Judge Mario Garcia: “164 studies by 71 composers from 27 countries. Several studies, not included in this palm 🖐 🌴 due to the technical and artistic level will surely be significantly acceptable 💰 in other contests!”
Main sections A (win studies) and B (draw).
Section of miniatures C (win) and D (draw) + 4 seasons by Eduardio Eilazyandi and some versions of studies by recently deceased composers.
I don’t understand why judge Garcia always adds tons of not-requested sidelines to my studies!
By the way I’m in love with Timman’s 1°/4° prize.
Let’s give Timman the benefit of the doubt and assume it wasn’t mined.
How could this have been mined?
Just a joke. Composing with 15-32 pieces is one way to make sure noone accuses you of two-clicking.
The same idea was already used in problems and some studies too…
What a pity. It looks like anticipation 🙁
Good quiz before reading the award.
May I ask how it was possible that over 70 composers sent 160 studies to a colleague, who has his merits in promoting endgame studies, but has distinguished himself as a judge mainly by means of an inflationary use of prizes?
Everyone likes prizes, even those who claim to disrespect Garcia’s judging habits.
Tribute to a great organizer, director and cook hunter. Besides, his English is funny.
But as a judge, composer and corrector he is an absolute Zero.
I don’t need to get a prize when there are almost 40 of them, distributed over the sections. Really. I could not care less.
That’s why I sent only my worst attempts. If I had a really good study, I wouldn’t have sent it to this tourney. Getting a prize from Garcia always leaves you with the question “Did I get a prize because the study was good, or because Garcia was the judge?”.
Serhiy always has new ideas about a “Combination Kling”. One of the most substantial studies of the tournament.
A corrected study by Belikov has a threat of Kling and a positional draw too.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/belikove-0040-86h3g8-c/
But of course bringing the bishop to and away from the point of incarceration is more convincing.
У нашего с Жуковым этюда не указан главный соавтор – Александр Халифман.
Конечный zz ему и приснился)
Или взял позицию в файле цугцвангов. Там таких всего 14.
Вообще, у практиков есть странная слабость к цугцвангам, где начинающий проигрывает. Но в вашем этюде об этом говорить неуместно, так как нет ложного следа с цугцвангом белых.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch1C1RCCXzk
Думаю, Халифман не знает файлы цугцвангов, говорю же приснилось)
Более интересный цугцванг с тремя пешками против ферзя в этом этюде:
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/topkol-3230-40a5a8/
После цугцванга черные жертвуют ферзя, а белые его не берут.
А ваш неоригинальный совсем. Стырено у Тарасюка.
Не “стырено”, а заново изобретено! 🙂
Этюд Топко крут, конечно.
Высокосов, в отличие от вас, не искал легких путей в материале пешки против ферзя, и сделал ложный след с цугцвангом белых. Получилось у него плохо – все мучения на виду. Но у него этюд с идеей цугцванга, а у вас тактическая погремушка.