Final Award in Quick Composing TT-213 | Окончательные итоги блицконкурса TT-213

Queen under cover | Ферзь под прикрытием

Theme | Тема

17 entries were received from 10 authors representing 6 countries | На конкурс поступило 17 композиций от 10 авторов из 6 стран

EN <-> RU

I thank all the authors who sent in their twomovers to TT-213; before going any further, I would like to respond to a remark by Anatoly Slesarenko that was among the comments to the tourney announcement.
I will start with an objection: for the “average chess amateurs” mentioned by Anatoly OTB chess is much closer than chess composition; and in OTB chess the term BATTERY is interpreted much wider. I will stop short of describing the history of the transformation of this term in relation to chess composition – this subject should be discussed separately and anyone can follow that topic, should he or she wish to do so. I will only emphasize that the term HOMONYMOUS BATTERY is included in endgame study composers’ vocabulary without any inverted commas. It is enough to recall a small article by Tigran Gorgiev which ends with these words: “One should think that homonymous battery is also possible in problems.” The great Ukrainian EG composer was not mistaken, for by that time a great English problemist had brilliantly proved that this was possible – see: yacpdb/1585 and yacpdb/197084.
The demand that the type of the front (line-opening) piece of a battery directly aimed at a king should differ from that of the rear piece is quite natural, for otherwise the front piece would already be checking the king before making a move; in the case of an indirect battery, however, I see no reasons why in chess composition the interpretation of the term should differ from the way it is construed in OTB chess. The most important point is that the retreat of the front piece should immediately result in the guard of the thematic square by the rear piece.
Therefore, it is clear that it is absolutely unjustifiable to exclude the queen from the list of front pieces, since her play as she retreats from the line of an indirect battery is in no way different from the play of other pieces, the ones that are perceived as “loyal” to the current laws of chess composition. And I think there must have been quite a few people before me that used the term under discussion in this particular case without inverted commas. The queen’s ability to operate on diagonals as well as orthogonals enables her to combine the functions of the rear battery piece with those of the front piece – yacpdb/449706.
I am grateful to TT-205 judge Vasyl Markovtsiy for supporting us in the search in that direction.
By the way, I also received a private comment from one of my friends, who wrote that it was not interesting for him to participate in that tourney, because the judge had spelt out everything in such great detail that this left no room for creative expression. Well, first, I can still see a lot of unused opportunities – enough for one more tourney; second, it appeared that “spelling out” does not prevent those concerned from making one or even more errors. In fact this reminded me of a shouted slogan of Kiev sports fans which unfortunately cannot be adequately translated into English…
From the 17 entries that I received in anonymous form, more than one third were non-thematic.
- No 7 (Kh5-Kd4) – the battery is set in the diagram position; the thematic variants are repeated in the phases;
- No 11 (Ka7-Kc3) – thematic play is presented in one phase only;
- No 14 (Ke8-Ke6) – the batteries operating in the two phases are set in the DP;
- No 15 (Kg2-Kf4) – a typical problem by “an average amateur” who is unfamiliar with the basics of chess composition: not a single thematic variant, while only an unnecessary white bishop and a couple of black pawns remind us of the theme. In our art, however, any debut is as good as gold, especially as the Internet can be used as a self-improvement tool if required.
I would like to specifically mention two non-thematic problems, since they were the ones that amazed me the most.
- No 8 (Kh7-Kh5) – wide half-battery play with a random first move, two nice thematic variants with dual avoidance, an excellent thematic refutation. I was on the verge of applauding the author. But then something went wrong: a precise key with repetition of variants that actually renders the rear piece unnecessary not only in these variants, but in post-key play in general. Incredible! The impression is that work on the problem was completed by someone other than the author that started it. Even the replacement of the black Ph6 with a wPg5 rehabilitates only the rook but not the theme itself.
- No 9 (Kh4-Kf4) – again, the problem contains an excellent thematic post-key phase with four (!) thematic variants featuring wide queen play. But there’s nothing else! However, it is clear enough that it is easy to add, at the expense of one of the variants in the solution, a try with two thematic mates and additionally with changed function of moves (this can be achieved by removing four pieces and shifting two more)! What was it: a case of whopping negligence or the result of insufficient knowledge of both Russian and English? I can show the proposed version to the author should he wish to see it.

