Thanks Serhiy for the info. This gives me the opportunity to express my thoughts again. The 2nd and 3rd prizes have a familiar checkmate ending. Nobody thinks of this as being anticipated. The 1st prize ends with 2 echo Bishop Rook batteries. It was clear to me that this wasn’t new either. I’m of the opinion that a well-known ending joke is always better than none at all! Unless the ending is (essentially) the main content of the study, as in the study by Kirillov and Yarmonov (self-anticipation by Kirillov 2017).
The main idea of the 1st prize is the maneuver Rf2-Rf1 and its subtle justification.
In your study this combination is mutual. It is highly original. I don’t understand the judge’s decisions at all. There are only 3 interesting studies in the award and they all are by Steffen. The rest is junk.
Everyone knows I hate exchanges. So the introduction is not perfect. Duplicating a well-known idea is a good progression, but in terms of originality it’s no longer worth a prize for me. Other experts to whom I previously showed my award would have given this study at most a commendation.
I kind of like (accept) the exchange here, because the battle is about conquering the e4-square. In fact White plays this positionally (rare in studies), until he is forced to become concrete.
For me, that Special HM is the best and the only memorable study from this tourney. I guess for me a clear thematic content is which sells a study.
The other two Nielsens feature high-level tactical fights but for me, it is like watching fireworks: they are almost random, and I cannot care about them half a minute after they are over.
I would be curious how Steffen would rank these three studies relative to each other.
Relax, Martin. I didn’t even say that you made a mistake in the award. 🙂
Judging is very subjective: no two persons would probably put the studies in the same order. Or even a single judge in two different spots in time.
You’re right. I can tell you that I initially favored 3rd prize, but I didn’t just rely on my feeling, I then discussed the order intensively with two other experts. In the end I had to make a decision after weighing all aspects. It’s much more difficult to find the right order in this tournament. Vladislav had it much easier at least at the 1st prize. Any grandma would have given Nielsen the victory for his opus.
I’m not the only one who notices that you are once again indirectly devaluing Pasman’s studies. I don’t think you have anything against him personally, but you seem to have something against his style. I, on the other hand, suspect that the next world champion will be called either Nielsen or Pasman.
Serhiy, you don’t have to write that, we can already see it indirectly in your comment above.
You are a mystery to me. Sometimes you praise Pasman excessively and sometimes you condemn him. But Pasman remains the same and his style is clearly visible in every study. I think he has a very good technique, which he has shown us many times, even impressively improving other studies.
On the other hand, he praises himself on Facebook for his many UAPA/Garcia prizes and proudly counts them like peas, but forgets that Nielsen, Minski and Sprenger, for example, do not take part in these tournaments with inflationary prizes.
He attacked me after he received just an HM instead of his usual prize from me in a strong tourney where there were more outstanding entries than his. That ugly attack was absolutely unfounded. And you also know that he attacked all FIDE Album judges too. So I won’t be his fan, that is for sure. In this tourney, he didn’t have studies to my taste. But I liked his h3! study from the other tourney. That was nice and round!
Yes, what Michael wrote to Harry Fougiaxis was completely wrong. Those were bad allegations. Above all, he counted the Nielsen & Minski coproductions twice and assumed that we were all secretly making arrangements. All I can say is that it was an absolutely fair process according to the rules and that none of the judges gave Steffen or me anything. I haven’t asked Michael about it, but I’ll wait patiently when he judges the next World Cup and the WCCI. Then he has to live with the criticism that comes from all sides. There is no one who thanks the judge at the end.
Random tactics or subtleties usually look like a pile of moves. But once in a while they revolve around a deeper idea (a lasting duel of some pieces, a manoeuvre etc.) which turns the pile into an integral piece of art.
Pasman never goes after a deep idea when he composes, he piles up all kinds of moves and sometimes he is lucky they tell a story.
I respect grandPa for his best studies. This one is very nice. https://www.problemistasajedrez.com.ar/23th-tournament/pasman-sec-b-1-no1-bview-5/
This shows the luck composers have when they pile up good moves. The Pf6 dissapeared in the main line and stayed in the try by pure luck. Not a logical combination but a magical story about Pf6.
I also prefer the hm. Of the other two I care most about the 1st prize, because I worked a lot on the idea: Unpin in connection with paradoxical (quiet) follow-up.
First of all I see that Rusz confirms that he don’t judge fairly with the words that because of my attacks :
“He (Pasman) attacked me after he received just an HM instead of his usual prize from me… So I won’t be his fan, that is for sure.”. This is what I say all the time – that Rusz judges people and not studies.
And that is confirmation of this. It started while I appealed his anticipated study in tournament, and this is the reason why he downgraded my 2 very good prize level studies in “Afek 70” and continued to downgrade in Fide Album because of my criticism as he confirms here . Rusz can’t be a judge exactly for this reason. The judge should resign if he can’t judge one of participants fairly. And he confirms here that it is his principle – if someone criticize him – it will influence his judgement.. And I am sure that I am not only one.
