A masterpiece! The author brilliantly solved two main problems of this great idea: possible technical pieces
(Knight and Pawn) and boring repetition typical of such cyclic mechanisms.
The idea is also known from Kiryakov’s study (1 PR EG 2021), but the work of art cannot be anticipated by worse attempts.
The same thing happened earlier with the beautiful work of Korolkov (1 PR Lelo 1951), where there is a huge similarity to Selman’s study (1 PR Tijdschrift v.d. KNSB 1949).
It is a pity that another (pgn below) strategic (thematic) work (based on: 1/2 PR Bazlov Tata Steel-75 AT 2013) was recognized as plagiarism (Serhiy Didukh and his friends).
There is a problem with copying and pasting the above pgn. Some pgn-readers do not read it correctly. For this purpose, another notation is added: Marek Kwiatkowski; original; 2024; win
FEN: 8/2KP4/7P/8/1b2q1kP/1R6/4N3/8 w – – 0 1
1. Rg3+ Kh5!2. Rg5+! Kxh4 3. d8=Q Be7 fork X1 4. Rh5+!! Kxh5 5. Ng3+ fork Y1 5… Kxh6 6. Qd2+! [Bazlov 2013] Bg5 7. Qh2+ Qh4 8. Nf5+ fork X2 Kh5! 9. Qe2+! (9. Nxh4? Bf4+! fork Y2 10. Qxf4 stalemate) Qg4 10. Qe8#
twice fork X is neutralized by fork Y (complex strategy – theme)
Marek Kwiatkowski
1 year ago
There are frequent allusions to the authorship (tablebases) of such chess studies. It is a total hypocrisy and stupidity. Many great works were recently created using tablebases and computer chess engines. But, as here, the final, magnificent form was achieved thanks to the human sense of beauty.
A sensational discovery comparable to Saavedra & Barbier (1895). Only thanks to tablebases I set up the following spectacular version of Bruno Breider; 3rd PR Joseph JT 1965.
FEN: 5N2/1K6/8/6pp/8/N1p5/8/k7 w – – 0 1
And a wonderful, thematic try (overload as a reversal of the fork motif) appeared by itself:
1. Ne6? g4 2. Nf4 h4 3. Nc2+ Kb1! 4. Ne3 g3 5. Kc6 g2!! {overload -+}
When the knights try to cooperate in the try to stop the black pawns, they are overloaded and therefore have to fight alone, using forks (smart tactics) after promotions.
It is a complex strategic theme in the perfect form (miniature).
Such tablebase discoveries (found rather than set) have one positive feature, that they can be complimented by the discoverer.
The master of self-delight is Serhiy Didukh, who awarded his version
(eg.org.ua/chessgame/van-breukeleng-0016-23c8h5-v/) of the wonderful van Breukelen work (Schakend Nederland 1990) 4 points.
Useful value (good puzzle) is one of the most important features of chess problems, and it was brutally lowered by thoughtless cutting out of the effective and necessary intro-combination sacrificing the knight and bringing the black king to the wrong square, from the author’s version.
Van Breukelen’s immortal work ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/van-breukeleng-0047-24d6h7-v/ ) has the huge number of reprints on the Internet.
This unnecessary (Didukh) version received full support (positive comment, 4 points) only from Martin Minsky.
The beauty of chess problems is also the content, its richness and attractiveness.
Attractiveness understood here in the sense of usefulness for solvers (the genesis of chess composition). Its negation (diminishing) is like detaching oneself from reality (a disease?).
Van Breukelen’s work (Schakend Nederland 1990) can be compared to the surprising and effective one by Andrzej Jasik (1st PR PZSzach Polish Ty. 2024).
Unfortunately, another scandalous attack on judge Jan Rusinek (PZSzach Polish Ty. 2024) and works of Polish composers on “Chess Study Art” is already hostility rather than intolerance of other views.
BTW. It’s a pity that this text can’t be on “Chess Study Art (Polish Ty. 2024)” too.
Of course after 5.. g2!! in this new thematic try (above version of Bruno Breider work) there is 6. Nexg2 (6. Nfxg2 h3) c2 -+, what makes this overload theme (idea) clear. It is very important for strategic studies.
Another solid improvement is the thematic try I recently found in the famous brilliant work of Birnov 2nd PR Trud 1947.
The forced key 1. Rg7+ now has a valuable alternative 1. Kb5? c1Q 2. Rg7+ Be7!, where 2.. Be7! is similar to 5.. d5! (solution) by symmetrical logic of sacrifices.
BTW. I am interested (versions, interpretations) only (!) in potential works of art.
Two weeks later Didukh reports the same discovery, regarding to “Birnov 2nd PR Trud 1947”, here: eg.org.ua/chessgame/birnovz-0130-12c4c7/
Interestingly, I had previously sent him this on Chess Study Art (he did not accept it).