No 6 (Kf7-Kd5) is outside the award – the attempt to present a double rendition of the theme was obviously unsuccessful: the second thematic variant is in essence repeated in two phases.
The award is as follows (all thematic mates are shown in bold; preferable mates in which the queen leaves the battery line are underlined).

I thank Andrey Frolkin for translation this award into English.

Award is the following | Отличия распределились следующим образом

1st Prize, 1st Place - No 17
Yury Gorbatenko
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018
2nd Prize, 2nd Place - No 5
Mark Basisty
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018
3rd Prize, 3rd Place - No 10A
Pavel Murashev
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018

1st Prize, 1st Place - No 17, Yury Gorbatenko (Russia) 8/2p5/B1k5/6n1/n1pQ4/2pbR3/8/K2R2B1

1.Re5? – 2.Qd5#, 1…Be4 2.Qd7#, 1…Sb6 2.Rc5#, 1…Sc5!

1.Re7! – 2.Qd7#, 1…Bf5 2.Qd5#, 1…Sb6 / Sc5 2.Qc5#.
Maximally economical theme rendition within a half-battery mechanism, with interchange of thematic threats and mates in the variants, involving the activation of a second, hidden stationary battery. Very nice is the variant with complex blocking of the thematic square in the try. The thematic refutation of the try on the nodal square leads to another thematic post-key mate. A pleasant find! The strengths of this problem are best seen when compared with the following problem – yacpdb/247738.
EN <-> RU

2nd Prize, 2nd Place - No 5, Mark Basisty (Ukraine) B3N2K/p7/4pp2/B1k2P2/2PN2bR/b3Q2R/q7/4n3

*1...Bxf5 2.Sd~#, 1...Kxc4 2.Qc3#

1.Qxe6? – 2.Qd5#, 1...Qxc4 2.Qd6#, 1...Qg2 2.Sb3#, (1…Kxd4 2.Qd5#), 1...Bf3!

1.Qe4? – 2.Sxe6#, 1...Bxf5 2.Qc6#, 1...Kxc4 2.Rc3#, 1...Qxc4!

1.Qf4! – 2.Sxe6#, 1...Bxf5 2.Qc7#, 1...Kxc4 2.Rc3#, 1...Qxc4 2.Qd6#, 1...Qe2 2.Sb3#.
Only two thematic variants, but the problem vividly presents the white queen’s great potential: play as the rear piece of a direct battery, moves resulting in battery elimination, creation of two indirect batteries with the queen’s subsequent “rear” and “front” play. The additional try, also featuring battery elimination, supplemented with knight sacrifice, is important, among other things, because it leads to extra “workload” for the Rh3.
EN <-> RU

3rd Prize, 3rd Place - No 10A, Pavel Murashev (Russia) 7q/B2RQp2/2p1Nb2/pp2p1PN/4kPPp/5p2/K4n2/5n2

*1...exf4 (a) 2.Sc5#

1.Qd6? – 2.Qxc6#, 1...exf4 (a) 2.Qxf4#, 1...Sxg4 (b) 2.Qd3#, 1...Se3 (c) 2.Sc5#, 1...c5!

1.Qc5! – 2.Qxc6#, 1...exf4 (a) 2.Qf5#, 1...Sxg4 (b) 2.Qc2#, 1...Se3 (c) 2.Qxe3# (1...Qc8/a8 2.Sxf6#).
Six thematic variants with changed mates. Battery elimination also appears twice here, but the battery involved is neither masked nor direct, as one might think at first sight; the battery being destroyed is indirect: indeed, the queen’s function consists not in attacking the enemy king but in guarding the e3-square, from which the white bishop is cut off. All of the phases are well united into a cohesive scenario through the play of white and black pieces to the nodal c6-square! But the mechanism being used here is more stereotyped and the specifics of queen play are shown less spectacularly than in the above problems. Moreover, one cannot help wishing to “unload” the kingside somehow. Apparently, the author is not a newcomer; the more amazing it is that his second version of this mechanism, No 10B, is non-thematic.
EN <-> RU
1st Honorable mention - No 16
Yury Gorbatenko
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018
2nd Honorable mention - No 13
Zoltan Labai
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018
3rd Honorable mention - No 12
Emanuel Navon & Paz Einat
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018

