 29.Rb8 g3 30.Rxb5 g2 31.Rg5 Kf3 32.Rg8 Kf2 33.Rf8+ Kg3 34.Rg8+ Kh2 35.Rh8+ Kg1 36.Rg8 draw; ] 19.Rf8 Rc6 [19...Rc5 20.Rc8 similar to a previous variation] 20.Rg8+ [20.Rf7+? Kh6 21.Rh7+ Kg5 22.Rh5+ Kf4 23.Rf5+ Kg3 24.Rg5+ Kf3 25.Rf5+ Ke2 26.Re5+ Ne3 winning for Black; 20.Ra8? Nxc3 winning for Black] 20...Kf6 [20...Kh6 21.Rxg6+ draw] 21.Rxg6+ Kf5 22.Rxe6 [22.Rf6+ leads to the same drawing idea 22...Kg4 23.Rg6+ (23.Rf4+? Kg3 24.Rf3+ Kg2 25.Rg3+ Kf2 26.Rg2+ Kf3 27.Rg3+ Ke2 winning for Black) 23...Kf3 24.Rf6+ (24.Rg3+? Ke2 winning for Black) 24...Kg2 25.Rg6+ Kf1 26.Rxe6 (26.Rg1+ Ke2 27.Re1+ Kd3 28.Rxd1+ Kxc3 29.Rd6 the same drawing idea) 26...Rc7 27.Re7 Rc8 28.Re8 draw by repetition/\ 28...Rxe8 or stalemate...] 22...Rc7 23.Re7 Rc8 24.Re8 Pattern3: draw by repetition: Rook versus Rook 24...Rxe8 or stalemate... (Akobia and Gurgenidze) 1.Kh3+! [1.Rb1? a4 2.b6 Rc8 3.Kf5 a3 4.Ke6 a2 5.Rg1+ Kf8 6.Kd7 Rc3 7.Rf1+ Kg7 8.b7 Rb3=; 1.Kf4+? Kf7 2.h4 Rc4+ 3.Ke5 Rc5+ 4.Kd6 Rxb5=] 1...Kf7 2.Ra1 Rc3+ 3.Kg2 Rc2+ 4.Kg1 Ke6 [4...Rc5 5.Rxa5 Ke7 6.h3 Kd6 7.Kg2 Rc2+ 8.Kg3+-] 5.Rxa5 Rb2 6.Ra6+ Kd7 7.Rb6 Rb4 [7...Kc7 8.Rc6+ Kb7 9.Rc5+-] 8.Kh1!! zz [Thematic try 8.Kg2? Rg4+ 9.Kf3 (9.Kh3 Rg5 10.Kh4 Rd5 (e5) 11.Rb7+ Kc8=) 9...Rh4 10.Kg3 Rh5 11.h4 (11.Rb7+ Kc8=) 11...Kc7 12.Rc6+ Kd7 13.Rb6 Kc7 positional draw] 8...Rb2 [8...Kc7 9.Rc6+ Kd7 10.Rc5 Kd6 11.Rg5+-] 9.h3! [9.Rb7+? Kc8 10.Rb6 Kd7 11.h3 loss of time; 9.h4? Rb4 10.h5 Rh4+=] 9...Kc7 10.Rc6+ Kb7 11.Rc5 +- (Kovalenko) 1.Nc4+! [1.bxa7? axb2! 2.a8Q b1q+ 3.Ka7 Nc6+ 4.Kxa6 Kc7 +] 1...Nxc4 2.bxa7 Nb6 3.a5! [3.Kb7? Na8! 4.Kxa8 a2 5.Kb7 a1q 6.a8Q Qh1+ +] 3...Na8! 4.Kxa8 a2 5.Kb7 a1q 6.a8Q Qh1+ 7.Kb6! [7.Ka7? Qxa8+ 8.Kxa8 Kc6 9.Ka7 Kb5 +] 7...Qxa8 stalemate (Afek) 1.d6! [1.Kb6? Kxd5 2.Kc7 d6! 3.Kd7 Ke4! 4.Kxe7 d5=] 1...Kxd6 2.Ba3+! Ke6 3.Bc5! [3.Kb6? d6 4.Kc6 Ke5 5.Bc1 Ke4=] 3...d6 4.Bb6! Kd5 5.Kb7 Ke4 6.Kc6 d5 7.Bd4! e5 8.Kc5! exd4 9.exd4 +- (Foguelman) 1.Nd3 Ka3! 2.Nc5 b5 3.Ne6 [3.Nb7? b4 4.Nd6 Ka4!=] 3...b4 4.Nd4 b3 5.Nb5+! Ka4 [5...Ka2 6.Nxa7 b2 7.Nb5 b1q 8.Nc3++-] 6.Nxa7 b2 7.Nb5! Kb4 8.Nc3! Kxc3 9.c8Q+ +-

Step 2 plus. 3 Mate in one / Double check: A 1) 1. Re8# 2) 1... Rb1# 9) 1. Nxd6# 10) 1... exd4# 11) 1. Rc7# 12) 1. Rc4# 6) 1. d8q# 3) 1...

Step 2 plus. 3 Mate in one / Double check: A 1) 1. Re8# 2) 1... Rb1# 9) 1. Nxd6# 10) 1... exd4# 11) 1. Rc7# 12) 1. Rc4# 6) 1. d8q# 3) 1... Step 2 plus 3 Mate in one / Double check: A 1) 1. Re8# 5) 1. Bxd5# 2) 1.... Rb1# 6) 1. d8q# 3) 1.... Ng3# 7) 1. Nf7# 4) 1.... Bxc3# 8) 1. Nf8# 4 Mate in one / Double check: B 1) 1. Nb4# 5) 1. Bg5# 2) 1....