Конкурсы. В 2021 году присуждено 55 конкурсов. Среди них восемь мемориальных: Г.Надареишвили-100, Ю.Акобиа-84, В.Неидзе-84, В.Каландадзе-86, И.Крихели-90, Г.Ринк-150, В.Платов-140, С.Захаров-69. Отличия получили 718 этюдов: 229 призов/мест, 243 почетных и 246 похвальных отзывов.
Второй год подряд Павел Арестов стал чемпионом по призовым этюдам. Но рекорд Мартина Мински 2018 года – 31 приз, все-таки, устоял. В итоговой таблице клик мышкой по колонке ранжирует данные в ней (по алфавиту и количеству), повторный клик ранжирует все в обратном порядке. Можете узнать лучших составителей года в других номинациях.
| Composers | Prize | HM | Comm. | Total | & Co | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arestov=P | 28 | 27 | 20 | 75 | 45 | |
| Minski=M | 20 | 17 | 3 | 40 | 26 | |
| Nielsen=S | 15 | 8 | 2 | 25 | 7 | |
| Timman=J | 14 | 2 | 0 | 16 | 1 | |
| Tarasiuk=V | 13 | 11 | 16 | 40 | 17 | |
| Hlinka=M | 12 | 15 | 24 | 51 | 51 | |
| Krug=P | 12 | 14 | 20 | 46 | 26 | |
| Pervakov=O | 12 | 4 | 2 | 18 | 7 | |
| Didukh=S | 12 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 0 | |
| Kekely=L | 10 | 17 | 18 | 45 | 42 | |
| Pasman=M | 10 | 16 | 8 | 34 | 1 | |
| Avni=A | 9 | 18 | 8 | 35 | 17 | |
| Kiryakov=P | 9 | 6 | 3 | 18 | 16 | |
| Garcia=M | 8 | 8 | 18 | 34 | 30 | |
| Bazlov=Y | 8 | 6 | 0 | 14 | 0 | |
| Osintsev=S | 8 | 5 | 1 | 14 | 4 | |
| Gurgenidze=D | 6 | 13 | 6 | 25 | 10 | |
| Afek=Y | 5 | 10 | 3 | 18 | 6 | |
| Sprenger=J | 4 | 8 | 5 | 17 | 7 | |
| Stavrietsky=A | 4 | 3 | 1 | 8 | 5 | |
| Jasik=A | 3 | 7 | 6 | 16 | 0 | |
| Gonzalez=L | 3 | 6 | 2 | 11 | 1 | |
| Keith=D | 3 | 5 | 3 | 11 | 9 | |
| Becker=R | 3 | 3 | 4 | 10 | 0 | |
| Ostmoe=G | 3 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 0 | |
| Sergienko=A | 3 | 0 | 3 | 6 | 2 | |
| Richardson=I | 2 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 2 | |
| Popov=A | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 0 | |
| Samilo=V | 2 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 2 | |
| Campioli=M | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0 | |
| Maly=I | 2 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 0 | |
| Zhukov=A | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
| Gromov=M | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 4 | |
| Smolkin=B | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |
| Polasek=J | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 4 | |
| Gasparyan=A | 1 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 0 | |
| Kalashnikov=V | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 0 | |
| Kuzmichev=V | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |
| Sochniev=A | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Melnichenko=E | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Sonntag=G | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Sumbatyan=K | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| Costeff=G | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Serafimovic=I | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| Ulrichsen=J | 0 | 5 | 5 | 10 | 0 | |
| Katsnelson=L | 0 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 4 | |
| Rewitz=P | 0 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 1 | |
| Croitor=M | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 0 | |
| Aliev=I | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 3 | |
| Gatti=D | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | |
| Kopilov=E | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 1 | |
| Staudte=R | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 1 | |
| Katsnelson=V | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Prusikin=M | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |
| Mikitovics=J | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | |
| Hlebec=D | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 0 | |
| Djurasevic=B | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 3 | |
| Rusz=A | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | |
| Yarmonov=I | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Buyannemekh=B | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Zinar=M | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| Dore=M | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| Pallier=A | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Kasparyan=S | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Formela=M | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Micaloni=M | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Создана онлайн база шахматных этюдов. Главная ее особенность в возможности поставить оценку любому этюду и автоматически получать списки лучших этюдов по автору и году. Таблицу лучших этюдов года возглавил новогодний шедевр Нильсена с пробежкой белого короля за подарком под беспрерывные залпы пяти черных батарей.