Such perceptiveness is reserved mainly for artists. 🙂
Why this magnificent work should be considered incorrect: Kolesnikov 1st PR Szachmaty Vestnik 1993
(eg.org.ua/chessgame/kolesnikove-0300-31g7f5/) ?
This is a question for observant composers (artists), mainly. 🙂
Jan Rusinek’s “masterpiece” (John Roycroft New Statesman 1971 – judge) has been reprinted and admired “everywhere and by everyone” for over 50 years. In reality, this is just a clever illusion. Everyone sees only three wonderful weak promotions, but the rest of the content is ignored. There are two serious aesthetic flaws (principles) and two important formal (dual) faults in hidden thematic threads. This is too much to use a compromise.
What went wrong with Rusinek’s “masterpiece” (New Statesman 1971)?
The problems begin after: 5… Ne5! and the comment “Black flips the knight to c6 to closure the sixth line“.
This sounds logical, so a try is expected to prove it. For example: (logical try) 5… Bf1? (appears in the main line later!) 6. b8Q! Ba6+ 7. Qb7 Ne4 8. Qxa6 Nd6#?? 9. Qxd6 and that would be a great thread for this study. Unfortunately, 6. b8N (dual) is not welcome. But an important problem is that the further promotion (main line) 6. b8R also leads to a draw here, and this aesthetic defect means that any logical subtext of 5… Ne5 is just a trick (illusion).
And now the domino effect (missing logic) begins.
After (main line) 5… Ne5 6. Kb8 Nc6+ 7. Kc8 Bf1 promotion 8. b8Q? is no longer the main logical move and all promotions are thematic here, hence that hidden 8. b8B? leading to dual should not be omitted.
Moreover 9… Ne4, which ends this study, makes no sense and this piece is a serious aesthetic defect.
What went wrong (incorrect) in Kolesnikov’s study: 1st PR Szachmaty Vestnik 1993
(eg.org.ua/chessgame/kolesnikove-0300-31g7f5/)? After 8… Rh8 (author’s solution) there is a serious dual 9. c8Q and 9. c8R. This is not a joke. Black has a better move 8… Ra8 with only 9. c8Q! and now this wonderful study is correct.
BTW. There was $1000 for a good answer here. 🙂
Marek Kwiatkowski
1 year ago
In general, we can divide studies into artistic and “non-artistic” (I can’t find a better name). The latter include: strategic studies, modern (logical) or puzzles, i.e. everything where the authors have shifted the quality to the content, and requirements regarding the form are limited to “the best possible form for the content”. So whoever questions the form (principles) should prove it.
Why is this division so important? Without this, what is old and “19th century” will continue endlessly. Who is against such a division? Of course, craftsmen. They do not feel beauty, therefore principles and compromise (something that only makes sense in artistic works) should, in their opinion, apply to every study, and they as “artists” will decide whether, in their opinion, the principles have not been broken (“catch-22”).
Being a good craftsman is not bad as long as you don’t try to influence works (views) of others, and unfortunately that happens, hence this text.
The best example of the validity of such a division is definitely the wonderful work of the grandmaster of studies: Becker sp.hm Phenix 2022 (eg.org.ua/chessgame/beckerr-3403-32f5f8/). Blinded lovers of aesthetic rules (principles) will point out here: forced play, dead rook e8 being killed, passive (until the end) black queen a1, pawn g2 ready for promotion and what is very important to them: passive black knight c4 participating in the final model checkmate.
And this is probably enough to use the “catch-22”, and this sensational work to go to the trash.
Unless someone feels the beauty of this super-funny and extremely difficult to implement content. An extraordinary dance of three white knights with geometric motifs in the final (the horizontal line changes into a vertical one with model checkmate!). All these knights are promoted (!), and in the initial position none of the three white pawns is on the seventh rank (!). The check moves are made of seven different pieces (!), what certainly does not produce the effect of mechanical, and may be a record.
Steffen Nielsen (Chess Study Art): “The knight arriving on c4 (early in the solution) would make a world of difference.”
In the newest (hot) book “The Fine Art of the Royal Game” Oleg Pervakov quotes: “It is a grotesque misapprehension which sees in art no more than a craft comprehensible perfectly only to craftsman: art is a manifestation of emotion, and emotion speaks a language that all may understand.” (W. Somerset Maugham, The Moon and Sixpence).
Next, it is listed: “Criteria for evaluating endgame studies … by the outstanding grandmaster Genrikh Kasparyan.” with the first point “Simplicity and naturalness of the nitial position”, which was changed by Pervakov to “Proportionality of form and difficulty of idea implementation.”.
It sounds twisted (like adequate form) and is far from “the best possible form”, and the possible criticism (“catch-22”) still does not require proof of a better form. Moreover, acceptance of form remains only a compromise.
