Final Award in Quick Composing TT-253 | Окончательные итоги блицконкурса TT-253

Successive AUW | Последовательный AUW

Theme | Тема

6 entries were received from 3 authors representing 2 countries | На конкурс поступило 6 композиций от 3 авторов из 2 стран

EN <-> RU

Many thanks to three “daredevils” who dared to take part in such a difficult tourney!
I have received 6 problems. Initially I decided to include all problems in the award. However, after some hesitation I excluded one problem – No 4 (Kb3-Ka5).
In a solution of this problem, there are only promotions in Queen, Rook and Bishop but in diagram position Black Knight stands on 1st rank and it can be proved (by simple retro-reasoning) that last Black move was a Pawn promotion in this Knight.

On the one hand, it is original approach to the theme, even despite an “edge” of problem’s thematics – after all, according to the terms of the tourney, it is implied that all four promotions appear in actual solution.

On the other hand, there are several important things:
1) if the author could “substantiate” (by retro-reasoning) a presence of not one but at once two promoted pieces (not to mention all four retro-promotions – as in famous problem of Andrey Frolkin: «Die Schwalbe», 1979), it would be quite justified and had a "touch of conceptuality". But with the only promoted piece, author’s “focus” is explained not so much by the original approach, but primarily by the fact that he failed to do #7 where after key Black promote Pawn exactly in Knight.
2) in the solution itself, this promoted Knight are captured on 1st move at once and after that once more two rough captures follow (these captures are need only for thematic promotion in Queen);
3) all further simple play with self-stalemating and unstalemating, which follows after these captures, overlaps with play in excellent No 5 of the same author where he managed to do everything in good logic form. So, in the presence of distinguished No 5, I see virtually no reason to include also No 4 in the award.

Award is the following | Отличия распределились следующим образом

Prize - No 5
Grigory Popov
TT-253, SuperProblem, 07-05-2021
Special Hon. mention - No 3
Grigory Popov
TT-253, SuperProblem, 07-05-2021
Commendation - No 6
Frank Richter
TT-253, SuperProblem, 07-05-2021

Prize - No 5, Grigory Popov (Russia) 8/5p1P/5P1N/5P2/5P2/2P1Ppp1/2K1prpp/4kbR1

Initially a main plan 1.h8Q? h1B(S)! 2.Kb2! (Qd8? pat) 2...Kd2 3.Qd8+ Ke1 is not success in view of own Pawn e3 – 4.Qb6 Kd2 5.Qd4+ Ke1, and not 6.Qe3?? Kd1 7.Qc1#.
In a foreplan (that includes all four thematic promotions) White not only get rid of this Pawn but also lead Black Pawn on its place – it will be very important, as we will see at the end of solution.
1.Sg4! (2.Se5 ~ 3.Sd3#) 1...h1B! 2.Sh2 gxh2 3.h8S! hxg1R! 4.Sg6 fxg6 5.f7 gxf5! 6.e4 fxe4 7.f8Q! e3 8.Kb2 Kd1(d2) 9.Qd6+! (Qd8+?) 9...Ke1.
If now, as initially, White plays 10.Qb6? Kd2 11.Qd4+ Ke1 12.Qxe3 Kd1 13.Qc1# then White will be one move late. But now a square e3 is occupied by bP, so White Queen is not need to guard e3 when bK stands on d2. That’s why now in the main plan White corrects a wQ route to c1 using opened 6th rank:
10.Qg6! Kd1(d2) 11.Qc2+ Ke1 12.Qc1#

Good logical problem – for collection of “problems-extras” (in Russian – «задачи-статисты») that are propagandize by Ferhat Karmil. A judge of the tourney himself very like logical problems where after a foreplan, the main plan changes a little – this is a little bit more interesting. So the judge enjoyed this problem.
EN <-> RU

Special Honorable mention - No 3, Grigory Popov (Russia) 8/2P1P1PP/8/B7/1P5b/8/p1p1B2N/Kbk5

1.g8S! Be1 2.c8R! Bf2 3.h8B! Kd2 4.e8Q! Be3 5.Bb6! Bxb6 (5...Kxe2 6.Qxe3+ Kd1 7.Rd8#) 6.Sf3+ Kc1 7.Bb2#
Among sent, it is the only problem with pure White AUW.

When seeing the solution, everything seems clear and original:
1) at first, in order to prevent a mate, White must promote one Pawn in Knight;
2) at second, in order to prevent both mate and pat, White must promote two another Pawns not in Queen but in Rook and Bishop;
3) and, at final, when Black doesn’t threat, White can promote once more Pawn in Queen in order to finish a solution.

