Judge J.Sprenger: “I received 25 studies from the editor. The general level was quite high and so I awarded 11 studies in total, corresponding to a percentage of 44%. As usual, I tried to reward clear and original ideas, thematic unity of the content, economic and fluent implementation, absence of analytic lines, and the general dramaturgy of the play”.
Variantim 2023
The three prize studies are shit, Rusz’s find with 2×4 pairs of corresponding squares is outstanding. So, I explained it a litlle.
The shortest study 1.g6+ Kh8 2.Kg1! wins the tourney 🙂
Another winner has six thematic checks at the beginning, the rest is 10-move long after-play. In case you don’t know, after-play is intimate activity that takes place following sexual intercourse.
Luckily, your comments don’t divide the community. Everybody hates them.
The issue with aiming for a pointed finish is that the scheme requires 6 consecutive White checks in the end. My original simple scheme was this one. Pointed finish but very forced nature of the play.
The nachspiel in the submitted version is not so bad and there is even a logical element that is not in the original scheme.
Long afterplay (bad or not so bad) always makes a study worse because the main idea drowns inside a long solution and is not memorable. It’s clear even to Marek.
At times it doesn’t bother you. If the nachspiel is very good we just call it a second phase and everyone is happy.
https://art.eg.org.ua/2019/01/05/chessstar-2018/
Ok, good nachspiel = 2nd phase. I am not a big fan of 2-phase studies but exceptions happen.
I wrote “Nachspiel” in the award but Costeff insisted on translating that word to English. The times where German was the lingua franca of Jews from all over the world are unfortunately over.
Regarding Arpad’s study, of course it is a remarkable find with a lot of content. But it comes across as scientific and something is missing from an artistic point of view. The play looks quite static (a common problem with corresponding squares studies, especially when draw is the objective) and there is no single move that really captures your attention (as a former World Champion would say). All in all, I would rather include it in a book by Averbakh than by Afek.
Finally, the Minski/Avni study should be given with the 7… c5 final, in spite of the dual, and not with 7… Qf8. I explained the reasons in the award. Will post my pgn tonight.
Jan, your pathological inability to appreciate great studies is an interesting question that bothers me all these years and I am still in search for the full answer. Somehow, your set of principles works fine on average and good studies, but when a great study comes up, your brain makes bizarre conclusions.
I take this as a compliment. Average and good studies make up (together with the bad ones) for more than 95% of what is published. In many, if not most tourneys there is no single great study.
Incidentally, I do not think that our judgements about most “great studies” will differ more than half a point, and often, we will agree.
Regarding Arpad’s specific study, of course is a good one (in my opinion 2,5: can be considered for the FA) and therefore I took the effort to explain it well, but I doubt that many judges would consider it the best in the field. Arestov perhaps, or Osintsev, or Gonzalez. They like technical stuff. But not many others I think.
The prizes are not special.
In my opinion also 1st HM doesn’t deserve to be HM either. Just normal study , a pattern we’ve seen in hundreds of studies with triangles with the king and corresponding squares, reminds me Gonzalez’s studies.
My study (disapointing sp.HM) with original 1.Ka8!! move . One move 1.Ka8 with logical try 1.Kb7 and long forced line after that makes this study , it is completely unimportant if the final position is known from the past.
Some of commendation studies also not good enough. On the other hand, there are other good studies that are not awarded. For example, my not awarded second study in my opinion is not less good then other commendations, at least there is an original maneuver with the rook 3 times through attacked c6 square and also logical try.
Your first sentence is a compliment to the prize studes. They are worse.
The rest of your post is a compliment to yourself. Your studies may be good but your expertise sucks.
I gave my studies just as an example. Because they were downgraded incorrectly. As everybody I have also less good studies (about my second study in this tournament I said that it is commendation level, not less and not more), usually I know and can say when they are worse.
Of other compositions I examined in detail several studies (others less in-depth way) and it was enough to understand that they weren’t evaluated correctly. I believe that you analyzed these studies more deeply.
I also have read some of Sprenger’s explanations about his assessment and in many cases I didn’t like the reason why he upgraded or downgraded the studies, it was unjustified.
That the final pointe is known is not a big deal in studies whose main theme is unrelated to the final (e.g., your World Cup 2022 1st prize). But the most interesting idea expressed in your study is in my opinion White’s stalemate play, and so I think that your work is partially anticipated. Still, you manage to add a good introduction, but the difference between Ka8! and Kb7? relates to the black plan with Kd5, not to the main line.
I agree that your second study is commendable from 3. Rc6 onwards. It is instructive that White must not take the g5-pawn and the twofold sacrifice on c6 is nice. But why did you add 1. Rc6+ and 2. Rg8+, destroying economy and adding an ugly capture?
1.Rc6+ is added because it is third time the same move and very surprising move instead of just capturing c4 pawn that is not so obvious why is bad. Rook capture is not ugly, because it is not just exchange 2. Rxg6+, it is intermediate move 2.Rg8+! to exchange h8 rook and not c6 rook. So it is not drawback. Adding 1.Rc6+ is much more important. And then, of course again, white is refrained of capturing (this time g-pawn,) and plays 4. Rc6!, while 4.Rxg5? is also good logical try. And then he plays 3rd time the same 6.Rc6! in different situation.
It is pity that you don’t understand it.
The play is original in simple position. To me there is no doubt that it should be awarded.
And my other study you call partial anticipation? It is funny, so almost all the studies should be called partial anticipated.
Michael, you are the only composer who is always complaining that his studies do not get what they deserve. Psychologically, we usually rate our own works higher than our colleagues do. From this perspective, I can understand your disappointment.
But you should really stop public moaning every time things do not go your way. It gets on my nerves (and on the nerves of other composers). I appreciate you as a composer, but this does not mean that I like each single study you composed. Please respect this instead of making completely unsubstantiated claims, as you did for the FA 2019-21.
You must understand that you make mistakes as a judge – and not only I say that. Your biggest mistake is that you don’t learn from your mistakes and don’t listen what others are saying you. And of course I have every right to continue commenting if I will see such mistakes in your judgement in future.
Steffen’s first study is really good! Of course, one could rightly criticize the length of the Nachspiel. The idea needed several pieces but all of them had disappeared by the end, and white won the pawn endgame by a tempo. That is not that bad at all! The author could have been less lucky. This is one of the desirable scenarios to end the study’s solution. Another would be a model mate. Or a thematically related tactical motif.
By the way, Steffen’s Nachspiels are usually better than many studies by some other authors… One day he should publish them in a booklet. 😀
His second study is not my cup of tea. But I like that HM study. 😉
Well… Nachspiel, random tactics and positions X can make a poor study look strong. To be more persuasive don’t forget to give all mates in one, all checks in one, all logical tries in two, several main lines and a couple of moves with two exclamations.
Here is the prize report in pdf format (without the rest of the journal issue):
http://www.laeuferpaar.de/Schach/Variantim-2023.pdf
And here is the pgn with my annotations on some studies, and the predecessors:
You have managed to add another absurd remark to the judge’s nonsense about symmetry between the lines in this study.