Last edited 1 year ago by Marek Kwiatkowski
Marek Kwiatkowski
1 year ago
Where (what) is the difference between an artist and a good craftsman. It is a choice, if there is a possibility to do it. An unnecessary or poorly chosen introduction is the main problem of study composers.
It happens in the famous Rusinek’s 1/2.p Szachy 1971 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/rusinekj-4310-44g1g4/ ) where is added ugly and obvious key 1. h3+ Kh4. Moreover, it is damaged (again) 13. g3# and 13. Bc7 dual in the main line. Hence the following version and smart logical interpretation is nedeed:
5Q2/3P4/rq3B2/6pp/7k/4p2P/1pP3P1/6K1 w – – 0 1
{White tries (1. Bxg5?) to destroy the main defender (g5 pawn) of the black king, but it ends in a surprising draw. So the white bishop unpins the black pawn (the key) and forces its move, and then mates with a return move (switchback).}
1. Be5 $1 (1. Bxg5+ $2 Kxg5 3. d8=Q+ Qxd8 4. Qxd8+ Rf6 5.h4+ $1 Kg6 6. Qg8+ Kh6 7. Qg5+ Kh7 8. Qxh5+ Kg7 9. Qg5+ Kh7 $1 10. Qxf6 b1=Q+ 11. Kh2 {= f.e.} Qxc2 12. Qe7+ Kg8 13. Qxe3 $11) 1.. e2+ 2. Kh2 Qg1+ $1 3. Kxg1 Ra1+ (3.. e1=Q+ {main} 4. Qf1 $1 (4. Kh2 $2 Qxe5+) 4.. Qxf1+ 5. Kh2 $1 Qf2 6. d8=Q b1=Q 7. Qd4+ $1) 4. Kh2 Rh1+ $1 5. Kxh1 e1=Q+ 6. Qf1 $1 Qxf1+ (6.. Qxe5 7. Qf2+ Qg3 8. Qd4+) 7. Kh2 Qf2 8. d8=Q Qg1+ $1 9. Kxg1 b1=Q+ 10. Qd1 $1 (10. Kh2 $2 Qh1+ 11. Kxh1) 10.. Qxd1+ 11. Kh2 g4 12. Bf6# {switchback} 1-0
This version ends a tragicomic story (“Trojan horse”) of this study: incorrect earlier version ( pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=POSITION%3D’wBh3 wBg2 ssh2 wKg1′ ).
A few examples of works by other outstanding composers. All these following attempts lead to waste of works of art:
Pervakov 1.p UAPA-22-B2 2023 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/pervakovo-3544-10h8c6/ ) cut to 4. Nb4+
Minski 1/3.p Seven Chess Notes 2023 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/minskim-0041-11c8g4/ ) cut to 4. Ne5
Minski 1.p Slovak Chess Union 2024 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/minskim-3813-43a4a6/ ) cut to 4. Rd1 (1. d7!)
Pervakov & Gromov 1.p Gravura 2018 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/pervakovo-gromovm-4410-03c3f6/ ) cut to 4 Bf4+
The mentioned dual 13. Bc7 (Rusinek 1/2.p Szachy 1971) can be considered a waste of time, but it should be shown (explained) in the solution, and then the finale becomes ugly.
I also wonder why Jan Rusinek chose 12.. Qe2 instead of the obvious 12.. Qxc2 to take off this technical pawn.
Jan Timman adds the black pawn e2 (Jan Timman 2024 “100 Endgame Studies You Must Know”). Poor taste? 🙂
Didukh’s version is as usual unnecessary. 🙂
All versions are based on the beautiful work of Kasparyan ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/kasparyang-4040-22h1h4/ ).
It would be good to add something about this “loss of time dual” after 12 .. Qe2 in the Rusinek study (1/2 PR Szachy 1971). It is rather known as a “dual of longer path”. Instead of immediate 13. Bg3# is also possible 13. Bc7 Qf2 14. Bd6 Qf4+ 15. g3+ Qxg3 16. Bxg3# and unfortunately both finale positions are different.
In Timman’s version, the black queen goes to e1 (not e2), which makes these two positions identical. Does it mean that only the version of Timman can be considered correct? 🙂
In both versions of Rusinek and Timman it is impossible to get the same position (prove waste of time) after a dual move in a clear and convincing way (without duals). Nevertheless, here it happens – an obvious waste of time. This means that you don’t have to get exactly the same position, and sometimes it can also be the same idea.
A very good example is the great work of Louis Miguel Gonzalez (1st pt FIDE World Cup 2023). But to call it a masterpiece, it should be continued (main line) by: 28. Kg6 Kg1! (instead of 28… a2) 29. Kf5 g2 30. Ke4 Kf2 31. Rf7+ Kg3 32. Nd4! a2 33. Ne2+ Kg4 34. Rg7+ Kh5 35. Ng3+ Kh6 36. Nf5+ Kh5 37. Kf4 a1=Q 38. Rg5#.