Одной из причин малого количества желающих регистрироваться и оценивать этюды стал мой запрет поисковым роботам индексировать страницы базы, чтобы не нагружать сервер. То есть, любители шахмат могут зайти в базу только по прямой ссылке. В Гугле они ее не найдут.
Кубок мира ФИДЕ 2021 года завоевал Александр Ставриецкий. Судейство конкурса, как всегда, понравилось не всем, поэтому обсуждали его нервно. При разборе итогов Кубка в журнале “64 – Шахматное Обозрение” (№10 2021) А.Кузовков написал: “Мне хотелось бы пожелать всем участникам баталий на сайте Сергея обходиться без эмоциональных всплесков и ненормативной лексики”. Можно было поступить еще проще – попросить коллегу Олега держать себя в рамках приличия.
Книги. В 2021 году Василий Лебедев выпустил книгу про очередного актера шахматной доски “Стезя бесстрашного ферзя”. Николай Грива издал сборник фейсбучного этюдиста “Этюды Жукова”. В него вошли 690 этюдов Александра Жукова.
Потери. Умер Михаил Зинар (22 ноября 1950 – 4 февраля 2021).
Главное, чтобы Стеффен увидел, что ты понял замысел его этюда, и критикуешь по существу.
Глухой глухого звал к суду судьи глухого,
Глухой кричал: “Моя им сведена корова!” –
“Помилуй,- возопил глухой тому в ответ, –
Сей пустошью владел еще покойный дед”.
Судья решил: “Чтоб не было разврата,
Жените молодца, хоть девка виновата”.
Ну, а с базой зачем Дон Перваков воюет? Что с ней не так?
Oleg is a personable, warm-hearted and humorous person. I was able to experience that again in Rhodes in a cozy atmosphere together with A. Popov, Evgeny Kopylov (my friend!), Wiesia (my wife), Steffen Nielsen.
We showed each other our Timman studies. We actually thought that Steffen’s hm was a good candidate for the tournament victory. The king pendulum is above all humorous. I remember exactly how everyone around Steffen’s study was amused. Oleg was also amused, only noticed a small technical weakness (one piece without move). Now Oleg tries to break down this study into all its individual parts (in the truest sense of the word).
Well, I know Oleg personally (see my assessment above) and don’t blame him.
It is not just the two “extremists” Didukh and Minski who gave Steffen’s study 4 points in Sergiy’s database. In the meantime Sergiy has let himself be impressed by Oleg’s excited screams and goes down to 3 points. But also the Italian exotic and probably the greatest expert for bizarre ideas Daniele Gatti as well as the great Russian expert Alexander Stavrietzky (a.b.) gave a full 4 points for this study.
Imagine a battle on the field in which the king suddenly runs into the dangerous field that is constantly being attacked by enemy fire. Fear of death, the king penetrates into the opposing camp, removes an important detonator and then returns to his own camp under fire. A really humorous and delicious idea!
I also really like the game after that and in my opinion it doesn’t matter whether there are static pieces somewhere.
Oleg is not a good judge because he is unpredictable. There is no clear line in his reviews. For the WCCI, Timman selected his hm in the Pervakov-60 and I will choose my commendation because both studies were clearly undervalued.
Any study is bad to talk about. Take, for example, Pervakov’s first prize in Persitz MT: Oleg stole a position from the database with 6 pieces and reciprocal zugzwang. Then he stole a few primitive queen sacrifices from Minski and the masterpiece is ready! Without irony, it’s a masterpiece. I admit that. Nor is it the job of judges to evaluate HOW the composer composed the study. Only the end product is assessed.
Oleg is a four-time world champion because he has a very fine compositional technique. I have already seen this sophisticated technique with Didukh, Arestov and recently even with Jan Sprenger.
