Endgame Studies
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The 5 th FIDE World Cup in Composing Section D – Endgame studies Final award by Steffen Slumstrup Nielsen MMXVII Participants D01 M.Minski (DEU) D22 A.Stavrietsky (RUS) D02 A.Rusz (ROU) D23 B.Miloseski (TUR) D03 O.Holscher (DEU) D24 A.Shpakovsky (RUS) D04 M.Zinar (UKR) D25 J.Timman (NLD) D05 L.Topko (UKR) D26 V.Tarasiuk (UKR) D06 A.Avni (ISR) D27 M.Campioli (ITA) D07 K.Barikbin (IRN) D28 D.Hlebec (SRB) D08 M.G.Garsia (ARG) D29 A.Jasik (POL) D09 H.Yassine (DZA) D30 G.Sonntag (DEU) D10 A.Oganesjan (RUS) D31 S.G.L.Flores (MEX) D11 V.Nejshtadt (RUS) D32 S.Osintsev (RUS) D12 A.Skripnik (RUS) D33 I.A.L.Olmos (MEX) D13 A.Litvinov (LTU) D34 L.M.Gonzalez (ESP) D14 L.Kekely (SVK) D35 D.Kachakovski (MKD) D15 Y.Bazlov (RUS) D36 A.Sochnev (RUS) D16 P.Arestov (RUS) D37 A.Gasparyan (ARM) D17 M.Hlinka (SVK) D38 R.Becker (USA) D18 I.Aliev (AZE) D39 J.Kristiansen (DNK) D19 J.Mikitovics (HUN) D40 V.Vlasenko (UKR) D20 A.Zhukov (RUS) D41 Y.Afek (NLD) D21 V.Kalashnikov (RUS) D42 V.Samilo (UKR) ~ received 42 studies and I Amatzia Avni correctly pointed the I want to thank every need for textual explanations out composer for making my first in a lecture at the Belgrade WCCC judging job such an enjoyable last year. one. An urge for epicness I thank Siegfried Hornecker for On average the studies of this anticipation checking. In addition I tournament had a mainline of consulted my friend, club player more than 14 moves. This is too Hans Christian Andersen (yes, long, I feel. On several occasions a that is his name). I wanted the nice clear idea was blurred by a point of view of a chess player who long, complicated introduction. On is not familiar with the other occasions interesting pointed conventions of our art. There were play faded out into a long strong differences in our aftermath consisting of technical evaluations of five studies. D06, moves. I believe the computer D20 and D27 he would have placed plays an unfortunate role in this high in the rankings. The second tendency. It is easy to add moves prize winner D16 and the third both before and after one’s idea. In prize winner D25 on the other the same manner it is easy to add hand, left him largely untouched. another main line if the computer As is often the case in shows something interesting. But competitions where each composer in many cases the extra mainlines is allowed only one contribution, in the studies in this tournament the level of this tournament was would function better as sidelines. very uneven. The level of the top I realize the irony of the prize studies was nevertheless excellent winning studies having an average and despite my resolution of mainline of around 14 moves as establishing a reputation of being a well. But I really missed some strict judge, I saw myself “forced” short, pointed studies for this to award four prizes. tournament. Before presenting the award, I Here are some words about some would like to point out some of the studies that I did not find unfortunate tendencies, that I room for in the award. noticed while judging. D01: One tactical shot is not A lack of idea enough. The rest of the play has Precision and economy does not little interest and is rather forced. make a study. Showing the D03: After the initial complexity of chess is not the job of underpromotion play becomes study composers. In some of the technical in chararcter. studies I saw no idea at all. This D05: The introduction offers too was typically the case in studies many exchanges and a capture of without accompanying prose. an unmoving piece to justify the composer himself mentions final idea. “Sacrificial fireworks” in his D06: The introduction steals too comments, but these fireworks are much focus from the dramatic split up into so many lines, position occurring after Black’s sublines and sub sublines, that 10 th move. they have a blinding effect on me. D07: A remarkable position of D21: Yet another study with two domination. But more play is mainlines. The play is clearly needed and the position is rather understandable, but without any heavy and requires heavy analysis. surprises or difficult moves. The D08: Accurate, technical Bg7 never moves and there are domination. But I fail to see the some partial anticipations. the artistic element. D23: Several cooks towards the D10: 6. -f5 and 6. -c7 in end of the