1st Honorable mention - No 16, Yury Gorbatenko (Russia) bB4n1/5p1K/qb1Q1p2/4N1R1/4kn2/2R1pp2/8/8

1.Sd7? – 2.Qxf4#, 1…Bc7 2.Sc5#, 1…Sf~ !

1.Sc4? – 2.Qxf4#, 1…Bc7 2.Rxe3#, 1…Sf~ 2.Qd3#, 1…Sd5!

1.Sc6! – 2.Qxf4#, 1…Bc7 2.Qd4#, 1…Sf~ 2.Qd5#. 1…f5 2.Qe5#
Compared to Example 1 from the announcement of TT-213, the author used other motivations for the retreating moves by the white and black knights; hence I wouldn’t talk of lack of originality here. Another thing is unpleasant though: the parasitical tries 1.Sd3? and 1.Sg4? which are refuted by the same random knight move that rebuts 1.Sd7? The first of them only affects the thematic purity of aim of the key; the second one, however, practically destroys the problem’s “storyline.” I would prefer adding a white pawn on g4 if there is no more radical method for getting rid of the said fault.
EN <-> RU

2nd Honorable mention - No 13, Zoltan Labai (Slovakia) 3Nr3/3p4/2pp2BB/5Q2/N2kP3/1Pp2p2/8/5K2

1.Qa5? – 2.Qxc3#, 1…Rxe4! 1.Qxf3? – 2.Qxc3#, 1…Rxe4 2.Qxe4#, 1…Rf8!

1.Qf4? (A) – 2.Qxd6#, 1…d5 (a) 2.e5# (B), 1…Re5 (b) 2.Qe3#, 1…Kd3 2.e5#, 1…Re6!

1.e5! (B) – 2.Qe4#, 1…d5 (a) 2.Qf4# (A), 1…Re5 (b) 2.Qd3#, (1…Kd5 2.Qe4#).
Harmonious thematic play against the background of Reversal 1. The white Sd8 is unpleasant.
EN <-> RU

3rd Honorable mention - No 12, Emanuel Navon & Paz Einat (Israel) 2K5/3N1pN1/2p3bB/4n2R/2Bkp2R/pP1p2p1/nP6/4qQ2

*1...Qa5 (a) 2.Qg1# , 1...Sf3 (b) / Sxd7 (c) 2.Qxd3#

1.Qf6? Qa5! 1.Qxf7? axb2!

1.Qf4? – 2.Qe5#, 1...Qa5 (a) 2.Qe3#, 1...S~ / Sf3 (b) / Sxd7 (c) 2.Qd6#, 1...f6 2.Se6#, 1...Sxc4!

1.Qf5! – 2.Qxe5#, 1…Qa5 (a) 2.Rxe4#, 1...S~ / Sf3 (b) 2.Qc5#, 1...Sxd7(c) 2.Qxd7#, 1...Bxf5 2.Sxf5#, 1...f6 2.Se6#
Zagoruiko, randomly and unevenly interspersed with thematic mates.
EN <-> RU
4th Honorable mention - No 4
Mark Basisty
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018
1st Commendation - No 3
Mark Basisty
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018
2nd Commendation - No 2
Mark Basisty
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018

4th Honorable mention - No 4, Mark Basisty (Ukraine) 3K3n/p7/3k3N/p2P3r/1PpQ1p2/2p5/B2B4/2b5

1.Bxc4? – 2.Qf6# (A), 1...Re5 2.Qc5# (B), 1...Rxh6 2.Qxf4# (X), 1...Rf5 2.Sxf5#, 1...axb4! (x)

1.Bxc3? – 2.Qc5# (B), 1...Rxd5 (a) 2.Qf6# (A), 1...axb4 (x) 2.Bxb4#, 1...Be3!