Waste of time after the mindless: 28. Re8 Kg1 29. Rg8 Kf2 30. Rf8+ Ke2 31. Re8+ Kf1 32. Kg6 Kg1 can be a stimulant here only for craftsmen and pharmacists.
Last edited 1 year ago by Marek Kwiatkowski
Marek Kwiatkowski
1 year ago
Using tablebases I discovered (found or maybe stole) a classic of classics (original). 🙂
After 12. Ka7! that position is theoretically won (many simple winning maneuvers of the white knight).
Knight endings are wonderful and underrated. The best example is Peter Krug’s masterpiece (1. HM Sachova
Skladba 2022) with a slightly modified solution.
My above “malyutka” (max. 5 pieces) has got a great analogous friend.
In the latest Arves award (arves.org/arves/index.php/en/awards/awards-replayable/1755-magyar-sakkvilag-2024) judge Jan Sprenger found (cuting out unnecessary introduction) in the Gurganidze miniature a better version
(arves.org/arves/images/PDF-Awards/MSV-2024.pdf). Both super-miniatures are very surprising and clear in content.
Of course I especially recommend Tarasiuk’s masterpiece (1st PR of this tournament). Again, a miniature and like all the others here (and Marek Halski’s masterpiece as the main reason for my comments) proves that artists can use tablebases in a brilliant way.
Craftsmen will only complain about computers, remembering the good times when their incorrect works won awards. Today they are unable to use technology to add a good (if needed !) introduction to their works.
Tarasiuk’s work could be a masterpiece, but only with this solution. Note the move 6.. Rd6!! (very deep counterplay) completely omitted by the author and the judge. Of course, it is also good to avoid spoilers.
A masterpiece! The author brilliantly solved two main problems of this great idea: possible technical pieces
(Knight and Pawn) and boring repetition typical of such cyclic mechanisms.
The idea is also known from Kiryakov’s study (1 PR EG 2021), but the work of art cannot be anticipated by worse attempts.
The same thing happened earlier with the beautiful work of Korolkov (1 PR Lelo 1951), where there is a huge similarity to Selman’s study (1 PR Tijdschrift v.d. KNSB 1949).
It is a pity that another (pgn below) strategic (thematic) work (based on: 1/2 PR Bazlov Tata Steel-75 AT 2013) was recognized as plagiarism (Serhiy Didukh and his friends).
[Event “original”]
[Date “2024”]
[White “Marek Kwiatkowski]
[Black “”]
[Result “1-0”]
[SetUp “1”]
[FEN “8/2KP4/7P/8/1b2q1kP/1R6/4N3/8 w – – 0 1”]
[PlyCount “19”]
1. Rg3+ Kh5 $1 (1… Kxh4 2. d8=Q+) 2. Rg5+ $1 Kxh4 3. d8=Q Be7 {fork X1 } 4. Rh5+ $3 (4. Qd5 $2 Qc2+ $1 5.
Kd7 Bxg5 $11) 4… Kxh5 5. Ng3+ {fork Y1 } Kxh6 6. Qd2+ $1 (6. Qh8+ $2 Qh7) 6… Bg5 7. Qh2+ Qh4 8. Nf5+ {fork X2 } Kh5 $1 9. Qe2+ $1 (9. Nxh4 $2 Bf4+ $1 {fork Y2 } 10. Qxf4 {stalemate }) 9… Qg4 10. Qe8# {twice fork X is neutralized by fork Y (complex strategy – theme)}1-0
There is a problem with copying and pasting the above pgn. Some pgn-readers do not read it correctly. For this purpose, another notation is added:
Marek Kwiatkowski; original; 2024; win
FEN: 8/2KP4/7P/8/1b2q1kP/1R6/4N3/8 w – – 0 1
1. Rg3+ Kh5!2. Rg5+! Kxh4 3. d8=Q Be7 fork X1 4. Rh5+!! Kxh5 5. Ng3+ fork Y1 5… Kxh6 6. Qd2+! [Bazlov 2013] Bg5 7. Qh2+ Qh4 8. Nf5+ fork X2 Kh5! 9. Qe2+! (9. Nxh4? Bf4+! fork Y2 10. Qxf4 stalemate) Qg4 10. Qe8#
twice fork X is neutralized by fork Y (complex strategy – theme)
There are frequent allusions to the authorship (tablebases) of such chess studies. It is a total hypocrisy and stupidity. Many great works were recently created using tablebases and computer chess engines. But, as here, the final, magnificent form was achieved thanks to the human sense of beauty.
A sensational discovery comparable to Saavedra & Barbier (1895). Only thanks to tablebases I set up the following spectacular version of Bruno Breider; 3rd PR Joseph JT 1965.
