Судья С.Дидух: “В 2023 году в журнале опубликовано лишь 12 этюдов (на 9 меньше, чем в прошлом), но уровень конкурса немного вырос. Дела пошли в правильном направлении, поэтому я принял предложение судить и в следующем году. Жду качественных этюдов, чтобы конкурс получился еще более сильным. Прошу не откладывать отправку этюдов на последний день, так как предсказать темп работы редакции очень трудно. В этом году последний номер журнала был готов задолго до указанного термина приема композиций, и кое-кто опоздал”.
Проблемист Украины 2023
I am doing good in guessing authors from the cover … Before clicking on the page I saw the 1st prize position and said “This is undoubtely Costeff”, and … surprise! That was true 🙂
The logical structure of the first prize is certainly appealing and Bb1!! is very nice in the try. Pity that that 12… Bb1 even loses in the solution, otherwise one could raise it to the main line.
However, the choice between Qxf2+ and Qc1+ is not the most subtle way of presenting the logical choice. The exchange has to be made, it is just the question where. I guess Gady has the necessary technique for finding other options and he has just been unsuccessful, but it leaves a somewhat clumsy impression.
This mechanism for implementing the logic also annoys me in other studies, even when they have good content:
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/sochneva-4406-30d7e3/
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/minskim-4841-01f4e2/
Do you see a black queen in the initial position?
Don’t you see that the logical structure (type III) falls apart if 12…Bb1! is the main line? Bb1! introduces the second successive obstacle, and this obstacle is against White’s plan to discard his bishop. White has to prevent Bb1 and go on with main plan.
Can you explain to me (or put a link to an article) what type III logical structure is? I remember Speckmann has a taxonomy of logical problems with two obstacles but I am currently travelling and cannot look it up.
Type III (successive plans)
The second obstacle must be dealt with beforehand.
Holzhausen’s type The second obstacle is against the first foreplan.
Cywinski’s type IIIa The second obstacle is against the main plan.
Thank you!
Nice translation.