Judge M. Hlinka: “I received 20 studies from the competition director Peter Gyarmati for judging. The level of the compositions was on average good. In some of the studies there are already known motifs or fragments of them”.
Magyar Sakkvilag 2023
Judge M. Hlinka: “I received 20 studies from the competition director Peter Gyarmati for judging. The level of the compositions was on average good. In some of the studies there are already known motifs or fragments of them”.
Solid studies here and there, but Steffen’s work stands out. A well-deserved first place.
Ужас. Ни одного хорошего этюда во всем конкурсе!
Стеффен начал мощно, но затянул финал примерно ходов на десять. Остальные играли примитивные мелодии на одной струне.
Maybe.
Difficult quiz: You know what other study of mine I always think of when seeing this one?
Large Danish beer to whoever can guess it!
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/slumstrup-nielsens-4440-13e3h6/
It has a similar mechanism but the two studies are so different in quality.
No, my association is based on the two phases and their differences in quality.
It is understandable if you have forgotten about it. That is why a correct quess is worth a beer.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/slumstrup-nielsens-4324-03g7d8/
Serhiy, nobody prevents you from increasing the level of the studies in Magyar Sakkvilág by sending one of your numerous masterpieces there.
That said, Martin’s miniature looks not that primitive to me.
The second model mate in your study is 7…Nd5 8.Nc6# not 7…e1=Q 8.Nc6#.
That is just cheating 🙂
By the way, several years ago I invested a lot of effort to collect studies where different pieces perform the same task in two main lines. So, I know that the best example of B/N model mates is this one.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/slumstrup-nielsens-3411-42d2d6-tt/
That’s a fair point and I authorize you to change the pgn accordingly. 🙂
Steffen: would you consider this second phase an improvement?
The play is more linear, we got rid of the technical pawns and there is even a mini-try with 6. Qf5+.
Yes, I think it is good. White already has four pieces so adding an extra Black one makes no difference. The second phase doesn’t seem like such a long desert walk this time.
Still, it is kind of empty. It is the danger of these pin/unpin/chaotic studies. Very difficult to pick a quick pointed finish when there are still 6-8 pieces on the board.
And very difficult to make a meaningful finnish where the pieces leave the field naturally. That is why this ChessStar study stands out:
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/slumstrup-nielsens-4440-13e3h6/
You can’t win the lottery every time.
The first phase in my study for MSV is surely more memorable than the one for Masimov. Twice f4 is extremely pleasing to me. I worked so long to make a good finish (there is also the option of having the White queen on h7 and Black’s on c7), but I admit I had to settle.
No, it’s bad. Awful look, no links between the parts of the study, no economy of time.
With colors reversed it’s possible to make a pointed study without a long walk.
Yes, I remember I had a stalemate at one point. But of course the 2xf4-idea must win.
Seeing that I already won Hlinka over, I would prefer not to break 25 of my asthetic principles to make a pointed finish.
(but yes, in my next life I will make something work)
https://twitter.com/GMJanTimman/status/1761439171044901369?t=3fJnAg96mmePKAw9u-MoDQ&s=19
A new version with a more pointed finish. I would like to sacrifice a White knight on g6 in the intro (to begin with equal material), but it proves difficult. Will continue to look.
Now it’s dope. Black captures the second Pf4 but White has another mate.
https://endgame-studies.jimdofree.com/2024/02/27/on-a-study-from-magyar-sakkvilag-2023/
It looks like Hlinka and Halski don’t know Kiryakov’s win study from EG 2021 with this movement. Some people are so busy composing own studies that they have neither time nor interest to see studies by others.
Indeed, I just made Thomas aware of this
https://twitter.com/DrThomasNiessen/status/1762474352350466102
Once Matous said that he takes several ideas to compose one study and Hlinka takes one idea to compose 100 studies.
It can be very tricky indeed to know where to draw the line.
But there are places to submit versions and improvements out of competition. Here for instance (or in the original source as “out of competition).
In my own work I have a couple of study versions that should not have been submitted:
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/arestovp-slumstrup-nielsens-0440-33b1a3/
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/nielsens-arestovp-3401-30g3g8/
I also have a couple of partially submitted studies I am unsure about, like this
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/slumstrup-nielsens-3540-20b5b3/
(forgot who made the original finish (7. Ra6+ and the rest) but I am sure I mentioned it at the time
Example. Jindrich Fritz published this study in 1961 without the first two moves. Since then composers have been developing the idea of Fritz. 🙁
Of course, such a practise is unacceptable (because the main idea and the main play is the same in both studies).