FEN: 5N2/1K6/8/6pp/8/N1p5/8/k7 w – – 0 1
And a wonderful, thematic try (overload as a reversal of the fork motif) appeared by itself:
1. Ne6? g4 2. Nf4 h4 3. Nc2+ Kb1! 4. Ne3 g3 5. Kc6 g2!! {overload -+}
The solution (same as in the original): 1. Nb5! c2 2. Nd4 c1=Q (2.. Kb1 3. Nxc2 Kxc2 4. Ne6! g4 5. Ng7! (5. Nf4? g3 6. Kc6 Kd2 7. Kd5 Ke3 8. Ke5 Kf3 9. Kf5 h4 10. Kg5 g2! {overload} 11. Nxg2 h3!) 5.. g3 (5.. h4 6. Nf5 h3 7. Ne3+ {fork}) 6. Nf5 g2 7. Ne3+ {fork} Kd3 8. Nxg2) 3. Nb3+ {fork} 3.. Kb1 4. Nxc1 Kxc1 5. Nh7! (5. Ne6? g4 6. Ng7 h4 7. Nf5 h3 {-+}) 5.. g4 6. Nf6 g3 7. Nxh5 g2 8. Nf4 g1=Q 9. Ne2+ {fork} Kd2 10. Nxg1 {=}
When the knights try to cooperate in the try to stop the black pawns, they are overloaded and therefore have to fight alone, using forks (smart tactics) after promotions.
It is a complex strategic theme in the perfect form (miniature).
Such tablebase discoveries (found rather than set) have one positive feature, that they can be complimented by the discoverer.
The master of self-delight is Serhiy Didukh, who awarded his version
(eg.org.ua/chessgame/van-breukeleng-0016-23c8h5-v/) of the wonderful van Breukelen work (Schakend Nederland 1990) 4 points.
Useful value (good puzzle) is one of the most important features of chess problems, and it was brutally lowered by thoughtless cutting out of the effective and necessary intro-combination sacrificing the knight and bringing the black king to the wrong square, from the author’s version.
Van Breukelen’s immortal work ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/van-breukeleng-0047-24d6h7-v/ ) has the huge number of reprints on the Internet.
This unnecessary (Didukh) version received full support (positive comment, 4 points) only from Martin Minsky.
The beauty of chess problems is also the content, its richness and attractiveness.
Attractiveness understood here in the sense of usefulness for solvers (the genesis of chess composition). Its negation (diminishing) is like detaching oneself from reality (a disease?).
Van Breukelen’s work (Schakend Nederland 1990) can be compared to the surprising and effective one by Andrzej Jasik (1st PR PZSzach Polish Ty. 2024).
Unfortunately, another scandalous attack on judge Jan Rusinek (PZSzach Polish Ty. 2024) and works of Polish composers on “Chess Study Art” is already hostility rather than intolerance of other views.
BTW. It’s a pity that this text can’t be on “Chess Study Art (Polish Ty. 2024)” too.
Of course after 5.. g2!! in this new thematic try (above version of Bruno Breider work) there is 6. Nexg2 (6. Nfxg2 h3) c2 -+, what makes this overload theme (idea) clear. It is very important for strategic studies.
Another solid improvement is the thematic try I recently found in the famous brilliant work of Birnov 2nd PR Trud 1947.
The forced key 1. Rg7+ now has a valuable alternative 1. Kb5? c1Q 2. Rg7+ Be7!, where 2.. Be7! is similar to 5.. d5! (solution) by symmetrical logic of sacrifices.
BTW. I am interested (versions, interpretations) only (!) in potential works of art.
Two weeks later Didukh reports the same discovery, regarding to “Birnov 2nd PR Trud 1947”, here: eg.org.ua/chessgame/birnovz-0130-12c4c7/
Interestingly, I had previously sent him this on Chess Study Art (he did not accept it).
Such perceptiveness is reserved mainly for artists. 🙂
Why this magnificent work should be considered incorrect: Kolesnikov 1st PR Szachmaty Vestnik 1993
(eg.org.ua/chessgame/kolesnikove-0300-31g7f5/) ?
This is a question for observant composers (artists), mainly. 🙂
Additional question to help. Why can “Jan Rusinek 1st PR New Statesman 1971” be considered incorrect?
Jan Rusinek’s “masterpiece” (John Roycroft New Statesman 1971 – judge) has been reprinted and admired “everywhere and by everyone” for over 50 years. In reality, this is just a clever illusion. Everyone sees only three wonderful weak promotions, but the rest of the content is ignored. There are two serious aesthetic flaws (principles) and two important formal (dual) faults in hidden thematic threads. This is too much to use a compromise.
What went wrong with Rusinek’s “masterpiece” (New Statesman 1971)?
The problems begin after: 5… Ne5! and the comment “Black flips the knight to c6 to closure the sixth line“.
