|
|
INTERNET COMPOSING TOURNEY \"SUBOTICA 2009\"
GROUP A: TWOMOVERS
AWARD
PARTICIPANTS:
A. C. Reeves (United Kingdom): 65; Aaron Hirschenson (Israel): 1, 3-5, 7-11, 27, 44, 45, 56; Anatolij Vasylenko (Ukraine): 2; Andreas Schönholzer (Switzerland): 12; Arieh Grinblat (Israel): 29; Boško Milošeski (Macedonia): 21, 33, 51; C. G. S. Narayanan (India): 60, 61; David Shire (United Kingdom): 30-32; Dieter Müller (Germany): 57, 58; Dragan Stojnić (Serbia): 36, 37, 38; Emanuel Navon (Israel): 22, 23, 34, 35; Evgeni Bourd (Israel): 29; Gani Ganapathi (India): 47; Georgi Hadži-Vaskov (Macedonia): 66; Harri Hurme (Finland): 14; Živko Janevski (Macedonia): 15-20; Ingemar Lind (Sweden): 25, 26; Janez Nastran (Slovenia): 28, 62; Menachem Witztum (Israel): 34, 35; Michel Caillaud (France): 67, 68; Miodrag Radomirović (Serbia): 50; Miroslav Kasár (Slovakia): 24; Miroslav Svítek (Czech Republic): 53-55, 63; Nikola Miljaković (Serbia): 64; Oto Mihalčo (Slovakia): 48, 49; Radomir Nikitović (Serbia): 52; Rolf Kohring (Germany): 39-42; Uri Avner (Israel): 43, 59; Valery Kopyl (Ukraine): 46; Vasyl Markovtsy (Ukraine): 6, 13; Yosi Retter (Israel): 44, 45, 56, 69, 70.
JUDGE’S REPORT
First of all I want to express my great pleasure to be a judge of this successful tourney. From the tourney director I received not less than 70(!) uniform diagrams without names of authors. The number of entries was a pleasant surprise for me and I want to express my gratefulness and to congratulate to all participants for their excellent works and wonderful ideas. The most credits for such a big response deserves the proposer of this inspirative theme Marjan Kovačević, who discovered it, recognized its ideal form and clearly defined it. Since Marjan is the author of probably the best interpretation of a paradoxical white correction (I in the Appendix) I think that we should accept his unselfish proposal to recognize a theme in the future under the name of this tourney – Subotica 2009 Internet tourney.
The quality of received works was very high so that I took a freedom to apply a severe criteria in their estimation. Many problems showed similar mechanisms with minimal variations and I selected only the best among them for the reward. Also, I excluded several otherwise very good problems with a thematic variation shown only in the set ply, or in only one phase, which made the thematic content look as incidental or marginal part of the content. There were only few known older examples which showed this theme (mostly in half-thematic form in relation to the defined formula), and I will quote only those which eliminated two candidates for a high ranking.
36 was anticipated by the excellent problem II, while almost the identical mechanism as in 17 had already got its more attractive interpretation in problem III.
Having all this in view, I reached the following decision:
|
1st Prize: No. 37 – Dragan Stojnić, Serbia.
Among the entries showing both types of correction this is the only where a Dombrovskis effect also appears in a Threat correction phase. Beside the Dombrovskis paradox between set play and two tries, this complex and brilliant mechanism contains one more thematic effect in actual play and 2x2 change of mates. The excellent and very important element is a transferred mate (primary threat) Bg8 after the black rook selfpin in try 1.Sd7?. All of this, together with the faultless construction, makes a top class twomover. *1... c5(x) 2. Sc7#(A), 1... Re4(y) 2.Bg8#(B); 1.Se~? ~ 2.Bg8#(B), 1... c5(x) 2.Rd6#, 1... Re4!(y); 1.Sd7!? ~ 2.Sc7#(A), 1... Rd7 2.Bg8#(B), 1... c5!(x); (1.Sxd3? ~ 2.Sc7,Bg8#, 1... Rxd3!); 1.Sf3! ~ 2.Bf7#(B), 1... c5(x) 2.Rxd6#, 1... Re4(y) 2.Bxe4#.
|
#2
|
2nd Prize: No. 14 – Harri Hurme, Finland.