study the first being 9. Mainline B cooks. In Mainline A, Nc5. the final point is known from D27: The final part of this study HHDBV #10834 (Sizonenko) and has some exciting paradoxes but I #17829 (Topko). don’t see how the introduction fits D11: The general exchange on c3 with this. I would consider starting ruins it for me. this study with 10. Bc7. D12: The quiet move 8. Qe5 is D29: I fail to see the idea of these admittedly excellent, but the play dramatic events. surrounding it is of little interest D30: The introductory play is and the sidelines feature numerous good, but after the knight non obvious perpetuals and are promotions in the mainline the extremely difficult. play becomes technical and D17: The difficult sidelines of tablebaseish. this study makes it D32: Very long foresight, but the incomprehensible to me. play between the try and the D18: The static nature of the climax is of little interest. play, the choice of square duals D34: Precise technical play to and the fact that this actually is a secure a draw. #21-problem prevents me from D35: Good finesse 2. 7h8+ but awarding this study with an the rest is without surprises. A otherwise clear and human idea. good study for solving. D19: Very long and precise play D36: Long study with precise to convert an extra pawn, but I fail play where White slowly makes to see the idea. progress. I would have likes prose D20: This study has an to accompany the lengthy abundance of spectular moves and variations. queen sacrifices, but there is no D39: Forced play to reach an clarity or overriding idea. The incarceration position known from several studies and the wild game 1f44. 1c4!+- Kupferstich-Andreassen 1953. 2. 7f3! 1c6+ 3. /c8! 7с5! 4.b7+ D40: Cook 4.... 7b8! /a7 5.b8 5+! 1:b8+ 6. /d8 7с8+! 6... 1d6+ 7. 1c4 1b7+ 8. /e7 /a6 After the preliminary award a 9. -xc5 +- EGTB > > 7. /:с8 1d6+! cook was found in the 1st prize 8. /c7 - 8. /d8? 1с6+ 9. /c7 study. A correction was made and 1b5+10. /c8 (10. /:c6 1d4+; the corrected version is shown 10. /d7 1e5+ draw) 10… 1d6+ here. In addition, a cook was found perpetual check. in the study (D37) that was 8… 1b5+ 9. /d8! 1с6+ 10. /e8! initially awarded 2 nd honourable 1с7+ 11. /f8! - 11. /d7(f7)? 1e5+ mention. No correction was draw. possible and the study was 11… 1e6+ 12. /g8! 1e7+ 13. /h8! removed from the award. - 13. /f7 (h7)? 1g5+ ничья. 13… 1g6+ 14. /h7! 1g5+ 15. /:g6 1 s t Prize – Gold medal 1:f3 16. 1f1+! /b7 17. /f5! /c6 YURI BAZLOV 18. /f4! 1d4 19. -:d4 win. Russian Federation 6... 7c8!!+ What a move. A version misprint? Not at all. KLLLLLLLLM Before this move, all the main N2PO 1OPOPQ actors are brought into play. The NPOPO ¬O¬OQ composer has shown great technical skill in luring White’s NO ºOPO XOPQ rook into its cave/grave on f3. The NPOPO ZOPOQ sidelines in this part of the study NOPOPOPOPQ (especially 1... 7e4, 2. 7h6 and 6... 1d6+) are unfortunately NPOPO ªOPOQ extremely difficult and require NOPOPOPOPQ help from tablebases. NPOPO nOPOQ But then comes..... 6... 7c8!!+ and all is forgiven. Did I mention this RSSSSSSSST move already? Now White has only + 5+4 a narrow king route to avoid a perpetual or loss of his rook. In the 1. -f2! 1e8! - 1… 7e4 2. /d7! /b7 end the trip seems to no avail as (2… /b8 3. 7f7!; 2… 1h5 3. /c7! + the rook is forked leaving the -) 3. 7f7! 1h5 4. /d6! /:b6 drawing material of KBN vs KN. (4… 1f4 5. 1c 4! 7xc 4 6. 7:e7+ +- But Black’s knight is dramatically EGTB) 5. 1d5+! /a6! 6. 7:e7 trapped midboard and it is 7:e7 7. /:e7 win (EGTB); 1… 1f5 conquered just one move before the 2. 1:f5 1:f5 3. /c7! 7e7+ 4. /c6! black king comes to the rescue. A win; 1… 1h5 2. 7f8 /b7 3. 7f7 memorable study in classical style. 2 n d Prize – Silver medal constructional skill in the PAVEL ARESTOV tournament. Russian Federation 1. 7f5+! /h6 2. -e8! 5:a7 KLLLLLLLLM 3. 7f6+! -:f6+ NOPO pOPOPQ 3… /g7( /g5) 4. 7g6+ +-. 4. 7:f6+ with 2 thematic lines: NºOP ¹POPOQ A) 4… /g5! 5. 7g6+! 5. d8 5? NIPOPOPOPQ 5d4+! 6. 5:d4 – stalemate №1. NPOPOPO 3m Q 5… /f5! 6.d8 7! white phenix №1. 6.d8 5? 5d4+! 7. 5:d4 – stalemate NOPOPOPOPQ №2. 6… 5c5 NPOPOP WPOQ 6… 5b6? 7. 7:b6+ +-. 7. 7gd6! N»POPOPOPQ 5c1+ 8. /:a2 5c2+ 9. /a3 5c3+ 10. /a4 5c4+ 11. /a5 win. N1OPOP WPOQ B) 4… /g7 5. 7g6+! with: RSSSSSSSST 5. 7f7+? /g8! 6.d8 5 (6.d8 7 + 6+4 5b6=) 6…Qd4+! 7. 5:d4 – echo- stalemate №3; Generally speaking, I am not a 5.d8 5? 5g1+ 6.