Olympic tourney gathered 42 studies. Since a good German guy Martin Minsky awarded only 9 of them (PDF PGN), we might draw the conclusion that without prize money and books the organizers failed to stimulate the composers to send in their best works.
First, I must admit that Martin had asked me to check the studies for anticipations, and I agreed, as I did not participate in the race for Olympic medals and diplomas. I showed him the results of the search, and he decided for himself how harmful my findings were. When the preliminary award appeared and the numbers of studies were replaced by the names, it became clear that L.Topko and D.Gurgenidze sent in non-original versions of their own studies. These were the new studies from a generous grandfather Sclerosis! But the claim concerning the lack of originality in a study by Zhukov seemed ungrounded. His study has only a beautiful mirrored stalemate in common with the mentioned anticipations. Everything else is original and done better than in studies by the classics! Zhukov was able to bring all the pieces participating in the stalemate to their places. White King, in general, walked around half the board. The battle against four minor pieces hasn’t been fought by the mighty queen, but by the rook. And the Rook fought! His itinerary and sacrifice on e3 and g8 are no less impressive than the stalemate. Fortunately, the judge has admitted his mistake, and this original study is due to appear in the final award. So for the moment I prefer not to show it here (in spite of the author’s permission) and let the above comments intrigue you in anticipation of the final award.
In my recent article «The originality of the studies» I have shown how it is possible in a simple way to determine the degree of originality of studies. The same final in both studies does not mean that one of the studies is not original. But many judges do not know how to judge the original study with partial anticipation. This is not a new problem, but it is still very actual because some modern specialists always give such studies special distinctions and make deductions from their scores to them, because not everything is new there. More sensible approaches have been expressed in some articles: in a study partially anticipated the judge must evaluate the original part of the content, but not reduce his score because of a known part! The reason is simple: it’s not at all easier to compose an original study with the known finale than with the unknown one. The judge adds some bonuses to the study for the new things, and he doesn’t for the old ones (or just a little), but he mustn’t punish the study! It seems simple and clear, but in practice, each judge fancies himself an expert and makes everything his own way. Let’s see what kind of expert is Minski and which distinction he is going to give to the study by Zhukov. Judging by the fact that the partially anticipated studies by P.Arestov and V.Tarasiuk are in the main section and not in a special one the judge understands what he does. Although if we compare the original part of the V.Tarasiuk’s work with the third prize by L.Gonzalez, I am sure that the logical games of the monkeys are more interesting to watch than the trapping of the black hen, because that hen is really dumb and the hunters easily drive it to a dead end. Has the judge punished the ‘monkey study’ because of its anticipated part? I hope not, and the reason behind his decision may be the dual 4.Kg7(f8).
Brief comments on other studies. I would have given the prizes to the first two studies too (the diagram is Nielsen’s 1st prize – draw). But it would be mission impossible for studies by D.Hlebec, V.Aberman G.Sontag to receive any distinctions from me.