The theme of the tourney asked composers to show something interesting with 8-11 pieces and the main line within 10 moves. Such studies dominated in the past that’s why I think this size is classical. Eleven pieces suffice to realize even some complex ideas while the requirement of 10 moves makes composers present them concisely. So, it was an opportunity to charm people who like studies without long introductions and wild initial positions. Hopefully, they will enjoy some of the awarded works.
17 studies participated. I liked 10 of them. For more details see the award in PDF.
I like all three prize winners and Pasman’s study is a worthy tournament winner. However, I would have exchanged Martin’s 3rd prize with his 1st HM with Volker Hergert. Qa1!! is spectacular and the introduction is good, too. On the other hand, I am not too fond of the struggle of rook plus minor pieces against the lone queen and the basic idea to dislocate the queen for playing Kg6 without countercheck is not particularly original. Martin’s other study looks fresher and more original.
Sorry, but the Qa1!! move study is not original…
See this: https://ruszchessstudies.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-example-of-syzygy-endgame-explorer.html
My study based on this position was sent to Variantim in 2019. I assumed it was published then, but I cannot locate the study now in the magazine. Anyway, the study can be found in the SEE Manual (2021), see page 35. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MupIyogheK2SEOP_sGUhovv-GD47vwqs/view
The rooks can escape after the queen sacrifice, but both block the black king. The study ends with Epaulette Mates:
Thanks, Arpad. Not ideal win 🙂 The b+c-pawns make Qh1! less impressive but add a mate finale. I like your study more than the “ideal win” in the anticipated 1st hm.
Great tournament, deserved winner and very thorough judging. I wouldn’t myself have connected my 2nd prize to the study from 2016 in a million years.
Personally the 3hm is dearer to me, but that is just my crazy preference for line tricks. Djurasevic didn’t like it either for the World Cup 🙂
Maybe we should introduce the term “ideal win”. My study finishes with ideal stalemate, and we all know what an ideal mate looks like. But Pasman’s finish is ideal as well, meaning there is no wasted/superflouous material (and Black’s king it just one tempo too far way). Miljanic’ Qf5 masterpiece also finishes with an ideal win (KR vs K) which is part of the reason it makes such an impression, I think.
Another ideal win finish is for instance a skewer winning the Black queen and leaving White with KQ vs K.
Or promoting the last pawn etc. etc.
The definition needs refinement, of course.
A CQL-3 user would connect your studies easily.
One position in a study has hagning queens that attack each other, wK is in check and the move is from knight or bishop to an empty square.
(position
:attackcount q Q 1
:attackcount q K 1
:attackcount a q 0
:attackcount A Q 0
:movefrom [BN]
:moveto .??
)
Another position in the same study has a pinned wN or wB by the black queen while queens attack each other and bK is in check.
(position
:rayattack (q [BN] K)
:attackcount q Q 1
:attackcount A k 1
)
No need to specify that it’s a sequence because this query gives only 5 matches. And if another position with stalemate is requested
(position
:stalemate
)
the output will have have only one match.
The award is updated. The study by Minski and Hergert is removed.
Serhiy, thank you for your valuable work in developing the art of study this year too!
At Christmas time I think especially of you and Vladislav and of my Ukrainian students who are worried about the rest of their family in Ukraine. I hope that this terrible war will be over soon.
Merry Christmas!