This sounds logical, so a try is expected to prove it. For example: (logical try) 5… Bf1? (appears in the main line later!) 6. b8Q! Ba6+ 7. Qb7 Ne4 8. Qxa6 Nd6#?? 9. Qxd6 and that would be a great thread for this study. Unfortunately, 6. b8N (dual) is not welcome. But an important problem is that the further promotion (main line) 6. b8R also leads to a draw here, and this aesthetic defect means that any logical subtext of 5… Ne5 is just a trick (illusion).
And now the domino effect (missing logic) begins.
After (main line) 5… Ne5 6. Kb8 Nc6+ 7. Kc8 Bf1 promotion 8. b8Q? is no longer the main logical move and all promotions are thematic here, hence that hidden 8. b8B? leading to dual should not be omitted.
Moreover 9… Ne4, which ends this study, makes no sense and this piece is a serious aesthetic defect.
What went wrong (incorrect) in Kolesnikov’s study: 1st PR Szachmaty Vestnik 1993
(eg.org.ua/chessgame/kolesnikove-0300-31g7f5/)? After 8… Rh8 (author’s solution) there is a serious dual 9. c8Q and 9. c8R. This is not a joke. Black has a better move 8… Ra8 with only 9. c8Q! and now this wonderful study is correct.
BTW. There was $1000 for a good answer here. 🙂
In general, we can divide studies into artistic and “non-artistic” (I can’t find a better name). The latter include: strategic studies, modern (logical) or puzzles, i.e. everything where the authors have shifted the quality to the content, and requirements regarding the form are limited to “the best possible form for the content”. So whoever questions the form (principles) should prove it.
Why is this division so important? Without this, what is old and “19th century” will continue endlessly. Who is against such a division? Of course, craftsmen. They do not feel beauty, therefore principles and compromise (something that only makes sense in artistic works) should, in their opinion, apply to every study, and they as “artists” will decide whether, in their opinion, the principles have not been broken (“catch-22”).
Being a good craftsman is not bad as long as you don’t try to influence works (views) of others, and unfortunately that happens, hence this text.
The best example of the validity of such a division is definitely the wonderful work of the grandmaster of studies: Becker sp.hm Phenix 2022 (eg.org.ua/chessgame/beckerr-3403-32f5f8/). Blinded lovers of aesthetic rules (principles) will point out here: forced play, dead rook e8 being killed, passive (until the end) black queen a1, pawn g2 ready for promotion and what is very important to them: passive black knight c4 participating in the final model checkmate.
And this is probably enough to use the “catch-22”, and this sensational work to go to the trash.
Unless someone feels the beauty of this super-funny and extremely difficult to implement content. An extraordinary dance of three white knights with geometric motifs in the final (the horizontal line changes into a vertical one with model checkmate!). All these knights are promoted (!), and in the initial position none of the three white pawns is on the seventh rank (!). The check moves are made of seven different pieces (!), what certainly does not produce the effect of mechanical, and may be a record.
Steffen Nielsen (Chess Study Art): “The knight arriving on c4 (early in the solution) would make a world of difference.”
In the newest (hot) book “The Fine Art of the Royal Game” Oleg Pervakov quotes:
“It is a grotesque misapprehension which sees in art no more than a craft comprehensible perfectly only to craftsman: art is a manifestation of emotion, and emotion speaks a language that all may understand.” (W. Somerset Maugham, The Moon and Sixpence).
Next, it is listed: “Criteria for evaluating endgame studies … by the outstanding grandmaster Genrikh Kasparyan.” with the first point “Simplicity and naturalness of the nitial position”, which was changed by Pervakov to “Proportionality of form and difficulty of idea implementation.”.
It sounds twisted (like adequate form) and is far from “the best possible form”, and the possible criticism (“catch-22”) still does not require proof of a better form. Moreover, acceptance of form remains only a compromise.
Where (what) is the difference between an artist and a good craftsman. It is a choice, if there is a possibility to do it. An unnecessary or poorly chosen introduction is the main problem of study composers.
