Judge V.Tarasiuk: “The tourney was attended by 14 composers from 8 countries. The authors sent 17 studies. Preference was given to compositions with the presence of internal playing connections that form a clear and interesting plot”.
Tehtavaniekka 2023
The taktiekka wins.
The only main line in the winning study is 5…Qxd4.
The rest comes from the composer’s fear to be short.
Can you explain why? To me it looked natural to consider both captures of White’s hanging pieces as main options. And I liked that after Kxg7, White must allow for the promotion of the Black queen and prepare a mating net with queen and knight.
One can also start with bQb6 instead of bQe5, bringing the queen to the diagonal (identical solution). I remember I considered that alternative. Probably I rejected it because it gives a desperado flair to 2. b8=Q, but perhaps I prefer it after all.
After 5…Qxd4 we have a mate. After 5…Kxg7 we have ordinary moves and a plain finish.
Цікаво, що Тарасюк не знайшов у Авні нічого цікавого. (Ukrainian humour)
Google translation: It is interesting that Tarasyuk did not find anything interesting in the barn.
Тарасюк – пропагандон. Ему прислали бездарные погремушки со всего мира, а он трубит про внутренние игровые связи и интересные сюжеты. Как же лечить этих самовлюленных в свое творчество композиторов, когда вместо горькой пилюли каждый доктор выписывает им сладости? Раньше я думал, что моя обоснованная критика поможет им сделать правильные выводы, и они станут реально оценивать качество своих работ и творчества коллег. Не помогло. Бараны ополчились против пастуха. Потом я перестал тратить время на критические отчеты. Стало еще хуже. Сказать другу правду про его неудачный этюдный эксперимент теперь уже считается моветон, потому что наша семья маленькая и каждая бездарь на счету. А вот отвечать дружным “ме” на любое критическое замечание – всегда готовы!
Короче, этюду, мягко говоря, настал пиздец. Он еще костыляет на гнилых тактических ногах, но здоровья в организме уже нет. Эксперты закончились. Или я пропустил какую-то серьезную теоретическую статью, написанную в последнее время?
Serhiy, this is a small informal tournament, not the World Cup. Nobody sent a masterwork. It is about keeping the studies in Tehtavaniekka at a reasonable level. I think it is good that Vladislav is now the editor and that we do not have any more three-year tournaments like in 2017-2019.
As for myself, I tried to send something original, enjoyable and solver-friendly with an uncommon idea (massing the pieces on the diagonal). I hope the readers liked it, too!
Of course, your opinion is always welcome. Every composer I know takes it very seriously. From your end, it may look differently, but we do not admit in public when you are right because your tone can be rough. 🙂
I must say, I don’t get your study at all, despite returning to look at it several times over the last few days. How can it be a good thing to put 7 pieces on the diagonal when two of them are not used.
It all seems strangely unfocused. It you want to aim for the mate with a block on d4, then find the purest possible setting and forget about other mainlines. Replace the pawn on b2 with a Black piece somewhere (like a blocking knight on d5, perhaps shifting everything two lines to the left), make it 3 vs 3 pieces instead of the unattractive 4 vs 2 (+ two almost promoted pawns).
Steffen, I take your main points that
My bottom line is that this is a light tactical study with natural play and an uncommon visual effect, and that you may be asking too much from it. More specifically:
Of course, if you manage to improve the study, I am happy to make it a joint publication.
OK, I will take this award as distribution of medals to the warriors who saved the studies section in the magazine with their toy weapons.
One Ukrainian writer Chaikovsky (not the composer) admitted that on a meeting with another writer Stefanik he couldn’t dare say a word because his respect for the latter was so deep. Here it’s my rough tone that keeps people silent. 🙁
Didukh, your rough tone is your problem!
You behave like a boor – you consider yourself a shepherd, and everyone is a sheep?
Question to everyone: why should I communicate with a blogger who has a rough tone and absolutely no human dignity?
P.S. Ти, Сергій, голосний, як дзвін, а дурний, як довбня! Носишся, як дурень з писаною торбою в будень!.. Не умний до двадцять, не жонатий до тридцять, не богатий до сорок – кругом дурак… (Українське прислів’я)
On a different point, I do not understand Martin’s tendency to add a “logical try” to his tactical studies. Assume that the try is 2. Kd1? Qxa8 3. d8=Q Qxd8 4. Kc2, with the idea 4…Qa8 5. h8=Q+! Qxh8 6. Ra4#. However, Black can prevent the plan not only with the obvious 4… d1=Q+, but also with 4… Qd3+.
So I do not see how purity of purpose is satisfied by 2. Kc2!. And I do not see either how the etiquette “logic” makes a tactical study better or worse.
PS. Just to make clear, I like Martin’s study and the idea behind it (combination of line-blocking and decoy with domination). Perhaps there is a way to give it more grandeur, too.
Internal playing connections. Are they imaginary, fake or primitive? Who cares? The judge doesn’t. And Martin has become a victim of Positions XXX. All his knowledge about logic evaporates instantly when he finds similar positions. This crumb of logic in his study is too small and too primitive to be of any interest even if the aim were pure.