This is an extremely original and creative composition which proves that the presence of generally recognized faults does not necessarily tell anything about the quality of the problem. Indeed, my first impression was that everything was wrang in the conception of this problem. However, after a deeper analysis, I realized that everything the author did was with a forethought and that, like an alchemist, he succeeded to turn the rocks to the gold. It is a fact that the bishop with its random removal (“in the air”) cannot simultaneously make two primary weaknesses (as far as the guard of the squares in the king’s field is concerned), and author utilized it to split the play to two phases, i.e. arbitrary moves along two diagonals. These two tries in a genial combination with so-called “dualistic defences” in set and actual play multiply the thematic content (Dombrovskis effects) which can be here recognized as two parallel system of 3x1 change of mates. Notice that the key is a pure white correction in relation to two white tries since it repeats both weaknesses – abandon of the control over d5 and f5. A masterpiece. *1... Qf4(a) 2.Qd4#(A), 1... Qxg4(b) 2.Qd4#(A); 1.Be~(h1)? ~ 2.Qd4#(A), 1... Qf4(a) 2.Sd7#, 1... Qxg4!(b); 1.Be~(b1)? ~ 2.Qd4#(A), 1... Qxg4(b) 2.Sxg4#, 1... Qf4!(a); 1.Bf5! ~ 2.Qd4#(A), 1... Qf4 2.Rc5#(D), 1... Qxg4 2.Rc5#(D), (1... Kf4 2.Qxc7#) ; (1.e7? ~ 2.Qxc7#, 1... Qg8+!).
|
#2
|
3rd Prize: No. 16 – Živko Janevski, Macedonia.
Another inspired and contentful composition in brilliant construction. Three thematic phases show a third degree white correction with 3x1 change and Dombrovskis effect. Besides, the white knight makes two additional corrections with different refutations, showing a kind of secondary white combination (with two more changes in respect of full notation!). There is another change after the black king’s flight. Among a plenty of fine details I will point out only a splendid double Anti-Lewman effect in removal of the white knight (two-way clearance of lines for the white queen, e5-e3 and f4-d4) and a constructive role of the white king in also a corrective try 1.Sg3?. *1... Re3 2.Qxe5#, 1... Ke3 2.Qf2#, 1... Bb8 2.Qb6#; 1.Se~? ~ 2.Qxe5#, 1... Rhe3!; 1.Sc3!? ~ 2.Qxe5#, 1... Rhe3 2.Sb5#, 1... Rxd3!; 1.Sd2!? ~ 2.Qxe5#, 1... Rhe3 2.Sb3#, 1... Ke3!; 1.Sc5!? ~ 2.Qxe5#, 1... Rhe3 2.Sb3#, 1... Bb8!; 1.Sd6! ~ 2.Qxe5#, 1... Rhe3 2.Sb5#, 1... Ke3 2.Qf4#.
|
#2
|
4th Prize: No. 15 – Živko Janevski, Macedonia.
When we see the maximal number of variations with 5x1 changed mates (task?) in excellent construction no additional comments are needed. We can only applaud to the author. Bravo! *1... Bd6 2.Rf4#, 1... Sxe6,Rgf1,Rbf1 2.Bxg6,Rg4,Qxb7#; 1.Se~? ~ 2.Rf4#, 1... Bd6!; 1.Sxg6!? ~ 2.Rf4#, 1... Bd6 2.Qf5#, 1... Sxg6+ 2.Bxg6#, 1... Sxe6!; 1.Sg4!? ~ 2.Rf4#, 1... Bd6 2.Rxe3#, 1... Rgf1!; 1.Sc6!? ~ 2.Rf4#, 1... Bd6 2.Qd5#, 1... Bxc6 2.Qxc6#, 1... Rbf1!; 1.Sf7! ~ 2.Rf4#, 1... Bd6 2.Sxd6#, 1... Sxe6,Rbf1,Rgf1 2.Bxg6,Qxb7,Rg4#.
|
#2
|
5th Prize: No. 29 – Evgeni Bourd and Arieh Grinblat, Israel.
An exceptionally beautiful mechanism with two thematic variations showing 3x1 and 2x1 change of mates ind in total 5 Dombrovskis effects! After the removal of the knight all thematic mates take place after the black selfpins. The white halfbattery does not have only a visual character, which is demonstrated by tries 1.Bh1? Rf3! and 1.Bg6? ef4!. The only dilema is about the presence of WPh7 which seemingly serves only to disguise the obviousness of the knight’s removal with the apparent variation 1… exf4 2.h8=Q#. *1... Sxe4/Rxe4(a/b) 2.Sb5#(A); 1.Sf~? ~ 2.Sb5#(A), 1... Sxe4!(a); 1.Sxd3!? ~ 2.Sb5#(A), 1... Sxe4(a) 2.Rd8#, 1... cxd3 2.Qb4#, 1... Rxe4!(b); 1.Sfd5! ~ 2.Sb5#(A), 1... Sxe4(a) 2.Qb6#, 1... Rxe4(b) 2.e3#.
|
#2
|
1st HM: No. 6 – Vasyl Markovtsy, Ukraine.