It happens in the famous Rusinek’s 1/2.p Szachy 1971 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/rusinekj-4310-44g1g4/ ) where is added ugly and obvious key 1. h3+ Kh4. Moreover, it is damaged (again) 13. g3# and 13. Bc7 dual in the main line. Hence the following version and smart logical interpretation is nedeed:
5Q2/3P4/rq3B2/6pp/7k/4p2P/1pP3P1/6K1 w – – 0 1
{White tries (1. Bxg5?) to destroy the main defender (g5 pawn) of the black king, but it ends in a surprising draw. So the white bishop unpins the black pawn (the key) and forces its move, and then mates with a return move (switchback).}
1. Be5 $1 (1. Bxg5+ $2 Kxg5 3. d8=Q+ Qxd8 4. Qxd8+ Rf6 5.h4+ $1 Kg6 6. Qg8+ Kh6 7. Qg5+ Kh7 8. Qxh5+ Kg7 9. Qg5+ Kh7 $1 10. Qxf6 b1=Q+ 11. Kh2 {= f.e.} Qxc2 12. Qe7+ Kg8 13. Qxe3 $11) 1.. e2+ 2. Kh2 Qg1+ $1 3. Kxg1 Ra1+ (3.. e1=Q+ {main} 4. Qf1 $1 (4. Kh2 $2 Qxe5+) 4.. Qxf1+ 5. Kh2 $1 Qf2 6. d8=Q b1=Q 7. Qd4+ $1) 4. Kh2 Rh1+ $1 5. Kxh1 e1=Q+ 6. Qf1 $1 Qxf1+ (6.. Qxe5 7. Qf2+ Qg3 8. Qd4+) 7. Kh2 Qf2 8. d8=Q Qg1+ $1 9. Kxg1 b1=Q+ 10. Qd1 $1 (10. Kh2 $2 Qh1+ 11. Kxh1) 10.. Qxd1+ 11. Kh2 g4 12. Bf6# {switchback} 1-0
This version ends a tragicomic story (“Trojan horse”) of this study: incorrect earlier version ( pdb.dieschwalbe.de/search.jsp?expression=POSITION%3D’wBh3 wBg2 ssh2 wKg1′ ).
A few examples of works by other outstanding composers. All these following attempts lead to waste of works of art:
Pervakov 1.p UAPA-22-B2 2023 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/pervakovo-3544-10h8c6/ ) cut to 4. Nb4+
Minski 1/3.p Seven Chess Notes 2023 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/minskim-0041-11c8g4/ ) cut to 4. Ne5
Minski 1.p Slovak Chess Union 2024 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/minskim-3813-43a4a6/ ) cut to 4. Rd1 (1. d7!)
Pervakov & Gromov 1.p Gravura 2018 ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/pervakovo-gromovm-4410-03c3f6/ ) cut to 4 Bf4+
The mentioned dual 13. Bc7 (Rusinek 1/2.p Szachy 1971) can be considered a waste of time, but it should be shown (explained) in the solution, and then the finale becomes ugly.
I also wonder why Jan Rusinek chose 12.. Qe2 instead of the obvious 12.. Qxc2 to take off this technical pawn.
Jan Timman adds the black pawn e2 (Jan Timman 2024 “100 Endgame Studies You Must Know”). Poor taste? 🙂
Didukh’s version is as usual unnecessary. 🙂
All versions are based on the beautiful work of Kasparyan ( eg.org.ua/chessgame/kasparyang-4040-22h1h4/ ).
It would be good to add something about this “loss of time dual” after 12 .. Qe2 in the Rusinek study (1/2 PR Szachy 1971). It is rather known as a “dual of longer path”. Instead of immediate 13. Bg3# is also possible 13. Bc7 Qf2 14. Bd6 Qf4+ 15. g3+ Qxg3 16. Bxg3# and unfortunately both finale positions are different.
In Timman’s version, the black queen goes to e1 (not e2), which makes these two positions identical.
Does it mean that only the version of Timman can be considered correct? 🙂
In both versions of Rusinek and Timman it is impossible to get the same position (prove waste of time) after a dual move in a clear and convincing way (without duals). Nevertheless, here it happens – an obvious waste of time.
This means that you don’t have to get exactly the same position, and sometimes it can also be the same idea.
A very good example is the great work of Louis Miguel Gonzalez (1st pt FIDE World Cup 2023). But to call it a masterpiece, it should be continued (main line) by: 28. Kg6 Kg1! (instead of 28… a2) 29. Kf5 g2 30. Ke4 Kf2 31. Rf7+ Kg3 32. Nd4! a2 33. Ne2+ Kg4 34. Rg7+ Kh5 35. Ng3+ Kh6 36. Nf5+ Kh5 37. Kf4 a1=Q 38. Rg5#.
Waste of time after the mindless: 28. Re8 Kg1 29. Rg8 Kf2 30. Rf8+ Ke2 31. Re8+ Kf1 32. Kg6 Kg1 can be a stimulant here only for craftsmen and pharmacists.
Using tablebases I discovered (found or maybe stole) a classic of classics (original). 🙂
7k/8/8/1K6/7n/3N4/1P6/8 w – – 0 1
1. b4! Kg7! (1.. Nf5 2. Kc5! {+-}) 2. Ka6!! Nf5 3. b5 Nd6 4. b6 Kf6 5. Nb2! Ke6 6. Nc4 Ne4! 7. Kb7! Kd5! 8. Ka8!! Nc5 9. Na5! Kd6 10. Nb3 Nd7 11. b7 Kc7 12. Ka7! (12. Nc5? Nb6+ 13. Ka7 Nc8+ {=}) 12.. Nb6!? 13. b8=Q (13. b8=R? Nc8+ {=}) {Excelsior} 1-0
After 12. Ka7! that position is theoretically won (many simple winning maneuvers of the white knight).