1.Qxc4! – 2.Qc7#, 1...Ke5 2.Qxf4# (X), 1...Rxd5 (a) 2.Qxd5#, 1...Sf7+ 2.Sxf7#.
Rather rich content: Pseudo Le Grand, Nietvelt Defense, changes of defense, mate, and move functions. All of that, however, is scarcely related to thematic play.
EN <-> RU

1st Commendation - No 3, Mark Basisty (Ukraine) 3r4/p2R1pN1/1p1b1n2/1P3R1r/KPk5/4Q3/7B/n7

1.Bg1? – 2.Qd4#, 1...Sc2/Sb3 2.Qb3#, 1...Bc5/Be5 2.Qd3#, 1...Rh4!

1.Rf3! – 2.Qd3#, 1...Rd5 2.Qc3#, 1...Bxb4 2.Qd4#.
Only one preferable mate, while Pseudo Le Grand, the tourney’s most popular theme, is presented in the additional variants.
EN <-> RU

2nd Commendation - No 2, Mark Basisty (Ukraine) 7B/pppp4/2b5/6pp/1pB1k2P/r7/PP2PQP1/4K2R

1.Qf6? – 2.Qe5#, 1...Ke3 2.Qd4#, 1...Ra5 2.Qf3#, 1...d6!

1.0-0? is illegal, for the white king had to move to let the black pawn reach its promotion square (d2-d1B). |
1.0-0? нелегальна, белый король двигался, пропуская черную пешку к полю превращения: …d2-d1B.

1.Rf1! – 2.Qd4#, 1...Re3 2.Qf5#, 1...Rf3 2.Qxf3#, 1...Rd3 2.exd3#
The author tried to enliven the sufficient yet disconnected content by elementary retro proof of castling illegality; but in doing so he was obviously overzealous, forgetting to take into account the promoted white bishop (which is absolutely unnecessary, unlike its black counterpart) in the balance of captures. Therefore, one of the pawns (a2 or h4) can be removed; and if the black b4-pawn is shifted to a3 and the Ra3 to b3, then two pawns – a2 and h4 – can be removed at once. Anyway, the use of retroanalysis here is unjustified from the thematic viewpoint, since absolutely all variants in the phases 1.0-0? and 1.Rf1! are repeated.
EN <-> RU
3rd Commendation - No 1
Fedir Kapustin
TT-213, SuperProblem, 13-09-2018

3rd Commendation - No 1, Fedir Kapustin (Ukraine) 2k5/2pNB3/K4P2/2Q4B/2p5/8/8/2R5

1.f7? 1...Kxd7 2.Bg4#, 1...c3!

1.Qxc4? – 2.Qxc7#, 1...Kxd7 2.Qg4#, 1...c5!

1.Rxc4! – 2.Qxc7#, 1...Kxd7 2.Qf5#, 1...c6 2.Qxc6#.
I had thought that the mechanism from Example 6 in the tourney announcement could be developed considerably; this problem, however, is but a refined version of its two concluding phases. However, there is an example of double rendition of such mechanism – yacpdb/8924.
EN <-> RU

COMMENTS (real-time mode) | КОММЕНТАРИИ посетителей
comments powered by HyperComments

Sections | Разделы

#2 (twomovers | двухходовки)

Participants | Участники

Kapustin F. – No 1
Basisty M. – No 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Müller D. – No 7, 8, 9
Murashev P. – No 10A, 10B, 11
Navon E. – No 12*
Einat P. – No 12*
Labai Z. – No 13
Érsek T. – No 14
Halma M. – No 15
Gorbatenko Y. – No 16, 17

The Winner | Победитель

Yury Gorbatenko
Congrats! | Поздравляем!

Judge | Арбитр

Anatoly Vasilenko

Director and editor
Директор и редактор

Aleksey Oganesjan

Comments | Комментарии

show | показать