I think it’s better if the future world champion is the one with the greatest ideas. Nielsen, Stavrietzky, Timman and Avni have excellent ideas.
Perhaps of all of them Sergiy Didukh is the one with good ideas and equally sophisticated compositional technique, but he has made an enemy of almost everyone, even the current judges.
Thanks to Martin for having pointed me as the biggest expert of bizarre ideas! This could be the best praise I’ve ever received yet.
My opinion about Steffen’s study is similar to Martin’s one. I’m very far from being an expert of endgame studies, so I’m not able to evaluate the technical quality of the study (although I’m quite sure that building such a configuration is very difficult) but I valued it 4 points for the amusing geometrical movements and the presence of 5 Black batteries alternatively and systematically firing. Everything in chess composition that can be counted is attractive for me. But besides my personal taste, the whole development looks entertaining, involves the observer who wants even more and hopes that the bizarre carnival does not stop, increasing the sense of wonder with the progression of the solution. And it’s open to creative interpretations, as the battlefield one. As Didukh said, my mind was uplifted after having seen the study, and my impulse was to get back on the chessboard and try to compose something new and unseen.
When a sketch produces such sensations, it’s surely good, no matter if the technique was perfect or only “acceptable”.
I use slightly different criteria when evaluating studies in the database. Humour, flow and originality weigh more because these virtues make studies attractive for chess people. It’s a perfect study for most visitors of the database who seek in a study something fun and not very subtle. That’s why it’s a 4 from me in the database.
Here I downgraded my score because the idea tastes a little of a task. I don’t like records in chess studies, they are probably more suitable for chess problems. Of course, the realization of the idea is perfect. Nobody can do it better than Steffen. But my score is primarily based on the content and it’s just a little too noisy for my ears. Its two parts don’t really need each other. I prefer the decisive h4+ to be the final move.
Pervakov’s comments didn’t impress me at all. They were vulgar and senseless.
“One piece without move” – Oleg is funnier when he speaks seriously. Didn’t anyone laugh after this stupid remark about Nielsen’s 21-move chess novel?
Martin, the first impression is erroneous sometimes.
To be honest it was two pieces. The bishops on d8 and f8. So I didn’t laugh, just smile.
What a vivid discussion!
It won’t surprise anybody that I am not too enthusiastic about Steffen’s study. I think he has composed much more impressive works, and I can follow Oleg’s judgment in several points (too task-like, not very natural, no memorable single moves, etc.).
Finally, I simply appreciate studies in a more natural and classics-oriented style; Unlike Daniele, I am simply not attracted by the bizarre. That’s why I live in Italy. 😉
That said, I also appreciate the humorous element in Steffen’s study and the skill in the implementation. There is a theorem in statistics that the average of the estimates of several experts tends to outperform the estimate of any individual expert, so let’s just wait how others weigh in!
Ah yes, and Happy New Year, and many great ideas to all of you!
Chi vive in Italia ha il privilegio di poter apprezzare eventualmente sia il raffinato sia il bizzarro, può convivere con il genio e con la stupidità, con l’arte e con i cumuli di immondizia, con i buoni e con i cattivi, con il buon cibo e con gli scarti cinesi.
Tutto molto in evidenza, tutto in pochi chilometri, tutto a disposizione dei residenti, ma possiamo scegliere.
Tutto senza regole certe, perchè abbiamo più soddisfazione a contrastarle piuttosto che a rispettarle, ma se qualcosa di sorprendente può arrivare, state sicuri che arriverà da qui.
Preferiamo dare il buono ( o il cattivo ) esempio.
Sappiamo che i giudici abitano altrove.
Buon anno nuovo a tutti
A proposito, lo studio di Steffen è geniale, non si può valutare il genio con regole convenzionali, e poi i numeri hanno una sola dimensione, difficile rappresentare qualcosa che ha 4 dimensioni con un numero.
Se chiedete al pubblico di votare non potete lamentarvi che possa accadere un risultato diverso dal vostro personale giudizio. I pezzi che non muovono … sono necessari a stabilire il movimento degli altri, anche su questo non sono così rigoroso. Ben vengano altre perle con uno o due pezzi che non muovono.