Knight endings are wonderful and underrated. The best example is Peter Krug’s masterpiece (1. HM Sachova
Skladba 2022) with a slightly modified solution.
4k1K1/8/7P/3N2n1/2p5/8/8/8 w – – 0 1
1. Kg7 Ne6+ 2. Kg6!! Nf8+ 3. Kf6 Nh7+ (3.. Nd7+ 4. Kg7 Nf8 {main line}) 4. Kg7 Nf8 (4.. Ng5 {main} 5. Kg6 Ne6 6. Nc7+! {+-}) 5. Kg8! Ng6 6. h7 Nh8! 7. Kg7 Nf7 8. Kg6!! (8. Nc3? Ke7 9. Nb5 Nh8 {zz =}) 8.. Nh8+ 9. Kf6 Nf7 10. Kg7 Nh8 11. Nc3 Ke7 12. Nb5! {zz} Ke6 (12.. Nf7 {main} 13. Nd6! {+-}) 13. Na3! ({thematic }13. Nc7+? Kd6!! 14. Kxh8 (14. Nb5+ Ke7! {zz =}) 14.. c3 15. Nb5+ Ke7! 16. Nxc3 Kf8! {zz =}) 13.. c3 14. Nb5 c2 15. Nd4+ {two triangles lead to sacrifices of knight}1-0
A better version of my miniature (added thematic try, and black king moved to h6).
8/8/7k/1K6/7n/3N4/1P6/8 w – – 0 1
1. b4! Kg5! (1.. Nf5 2. Kc5! Kg5 3. b5 {+-}) 2. Ka6!! ({thematic try }2. Kc5? Kf6! 3. b5 Ke7! 4. b6 Kd8! 5. Kc6 Nf5! (5..Ng6? 6. Kb7! Ne7 7. Ka8!! Nd5 8. b7 Nb6+ 9. Kb8! {+-}) 6. b7 Ne7+ 7. Kb6 Nc8+ 8. Ka6 Kc7 {=}) 2.. Nf5 3. b5 Nd6 4. b6 Kf6 5. Nb2! Ke6 6. Nc4 Ne4! 7. Kb7! Kd5! 8. Ka8!! Nc5 9. Na5! Kd6 10. Nb3 Nd7 11. b7 Kc7 12. Ka7! (12. Nc5? Nb6+ 13. Ka7 Nc8+ {=}) {position is theoretically won (many simple winning maneuvers of the white knight), hence a witty finale} 12.. Nb6!? 13. b8=Q (13. b8=R? Nc8+ {=}) {Excelsior} 1-0
My above “malyutka” (max. 5 pieces) has got a great analogous friend.
In the latest Arves award (arves.org/arves/index.php/en/awards/awards-replayable/1755-magyar-sakkvilag-2024)
judge Jan Sprenger found (cuting out unnecessary introduction) in the Gurganidze miniature a better version
(arves.org/arves/images/PDF-Awards/MSV-2024.pdf). Both super-miniatures are very surprising and clear in content.
Of course I especially recommend Tarasiuk’s masterpiece (1st PR of this tournament). Again, a miniature and like all the others here (and Marek Halski’s masterpiece as the main reason for my comments) proves that artists can use tablebases in a brilliant way.
Craftsmen will only complain about computers, remembering the good times when their incorrect works won awards. Today they are unable to use technology to add a good (if needed !) introduction to their works.
Tarasiuk’s work could be a masterpiece, but only with this solution. Note the move 6.. Rd6!! (very deep counterplay) completely omitted by the author and the judge. Of course, it is also good to avoid spoilers.
1. f6! Rg2+ 2. Kh7! Rf2! 3. Kg6! (3. Kg7? c3 4. Nc5 c2 5. Nb3 Rf3 6. Nc1 Rf1 7. Nd3 Rd1 {-+}) 3.. c3 4. Nc5! c2 5. Nb3!! ({logical try} 5. Nd3? Rd2! 6. f7 (6. Nc1 Rd6!! {Rd1 is a waste of time} 7. Kg7 Rd1 8. Ne2 Re1 {-+}) 6.. Rxd3 7. f8=Q Rg3+! (7.. c1=Q? 8. Qf5+) 8. Kh5 c1=Q 9. Qf5+ Kg2! {-+}) 5.. Rf3 {5.. Rb2??} 6. Nc1 Rf1 7. Ne2! Re1 8. f7 Rxe2 9. f8=Q Rg2+! (9.. c1=Q 10. Qf3+) 10. Kh5! c1=Q 11. Qf5+ Kg3 12. Qg4+ Kh2 13. Qf4+!! (13. Qh3+? Kg1! {-+} ) 13.. Qxf4 1/2-1/2