But there are two important things:
1) pointed out main variation and branching on 5th move are almost the only full-length variations without duals that the author managed to “fish out” among a “sea” of huge number of computer variations. Of course, in examples of TT announcement we see almost the same in some places. But that examples belong to the first half of 20th century…
2) first, second and third moves very clearly remind me of the ending of... Korolkov’s study (pdb/P0002380, start from 10th move)!

But, at first, problem and study are completely different genres. At second I repeat that the solution itself of this problem is very clear and the light form pleases the eye (which cannot be said about Korolkov’s study). At third, in this problem (in contradistinction to two examples and to pdb/P1291214) all four White promotions are made without check that a little harder and more valuable, in my opinion. That’s why I had no doubts about including this problem in the award. But the above things determined a rank and a specialty of its distinction.
EN <-> RU

Commendation - No 6, Frank Richter (Germany) 8/3p4/1P1P4/1Pp5/3BPp1P/5P1p/2K1pRpp/4kbN1

1.Bxc5! (2.Sxh3 ~ 3.Bb4#) 1...hxg1R! 2.b7 h2 3.b8S! h1B! (3...h1Q 4.Sxd7 Qh3 5.Se5 – 6.Sd3#, 5...Qxf3 6.Sxf3#) 4.Sc6 dxc6 5.d7 cxb5 6.d8Q! b4 7.Qd2#
Key with a capture and a departure of Bishop from the attack, of course, not very lucky. Nevertheless this key has a little “twist”: the very fact of this capture allows Black to start his counter play for self-stalemating.
This problem is similar to No 5 in a scheme of the self-stalemating and partially in a play that here is much simpler and, unlike to No 5, doesn’t contain a precise logic. That is why – only a commendation.
EN <-> RU
Special Commendation - No 2
Igor Agapov
TT-253, SuperProblem, 07-05-2021
Special Commendation - No 1
Igor Agapov
TT-253, SuperProblem, 07-05-2021

Special Commendation - No 2, Igor Agapov (Russia) 1K6/2PPp1P1/P3P3/3N1k2/2N5/8/pp3PB1/1R6

1.c8Q! – 2.g8Q – 3.Qcf8#
1...a1B! 2.g8R! Kxe6 3.d8S#!
1...Kg6(g5,g4) 2.g8Q+ Kh6(h5,h4) 3.Rh1#
A try 1.d8Q? – 2.g8Q – 3.Qdf8# is refuted: 1...a1B! 2.g8R Kxe6 3.c8Q(B)#? Kf7!
But here it is easy to see that in final position a Knight (not Queen) must stand on d8 – so King does not run away on f7. That’s why White must promote another Pawn on 1st move with the same threat and hold back d Pawn for promotion in Knight.

Much to our regret, as it turned out after preliminary results, this is not first realization of successive AUW in #3 – the problem yacpdb/225464 has the same scheme. The merit of the author of this problem lies only in a more aesthetic diagram position and in additional variation where wR plays.
EN <-> RU

Special Commendation - No 1, Igor Agapov (Russia) 8/PPP4P/1Nk5/2b5/K7/2R5/ppp5/QbR5

*1...Kxc7 2.b8Q+ Kc6 3.a8Q(B)#
1.h8Q? – 2.c8Q+/b8Q, 1...bxc1Q(B) 2.c8Q+ Kxb6 3.b8Q#, 1...Kd6 2.Qf6+ Kxc7 3.b8Q#, 1...Kxb6!
1.c8S! – 2.b8Q(B)
1...bxa1R! 2.b8B! Kb7 3.a8Q#!
1...bxc1Q 2.Rxc5+! Kxc5 3.Qc3#!, 2...Kxb7 3.a8Q#
(1...Kc7 2.Rxc5+ Kxb7 3.a8Q#, 2...Kd8 3.h8Q(R)#)
Besides a key with taking of 2 flights, here there is more serious shortcoming – dual threat 2.b8Q(B) that is only corrected in thematic variation after 1...bxa1R.

And, nonetheless, the problem is quite important for the history of realization of successive AUW in #3 – so I decided to include the problem in the award too. I liked additional variation with sacrifice of Rook on c5 where White Queen, previously standing in an ambush corner, unexpectedly and victoriously bursts into the square from which this Rook has just left.

The pointed out set play and try:
- at first, give (in conjunction with the solution) change-play on 1...K(x)c7 and 1...bxc1Q;
- at second, contains the promotions that are not in actual solution.
EN <-> RU

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