Judge Vladislav Tarasiuk: “I appreciated bright and clear ideas, their skillful presentation, originality of the content, dynamic movement of pieces and black counterplay”.
TOIL 2024
Judge Vladislav Tarasiuk: “I appreciated bright and clear ideas, their skillful presentation, originality of the content, dynamic movement of pieces and black counterplay”.
It’s an anti-Bristol masterpiece. Epic and at the same time funny battle on the big diagonal.
The 3rd hm is the best study on corresponding squares ever composed. And it will probably stay the best forever. It is easy to see which positions are drawn. When threats and defences are clear, looking for the reasons behind the choice of squares for the bishop pair is a sheer pleasure. In the process you discover that one of these reasons is a surprising trap for the white bishop and at this moment you fall in love with this masterpiece.
Can I ask the usual stupid question? Of course Arpad’s study is very interesting, especially the very clear and original refutation of the try 4. Bh1?. Also the intro is neat.
But there are 16 configurations of the two pieces that need to be considered (with BTM), plus the occasional Kf1 line. Of course, many of the emerging lines are similar, but the maze of lines still feels confusing and somewhat random. Moreover, I regret that there is no really promising try by Black in the zugzwang position: if White does not misstep, the study pretty much ends here.
Certainly, a prize can be given, but “the best corresponding squares studies ever” looks like a pretty strong judgment to me.
If you see the maze of confusing lines in this study why making it more complex with a black try? Some studies don’t need thematic tries or sacrifices. Logical combinations in some of my studies made them too difficult and ugly. They are better without logic.
The combination in the 2nd prize is possible with two pawns less, that’s why its quality is doubtful. Good studies don’t have extra pawns added for the sake of an introduction.
After 1…Qh5 why is the g3 pawn needed? Or at least show a good introduction to your position…
Serhiy, maybe sometimes you need to leave only the kings on the board and go get some fresh air?!
The move Qh5 is the start of the combination. Calm down, Vladik.
Are you a clown? The queen can be brought to h5 without the extra pawn g3, in the final… I see you haven’t breathed any fresh air today…
Hooray! I found a sacrifice! 🙂
Martin, why didn’t you add Bd6+ Ka4?
Very good, Vladislav! You are a genius!
The study is similar to Afek’s 5. Bb5+ Rxb5 6. Ka2! study. But here the sac on b5 is quiet and against a stronger piece.
Quiet sacrifices and coresponding squares Q/B
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/kakovina-3011-53b2c4/
What about adding a further (refused) sacrifice placing wBd6 in e5 and bK in a3?
Bd6+ Ka4 and so on.if 1. … Qxd6 2. Nb5+ fork
oh I see Vladislav got a jump on me! 🙂
Gattinskiuk’s immortal study. 🙂
And I repeat, you Didukh are not just a famous blogger, but also a rude provocateur!..
You often provoke your colleagues with your nonsense so that they will answer. And then, happy, you laugh at them, as if they were fools, that you are “smarter” than them. That’s why, on your blog, no one wants to communicate much… Except for 3-5 people…
There is little positivity or support for each other, but only criticism and naive “love” for studies…
Gonzalez’s miniature is not my pail of tea.
Finally I have made up my mind.
How much you appreciate the first prize depends a lot of your sense of humor. Since I am German, I do not possess it in great quantities. The play strikes me as a bit mechanical (it feels like pressing on a button asking a machine “yes, one pawn more, please”) and there is a lot of dead material on the board. Of course a good study, but not at the level of Steffen’s true masterpieces.
For whatever it is worth, I am (much) more impressed by Steffen’s first prize in the Chess Star tournament: clear theme, notable moves and polished play with remarkable economy of material.
The second prize is definitely more attractive in Gattinskiuk’s version, removing the superfluous kingside material, but regardless of the version, it looks even more old-fashioned than my own studies.
Lone queens have never attracted me, and the third prize is no exception. I am also missing a clear idea: the authors seem to have piled up some sacrifices, but I am not sure what they actually wanted to achieve. Moreover, after the two introductory sacrifices, everything is check check check until the end.
For me, Gonzalez’s special prize is database garbage. Perhaps something can be made out of this material constellation, but it would have to be in a different way.
In my opinion, the judge underestimated the honorable mentions a bit. None of them is a masterpiece, but Arpad’s third HM is a remarkable find and also Pasman’s and my own study strike (imho) a good balance between original content and attractive play. Also Pervakov’s first commendation made a good impression on me. I think it is very good that he participated, and that he was allowed to do so by the organizers!
Mission accomplished. I finally managed to make an Anti-Bristol + Anti-German study.
Jan, I think your views are very close to those by Pervakov. The only difference is that you like Nielsen’s toys and corresponding squares and he hates them.