by Jan Rusinek
Andrzej Lewandowski is one of the best Polish chess study composers in history. He composed not so much (about 70-80 studies and problems), because he is a man of many talents and interests. An excerpt from Wikipedia:
Andrzej Lewandowski (born 18 I 1937). Polish translator of Russian and Italian poetry, member of the Polish Writers Association and doctor of mathematics … he published (translated), among others: a cycle of sonnets by Dante, A.K. Tolstoy ‘s poem “The Ninner”, ballads by V. Zhukovsky, cycles of poems by I. Kozlov, M. Yazykov, F. Tyutchev, Cherubina de Gabriak, K. Balmont, Zinaida Gippius and A. Yesenin-Volpin, as well as articles on poetry. After 1992 he devoted himself to popularizing culture especially among disabled people.
Andrzej struggled with a serious eye condition from a young age. As a consequence, at the age of about 60 (30 years ago) he lost his sight completely. Despite this, he continued to pursue his passions, although chess composition was no longer among them. Probably, sight is needed more for composition than for other activities.
However, he managed to produce dozens of brilliant studies worthy of commemoration. In 1993 he published a booklet with his 50 studies. He was already severely sight impaired at the time, so there were only solutions without verbal comments.
His studies deserve to have comments added to them. For such comments will allow one to better understand and appreciate his brilliant ideas and impeccable technique. Since he can no longer do this himself I have decided, with his approval, to add such comments to his studies and prepare a new collection. On occasion, some of his studies had to be corrected. One of them was the following.
In trying to correct this study, I found the author’s ideas to be: 1) perpetual check with rook sacrifices; 2) Black’s logical try (main plan) 1… Kg2 with preparatory plan 1… Kg1.
Thus my first correction (2022) that saves the both ideas (addition of the black Pa5) I found not so bad.
2. A. Lewandowski 1/2-1/2
Szachy 1965, 2 honorable mention (version JR 2022)
Solution as in original with 4…Kxa5 instead of Kb4.
Andrzej saw my proposition (exactly his wife read the text to him and he had to imagine the position and the game) and he was not very happy. It turned out that he took as his main idea the situation after 3… Nd6+. The white king has seven possibilities to go, and only one (Kb4) is good. He did not at all take into account idea number 2 that I found!
I must confess that it was difficult for me to recognize his idea (especially because duals existed at the central moment). Andrzej asked me to remove this study from the “collection in preparation”.
As the study was numbered 2 (out of 50) I could have some hard work ahead of me: renumbering from 2 to 50, new page breaks, a new thematic index. Therefore, I thought it might be easier to try to correct the study by keeping the author’s idea.
I was able to see that by adding a black Nh8 or Nh7 at the crucial moment, everything would work as the author wanted (we take advantage of the fact that two knights cannot mate).
And then my proposition was as follows:
3. A. Lewandowski 1/2-1/2
Szachy 1965, 2 honorable mention (version JR 2024)
1. Ne4+ Kg2 2. Rxh3! Nd6+ 3. Kb4 etc.
After some days I noticed that if we shift in initial position the black Kg3 to f2 we can double the main idea namely with the colors reversed.
Let’s take a look:
The main lesson from this story is that it is very useful to describe in words what the author wanted to show in the entry.
It’s not over yet! Andrzej accepted this version and I send it to Serhiy for replacing the version in his database. I sketchily described the story with the suggestion that it can be interesting for readers of the Chess Study Art and Serhiy answered me:
A nice and instructive story indeed. There’s another lesson in your story that is useful for the readers of the Chess Study Art. “Strong composers are not afraid to admit they did not see the author’s idea”.
From Serhiy’s answer someone can draw two conclusions:
1) That I am a strong composer (with this, of course, we can argue);
2) That it is no shame for even a good composer not to fully understand the content of an elaboration (the same, by the way, applies to problems [and other non-chess art!]). This conclusion is 100% irrefutable.
He who does not admit a mistake makes a second one (polish proverb).
Therefore, verbal comments explaining the author’s ideas are even necessary in my opinion!
This is why I am trying to successively supplement Polish studies (in particular in Serhiy’s database) with verbal comments.
I urge other composers to do the same with the studies of their compatriots (those who can no longer do so themselves).
Unfortunately, as a tourney judge, I often get a study or a problem where its author only gives the main solution without any variants, tries and comments. It is very difficult to judge such a piece fairly.
Some years ago an author sent such a study with a ‘bare’ solution to a competition judged by me. I noted that there were probably interesting elements in the study; they just needed to be shown.
I have asked the competition editor to send a request to the author to complete the solution with variants, tries and comments (then the judge will see and appreciate the content) – and the study will probably get a high prize. The author refused and in a very rude way!
The article “Verbal Comments are important and needed” in PDF