Судья Русинек: “В конкурсе участвовали 42 этюда. Уровень конкурса был очень высоким, и, на мой взгляд, многие этюды заслуживают быть отмеченными. Поэтому я решил создать отдельную классификацию для миниатюр – среди них было достаточно очень хороших и просто хороших работ.
Каждый, кто просмотрит отмеченные этюды, без труда обнаружит в почти каждом из них (даже в тех, что заняли самые высокие места) какие-то недостатки. Слишком много взятий, громоздкая конструкция, размытый финал, взятие пешки первым ходом, наличие «статистических» фигур или форсированная игра.
Нужно смириться с тем, что не каждую идею (особенно сложную и эффектную) можно реализовать в безупречной форме! Часто, чтобы продемонстрировать замысел, приходится идти на компромисс и принимать произведение в несовершенном виде. При работе над этюдом или задачей наступает момент, когда нужно решить: публиковать произведение в его нынешнем (неидеальном) виде или продолжать дорабатывать. Рано или поздно приходится выбирать первый вариант”.
Польский этюд снова побеждает!
Nobody commented on my 1st Prize (miniature):
https://problemista.eu/en/2025/03/25/piliczewski-bogusz-polski-zwiazek-szachowy-2024-studies-1st-prize-miniatures/2/
I would like to know your opinion.
1.Qf4! is new. The rest is known. The final part was first shown by Wortel=N in 1940. Later by Pogosyantz and Mitrofanov.
Первый приз – хороший этюд, если снять три первых хода. Батарея brQK почти не использовалась в этюдах. В центре замысла она была только раз:
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/sivakv-1333-32e4g3/
Ферзь Ясика, наоборот, сам идет под связку, Позиционная ничья занимательная.
The study was used for solving at the Riga WCCC last summer. So it may have been to add some difficulties for the solvers that the first moves were added. I actually managed to solve these first three moves, but then..
Второй приз при нормальном судействе получил бы похвальный отзыв.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/avnia-4310-12d4a3/
Третий приз можно наградить только польским словом на букву Ку.
I basically agree with you, Serhiy.
The 1st prize has an interesting idea with an uncommon positional draw involving three different squares for the bishop. Unfortunately 6. Qe7 is completely forced because of the threat Rd7+/Re6+, and because bishop and king moves lose on the spot (to Rd8# and Rxa6+, respectively).
I am a bit disappointed by Martin’s 2nd prize because he usually composes much better studies. Perhaps a commendation can be given, but I am not sure. I like the idea of reciprocal queen sacrifices and of course Qc7+ and Qh4+ are spectacular moves, but their motivation is obvious (you need to be able to calculate two moves). Moreover the play does not breathe due to the brevity of the study and the relatively high number of captures.
3rd prize: all these exchanges and then the final mate is not even model…
Pasman’s 4th prize has (as usual) good technique and fluent play, but no particularly interesting idea. Commendable in my opinion.
I do not understand the idea behind the special prize. What is this study supposed to show?
It is good that brigning Queen to the e7 is forced. I don’t want to think in wild positions.
What I do not understand is why the Nielsen & Minski study was ranked so low. It has rather clear lines, fluent play and an attractive finale with an unexpected double pin stalemate. In this competition, it looks prizeworthy.
They used 5 major white pieces to show a pin-stalemate.
Please add in Nielsen & Minski the logical try 3.Qh5+? and the end position is not stalemate because of the white rook on g1.
Now I see your torments. The Ph3 and Pa6 are not needed after move 3. They make this Rg1-e1-e8 idea correct. It is a doubtful decision to let these ungly pawns in because the final stalemate is important in your study and it is achievable without extra material.
Ryabinin added a Rook obstacle in his study without extra pawns.
https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/ryabininn-4473-44g5f7/
The black Pc3 in his study eliminates the second solution (c4) in the final part. Its service is not necessary if we use the white Pe3 instead of Pc2 to stop Qd3+.
Comments are very important to understand what is idea of the study. Of course there is no need in comments when there is no idea, but only random moves. Because comments are omitted here, I suggest to check the comments in official publishment before deciding if the study is good or bad. For example, my 2nd HM study you can’t understand without comments and without seeing that there is not just simple Bristol (as you may think initially) , but Bristol of white and Black’s Bristol in thematic try on white’s preliminary Bristol
Below are the judge’s comments to your study in the PDF file. I hope he understood your study because I cannot imagine what your definition of its theme means. 🙂
“The play unfolds without unnecessary exchanges or overly brutal moments. Moreover, it remains comprehensible – free from overly long variations and the need for computer assistance.
However, there are two aspects that diminish its aesthetic appeal.
First, the try is more interesting than the actual solution. The try features two Bristol clearances plus a deceptive shortened clearance (three in total), whereas the solution itself contains only two noteworthy moves – White’s second and third moves.
Second (and in my opinion, the more significant flaw), the game is essentially over by White’s third move. Despite some precise moves afterward, the continuation feels dull and lacks any memorable elements. It gives the impression of being artificially and unnecessarily tacked onto an otherwise beautiful beginning. In this sense, the study is composed in the exact opposite manner of Hitchcock’s principle that tension should build over time.
Nevertheless, the brilliant opening is enough to merit a high distinction for the study”.
I agree with the judge and I don’t think that this study deserves higher award. The judge made good work, even if I don’t agree with some of his decisions (for example 2nd Prize). I just gave my study as an example that it is very important to show comments and the try line – and you can’t decide if the study is good or bad without these comments.
I don’t think the judge did a good job. His decisions are strange and biased. He didn’t make a PGN file. Marcin Banaszek uploaded the studies in the PDB database. They contain only main lines and one can download them only as .tex files. So, AI had to convert them into PGNs.
After seeing more awarded studies, I disagree with the judge about the level of the tournament. The level was very average. I didn’t find particulary good studies. I agree with you, that first prize is good, and that the first 2-moves are less good.
In miniatures – I don’t understand 3rd HM – after not attractive 3-moves introduction we receive very known theoretical draw Queen vs knight+bishop
Rusinek is generally a disaster as a judge. I agree with you that the level of the tournament is at best average. For such a large number of studies, I would have expected to see more prize candidates. I see only three studies for which a prize could be given: the actual 1st prize by Jasik, your 2nd HM and Nielsen & Minski’s commended study.
Regarding your 2nd HM, I like the combination of White and Black Bristol: this is an original idea shown in an economic setting. However, I agree with the judge that the ensuing play in the solution is not particularly exciting, and that it is unfortunate that the sequence of Bristols is in the try and not in the solution. I do not think that 2. Bb1+!! makes up for this defect (though it is certainly a nice sacrifice).
Perhaps one can use this scheme to show a sequence of Bristols in the main line, too? Possibly with change of colors? You have a very good technique and should be able to get a good result. 🙂
Mutual Bristol is not an original idea.
I agree with you, I also thought that my 2nd HM is little better then my 4th Prize study , and thought it would be ranked higher, but also my 4th Prize -if you look on it with comments, you see some very nice alternate lines or logical try, you realize that it is at high HM level. But I can understand also judge’s attitude in this case and that he prefers my second study.
Regarding judging – I think the judge invested a lot in analyzing the studies and commenting on them – and this should be credited to him even if there were errors of judgment here and there.
About the 1st Prize study :
I think better introduction could be something like this (although it is not ideal and in case it can be developed more):
Danish Larsen fans will hate me, but I made a study inspired by Spassky’s famous 17 moves win against him in Belgrade 1970 (14…Rh1!).