Of course I will not send studies to tournament that he judges or I’ll send only “after” studies like I did in “Problemist 2023”.
Learn from Minski, who despite my criticism of the results of the FIDE Album , continues to judge me fairly.
About Didukh statement that “Random tactics or subtleties usually look like a pile of moves”.
Didukh says this because he is not chess player. Chess player can see much better how tactics moves are connected with each other. For example, my 2nd prize study : Bd6+ and Nc7+ sacrifices are opening 8th rank with mate threats, black defends from mate threats and sacrifices back and then quite move Kb6!! shows how with full rook advantage black can’t defend from mate on 8th rank. By the way the move Kb6!! is the key also in secondary line, while the mate is achieved in different way. Black is forced to sacrifice rook back to defend again from mate on 8th rank. White in his turn sacrifices his main rook and then forces a mate in other nice way while black with his material advantage can’t defend. Isn’t it a beauty of chess and chess composition? The fact is that Martin , who is good judge, also liked it.
I agree that my 1st prize in “Chess study art” is may be slightly better that this one , but no one composes all the time same level studies .
Is it better to compose all the time pins and unpins? Or to compose long lines found in tablebases with many waste of time duals?? I am sure not.
“It started while I appealed his anticipated study in a tournament.” I don’t remember this at all. Maybe I didn’t even know about your appeal. Could you tell me which study was it? Did the judge change his award? Honestly, you start to sound like a paranoid.
Martin liked your study because he and his team of advisors adore sacrifices: the more sacrifices, the better is the study. You sacrificed two pieces in the intro and Steffen exchanged them. For me the both cases are drawbacks because the pieces are used only to build an intro. But for you and Martin this is beauty vs. beast.
The final part of the 1st prize is similar to this study by Fritz with 3 batteries:
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/fritzj-3810-11h5a7/
Thanks Serhiy for the info. This gives me the opportunity to express my thoughts again. The 2nd and 3rd prizes have a familiar checkmate ending. Nobody thinks of this as being anticipated. The 1st prize ends with 2 echo Bishop Rook batteries. It was clear to me that this wasn’t new either. I’m of the opinion that a well-known ending joke is always better than none at all! Unless the ending is (essentially) the main content of the study, as in the study by Kirillov and Yarmonov (self-anticipation by Kirillov 2017).
The main idea of the 1st prize is the maneuver Rf2-Rf1 and its subtle justification.
Regarding my sp. hm I just want to say that I of course gave this study and the follow-up study by Minski/Afek as predecessors
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/afeky-van-essenm-wohla-4130-12h2h5-m/
And apparently it was originally by Perkonoja. I only learned this today!
https://share.chessbase.com/SharedGames/share/?p=YNhCe2eruZWeBklWIGddA9R7NJjB9dQ/rBBg43KNbJe3NTyOpRjI1w5q7KAXXt6n
In your study this combination is mutual. It is highly original. I don’t understand the judge’s decisions at all. There are only 3 interesting studies in the award and they all are by Steffen. The rest is junk.
Everyone knows I hate exchanges. So the introduction is not perfect. Duplicating a well-known idea is a good progression, but in terms of originality it’s no longer worth a prize for me. Other experts to whom I previously showed my award would have given this study at most a commendation.
I kind of like (accept) the exchange here, because the battle is about conquering the e4-square. In fact White plays this positionally (rare in studies), until he is forced to become concrete.
For me, that Special HM is the best and the only memorable study from this tourney. I guess for me a clear thematic content is which sells a study.
The other two Nielsens feature high-level tactical fights but for me, it is like watching fireworks: they are almost random, and I cannot care about them half a minute after they are over.
I would be curious how Steffen would rank these three studies relative to each other.
Thanks for the tip, Arpad! I change the award: Prize for Nielsen for 1.Qb1+, the rest are removed from the award. 🙂
An exchange sucks, no matter how many people like it. A thousand flies can’t be wrong – shit tastes good! 🙂
Relax, Martin. I didn’t even say that you made a mistake in the award. 🙂
Judging is very subjective: no two persons would probably put the studies in the same order. Or even a single judge in two different spots in time.
You’re right. I can tell you that I initially favored 3rd prize, but I didn’t just rely on my feeling, I then discussed the order intensively with two other experts. In the end I had to make a decision after weighing all aspects. It’s much more difficult to find the right order in this tournament. Vladislav had it much easier at least at the 1st prize. Any grandma would have given Nielsen the victory for his opus.
I’m not the only one who notices that you are once again indirectly devaluing Pasman’s studies. I don’t think you have anything against him personally, but you seem to have something against his style. I, on the other hand, suspect that the next world champion will be called either Nielsen or Pasman.