An original and clever idea to double the content by a double threat and refutation after the random removal of the white knight. Two additional tries complete the Rudenko theme, which to some extent puts a question mark to their corrective nature (we could rather speak about some kind of semi, or separative, correction), but in turn significantly contributes to the general impression and to the compactness of the combination as a whole. The 2x2 change is very complex: initial selfblocks with dual avoidance are transformed to selfpins after the key. Despite the WBb7 replaces the queen on the queen’s wing of the board, the WQh7 has the influence in this dirrection in view of control along the masked line h7-c7 in the set play. *1... Qxd5(a) 2.Sc8#(A), 1... Sxd5(b) 2.Sef5#(B); 1.Sd~(Sb3,Se2)? ~ 2.Sc8(A),Sef5(B)#, 1... Qxd5(a),Sxd5(b)!; 1.Sc2!? ~ 2.Sc8(A),Sef5(B)#, 1... Qxd5!(a); 1.Sf3!? ~ 2.Sc8(A),Sef5(B)#, 1... Sxd5!(b); 1.Sdc6! ~ 2.Sc8(A),Sef5(B)#, 1... Qxd5(a) 2.Qxh2#, 1... Sxd5(b) 2.b8Q#.
|
#2
|
2nd HM: No. 61 – C. G. S. Narayanan, India.
An excellent problem of a classic beauty and no less than 4x1 change after the white rook correction! Counting the set play and the fact that one of possible random moves is also on the 3rd rank, the white rook occupies as much as 5 different points on that rank, always with different strategic effect of its location. All of this leaves a fantastic visual effect, resembling to a successive Hultberg manoeuvre, i.e. to its two-move manifestation. If only the unfortunate additional threat 2.fxe5 after 1.Rf3? could have been avoided (which spoils a thematic effect of paradoxical correction) the problem would have certainly deserved a prize. *1... exf4(a) 2.Rg5#(A); 1.R3~? ~ 2.Rg5#(A), 1... exf4!(a); 1.Rf3!? ~ 2.fxe5/Rg5(A)#, 1... exf4 2.Rfxf4#, 1... Qxd2!; 1.Re3!? ~ 2.Rg5#(A), 1... exf4 2.Sd4#, 1... Qg3! (2.e4?); 1.Rd3! ~ 2.Rg5#(A), 1... exf4 2.Rd5#, 1... Qg3,Bh6 2.e4,Se7#.
|
#2
|
3rd HM: No. 38 – Dragan Stojnić, Serbia.
The only problem with two separate thematic systems with 2x(2x1) change of mates. The author deserves a congratulation for the construction because despite two almost totally divorced wholes he succeeded to activate all pieces in actual play. Nicely incorporated additional try with Dombrovskis effect. Excellent! *1... Rxc4,dxe3/fxe3(x,y/z) 2.Bb1,Se1#(A,B); 1.Sc~? ~ 2.Bb1#(A), 1... Rxc4!(x); 1.Sb5!? ~ 2.Bb1#(A), 1... Rxc4(x) 2.Bxc4#, 1... Bxc3! (2.Qb1?); 1.Be~? ~ 2.Se1#(B), 1... dxe3!(y); 1.Bd6! ~ 2.Se1#(B), 1... Bxc3 2.Qb1#, 1... dxe3(y) 2.Qd5#, 1... Se4/Se4/Se6 2.Qxe4#; [1.Bxd4? ~ 2.Se1#(B), 1... Bxc3 2.Rxc3/Qb1#, 1... Sf3 2.Qe4#, 1... fxe3!(z)].
|
#2
|
4th HM: No. 2 – Anatolij Vasylenko, Ukraine.
A more modest content compared to the previous compositions, but nonetheless an complex mechanism with plenty of hidden and wonderful tactical elements. I will leave to you to enjoy in analyse and discovering all the line effects involved in the play, where the main role has the white queen seemingly displaced in its initial double ambush position. *1... Rxd5(a) 2.Re4#(A); 1.S5~(Sg7/Sh6)? ~ 2.Re4#(A), 1... Sxe5 2.Qc1#, 1... Rg5+,Rg3 2.Bxg5(B),Bxg3#, 1... Rxd5!(a); 1.Se3!? ~ 2.Re4#(A), 1... Rxd5(a) 2.Sxd5#, 1... Rg5+,Rg3 2.Bxg5(B),Bxg3#, 1... Sxe5!; 1.Sg3! ~ 2.Bg5#(B), 1... Rxd5(a) 2.Qg4#, 1... Sxf3 2.Re4#, 1... Se6 2.Se2#, 1... Rxg3 2.Bxg3#; (1.S5xd4? Bxd4!, 1.Sd6? exd6!, 1.Sxe7? Rxe7! without duals; knight-wheel).
|
#2
|
1st Com: No. 50 – Miodrag Radomirović, Serbia.
