Schach 2022-2023 05.04.2024 Didukh Judge M.Minski: “24 studies by 19 composers from 8 countries participated in this tourney”. your web browser and/or your host do not support iframes as required to display the chessboard; alternatively your wordpress theme might suppress the html iframe tag from articles or excerpts
The judge called the winning study “modern” 🙂
modern = tactics + logic + final point.
Sprenger’s study seems too easy to be called modern. It’s easy to solve and easy to compose.
In principle, I see it the same way. I also “feel” that it’s not a masterpiece, but this is a small tournament and this study convinced me the most.
I agree with both of you, actually. By the way, that it is easy to solve is a virtue imho.
The pawns moved, the black queen didn’t.
But the main issue is the afterplay. After 7.Nxa6 the main idea is over and the solution should be over too. Don’t you know these basic principles?
Marek decides, not principles!
Of course, graphomaniacs don’t need principles.
It’s funny to see that you defended Kubbel’s original works so vehemently a few weeks ago and now you try to improve his study.
In unrelated matters. I have made this study based on the round 6 game between Pragg and Abasov, and need help.
A few annoying things
A: White king isn’t playing
B: With 5…Ke6 6. Nxa7 Kd7 black can force the issue at little earlier.
I am open to suggestions. The study has already been published in an earlier version on Twitter, so not for publication.