Pasman’s studies in this tourney were composed for flies.
Serhiy, you don’t have to write that, we can already see it indirectly in your comment above.
You are a mystery to me. Sometimes you praise Pasman excessively and sometimes you condemn him. But Pasman remains the same and his style is clearly visible in every study. I think he has a very good technique, which he has shown us many times, even impressively improving other studies.
On the other hand, he praises himself on Facebook for his many UAPA/Garcia prizes and proudly counts them like peas, but forgets that Nielsen, Minski and Sprenger, for example, do not take part in these tournaments with inflationary prizes.
He attacked me after he received just an HM instead of his usual prize from me in a strong tourney where there were more outstanding entries than his. That ugly attack was absolutely unfounded. And you also know that he attacked all FIDE Album judges too. So I won’t be his fan, that is for sure.
In this tourney, he didn’t have studies to my taste. But I liked his h3! study from the other tourney. That was nice and round!
Yes, what Michael wrote to Harry Fougiaxis was completely wrong. Those were bad allegations. Above all, he counted the Nielsen & Minski coproductions twice and assumed that we were all secretly making arrangements. All I can say is that it was an absolutely fair process according to the rules and that none of the judges gave Steffen or me anything. I haven’t asked Michael about it, but I’ll wait patiently when he judges the next World Cup and the WCCI. Then he has to live with the criticism that comes from all sides. There is no one who thanks the judge at the end.
Random tactics or subtleties usually look like a pile of moves. But once in a while they revolve around a deeper idea (a lasting duel of some pieces, a manoeuvre etc.) which turns the pile into an integral piece of art.
Pasman never goes after a deep idea when he composes, he piles up all kinds of moves and sometimes he is lucky they tell a story.
I am happy that grandma Tarasiuk liked my study. Maybe it is not bad to have a grandma among us here in kindergarten.
I respect grandPa for his best studies. This one is very nice.
https://www.problemistasajedrez.com.ar/23th-tournament/pasman-sec-b-1-no1-bview-5/
This shows the luck composers have when they pile up good moves. The Pf6 dissapeared in the main line and stayed in the try by pure luck. Not a logical combination but a magical story about Pf6.
I also prefer the hm. Of the other two I care most about the 1st prize, because I worked a lot on the idea: Unpin in connection with paradoxical (quiet) follow-up.
First of all I see that Rusz confirms that he don’t judge fairly with the words that because of my attacks :
“He (Pasman) attacked me after he received just an HM instead of his usual prize from me… So I won’t be his fan, that is for sure.”. This is what I say all the time – that Rusz judges people and not studies.
And that is confirmation of this. It started while I appealed his anticipated study in tournament, and this is the reason why he downgraded my 2 very good prize level studies in “Afek 70” and continued to downgrade in Fide Album because of my criticism as he confirms here . Rusz can’t be a judge exactly for this reason. The judge should resign if he can’t judge one of participants fairly. And he confirms here that it is his principle – if someone criticize him – it will influence his judgement.. And I am sure that I am not only one.
Of course I will not send studies to tournament that he judges or I’ll send only “after” studies like I did in “Problemist 2023”.
Learn from Minski, who despite my criticism of the results of the FIDE Album , continues to judge me fairly.
About Didukh statement that “Random tactics or subtleties usually look like a pile of moves”.
Didukh says this because he is not chess player. Chess player can see much better how tactics moves are connected with each other. For example, my 2nd prize study : Bd6+ and Nc7+ sacrifices are opening 8th rank with mate threats, black defends from mate threats and sacrifices back and then quite move Kb6!! shows how with full rook advantage black can’t defend from mate on 8th rank. By the way the move Kb6!! is the key also in secondary line, while the mate is achieved in different way. Black is forced to sacrifice rook back to defend again from mate on 8th rank. White in his turn sacrifices his main rook and then forces a mate in other nice way while black with his material advantage can’t defend. Isn’t it a beauty of chess and chess composition? The fact is that Martin , who is good judge, also liked it.
I agree that my 1st prize in “Chess study art” is may be slightly better that this one , but no one composes all the time same level studies .
Is it better to compose all the time pins and unpins? Or to compose long lines found in tablebases with many waste of time duals?? I am sure not.
“It started while I appealed his anticipated study in a tournament.”
I don’t remember this at all. Maybe I didn’t even know about your appeal. Could you tell me which study was it? Did the judge change his award?
Honestly, you start to sound like a paranoid.
Martin liked your study because he and his team of advisors adore sacrifices: the more sacrifices, the better is the study. You sacrificed two pieces in the intro and Steffen exchanged them. For me the both cases are drawbacks because the pieces are used only to build an intro. But for you and Martin this is beauty vs. beast.
There is difference between sacrifice and exchange. I also see exchanges as pretty big drawbacks, it is acceptable only in special cases.