Судья М. Глинка оценивал 43 этюда, присланных на конкурс. Трудно логически объяснить, какие критерии и предпочтения смогли убедить судью включить в присуждение отмеченные этюды и расставить их в таком порядке. Но самое странное, что в этой смеси хороших замыслов, устаревших идей и полной ерунды случайно победил лучший этюд! 🙂 Поздравляю автора с прекрасным творческим достижением!
1 приз. Перед грядущим сражением три друга Ладья, Конь и Пешка попросили ведьму предсказать их судьбу. Каждый услышал от ведьмы одинаковый прогноз: «Двое твоих друзей погибнут, тебя свяжут, и ты спасешь своего короля и армию».
2 приз. Мартин опустил идею Первакова с Небес на землю, мордой прямо в гниющее болото. Этюд получился грязным и вонючим. Хочется взять длинную палку и оттолкнуть его от себя как можно дальше.
Составители третьего и четвертого этюдов получили ФИДЕвскую премию за разработку сильнодействующего снотворного. Мозг погружается в сон буквально с первых ходов.
В пятом призе идет увлекательная борьба тяжелых фигур с эффектными ходами обеих сторон. Техника реализации замысла подсказывала, что автором не мог быть случайный прохожий, который где-то видел похожую партию. А “фирменная” добавка лишнего слона в команду тяжеловесов явно намекала – если слон не team man (командная фигура), значит, автор Тimman.
Serhiy is back with his typical critical, provocative, and humorous commentary! Wonderful!
I like Michael’s study. I also think it’s a deserving winner.
I find Serhiy’s two incarcerated bishops the most interesting, but what a massacre you’ve unleashed on the chessboard! You shouldn’t have overthought the Babson so much beforehand…
I have created a 24-piece mammoth and stayed in the endgame territory! The position has just pawns and 6 major pieces without queens. It is a zoologist’s dream to see a Mammoth with two incarcerated Elephants of different color! 🙂
Once upon a time a chess dreamer incarcerated two bishops in one prison. I have extended an introductory play a little.
Another theme of my study is Black against incarceration. Black reanimates the b3-pawn but the pawn reaches another dead end. To do this trick one needs a black bishop to be incarcerated in a separate prison cell.
With two months distance, I still find the 4th HM the most captivating study: flawless economy, thematic unity and brilliant play, combining foresight with domination of the black queen and traditional tactical motives such as skewers and forks. Perhaps based on outdated concepts 😉 but great publicity for study composition.
That said, the special HM is the most ambitious and dazzling work.
The first prize is certainly a good study, but mainly because of the excellent flow. Note that the pin stalemate lines start after 10… Rxd2. In essence, we have a four-move schema starting with 11. Ne4! and three thematic lines. The schema itself is not that thrilling. The introduction that leads up to this point is very good and interesting in its own right, but the themes are completely different (mainly about interference) and as a result, the end product does not come across as thematically coherent. Put differently, the play not as meaningful as it is attractive.
You are doubting thematic integrity/coherence of the winnig study. The Nowonty interferences and pin stalemates have a common feature – white pieces block the way for the same black bishop. They do it throughout the solution. Thus we have an ambitious, complex, original and coherent thematic content.
Deserved winner for sure. Sometimes flow is the whole idea and no depth it needed. There is width with three mainlines instead.
I don’t know if the introduction is thematically coherent with the final moves (or if it has to be?), but it is certainly in the same spirit.
PS.
I don’t understand “Novotny (decoyed)”. What is being decoyed? Is more like “Escape square-Novotny”.
Flow is better in the 4th hm. The 1st prize has many lines so you cannot flow through its solution easily.
Black and White are alternatively on the offensive, then consolidation moves like 1. e6, 3….g2 and 8. Rg1 to give the other side “the move”. I think this is called turbulent flow by Levitt and Friedgood. It provides a good rhytm to the study and this is a form of coherence as well and certainly makes the introduction a success.
Flow without captures or turbulence easily becomes boring.