Judge Gady Costeff: “38 studies participated in the tourney. I enjoyed every one of them and I thank the composers for this experience. My choices reflect my preferences rather than any “objective” evaluation. I hope my comments to the studies will clarify these preferences. If you think I made mistakes in the award, I agree with you”.
The Problemist 2022
While Steffen’s first prize is no doubt impressive, I am a bit surprised that the judge gave a prize to Serhiy’s and Michael’s work. The first one reminds me of Becker’s logical garbage, and the second of Kuzmichev’s computer garbage. Both of you can do better than this!
I am not surprised that you are surprised. Judges often award prizes to composers they respect too much. Besides, Gady has always had problems with the evaluation of database zugzwang studies. They don’t interest him, and I think it’s not a pleasant experience for the judge to evaluate something that he never really appreciated. Pasman’s study is a primitive caricature of this recent prize-winner https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/arestovp-krugp-0005-11d1c5/
Steffen wished to win the Problemist tourney and he did this! Probably, a deserved victory. Tacticians will surely enjoy his study. But I am neither a tactician nor a fan of studies with several phases.
What Didukh writes here about my study points on poor understanding in endgames, zugzwangs and even logical tries. The given example (Arestov-Krug) is good study,but has the only common in avoiding d2 or c2 pawn capture and that there are knights on the board. The studies are completely different. In my study Kxc2 instead of 5.Kc1!! is very strong logical try and the judge correctly sees it and points to it. The same is 6.Nd2! and 7.Kb2!! These moves are also connected with zugzwang positions.Where are logical tries and zugzwangs in the given example?
Very good understanding of Costeff of this study, although in my opinion, it deserved even second prize.
First Prize is very good, but I expect from Steffen to show also other types of studies in future.
I also like the HM by Timman.
Of course, the two studies are different but their main idea is common: waiting K-moves around the poisonned pawn till Black worsens his position. In Arestov-Krug study White can’t do anything if Black keeps his king on e6 and passes the move, so it’s a one-side zugzwang which is enough to build a logical try with the refusal of capture, even two tries. And they are long enough to have some real value.
I like much more your commended study. A pile of tactics somehow is united by an impressive excelsior of the a-pawn. For me, it’s a prize level.
I also like Pasman’s commendation much better than his prize study. Good flow, a surprising march of the a-pawn and very game-like position: this is excellent PR for studies with OTB players.