As the previous problem, this one deserves its place in the award not only for its thematic content, but even more because of the way it has been implemented, the way in which and abstract and modern theme was enobled by elements of a classic beauty. Worth of noticing is also a skillful control of a black monarch which has a great freedom, which reveals the authors constructional capability. However, the whole composition is dominated by a Bristol key and an unusual “love triangle” created by the play of all three bishops in a thematic variation of the actual play. *1... Be3 2.Qb5#, 1... Kd3 2.Qb5#, 1... Kd5 2.Sxd2#; 1.Bc~? ~ 2.Qb5#, 1... Be3!; 1.Bb4!? ~ 2.Qb5#, 1... Be3 2.Sd6#, 1... b2!; 1.Bd4!? ~ 2.Qb5#, 1... Sxd4 2.Qxd4#, 1... Sa3!; 1.Bf2! ~ 2.Qb5#, 1... Be3 2.Be2#, 1... Sa3/Sd4 2.Qd4#, 1... Kd5 2.Sxd2#.
|
#2
|
2nd Com: No. 22 – Emanuel Navon, Israel.
An elegant and clear presentation featuring few fine constructional details, neat refutation, mates after the black interference, flight giving try… The resistance of the black bishop and pawn against the mighty white armade is miraculous. *1... e4(a) 2.Qf4#(A); 1.Qf5? ~ 2.Sc2#, 1... e4(a) 2.Qf4#(A), 1... Bxf5!; 1.Se~? ~ 2.Qf4#(A), 1... Be4 2.Qxe4#, 1... e4!(a); 1.Sf4!? ~ 2.Sg2#, 1... e4(a) 2.Sc2#(B), 1... Kd4 2.Bf2#, 1... Be4!; 1.Sd4! ~ 2.Qf4#(A), 1... e4(a) 2.Sdc2#(C), 1... Be4 2.Qxe4#; (1.Rf8? ~ 2.Qg5#, 1... Bf5!).
|
#2
|
3rd Com: No. 8 – Aaron Hirschenson, Israel.
The most common mechanism with threat correction with the capture of the pawn which defeats a primary threat. The main disatvantage of this method is in the automatic elimination of thematic variation, hence here we have only 2x1 change of mate. However, this is the best among all received problems with given combination. Beside the nice position worth of noting is the sacrificial flight giving try and the additional mate in the same try after the black king move, which reapears after the thematic defence after the key. *1... e3(a) 2.Bf6#(A); 1.Sc~? ~ 2.Bf6#(A), 1... fxe2 2.Qc3#, 1... e3!(a); 1.Sxe4!? ~ 2.Rb4#(B), 1... Bxe4(c) 2.Bf6#(A), 1... Kxe4 2.Qf4#(C), 1... Bd5!; 1.Scd5! ~ 2.Bf6#(A), 1... e3(a) 2.Qf4#(C), 1... fxe2 2.Qc3#.
|
#2
|
|
|
Darko Šaljić
Beograd, 02.05.2009.
APPENDIX
#2
| I - Marjan Kovačević
Problem-Forum 2008
*1... Qb3 (a) 2.Se6#(A), 1... Sf4 2.Qe3#; 1.Sc~ (Sa5)? ~ 2.Se6#(A), 1... Qb3!?(a) 2.Re3#, 1... Sf4 2.Qe3#, 1... Bxf5!; 1.Se3? ~ 2.Se6#(A), 1... Qb3!?(a) 2.Re6#, 1... Sxe3 2.Qxe3#, 1... Bxf5 2.Sxf5#, 1... Sf4!; 1.Sd2! ~ 2.Se6#(A), 1... Qb3!?(a) 2.Re4#, 1... Qc4 2.Qxc4#, 1... Sf4 2.e3#, 1... Bxf5 2.Sf3#.
|
#2
| II - Waldemar Mazul
Probleemblad 1998
*1... Rxd3 2.Qd5#; 1.Se1? ~ 2.Qd5#, 1... Sc3/Bc5/Se7 2.f3/Rf4/Sg5# (A/B/C), 1... Sb4!; 1.B~? ~ 2.Qd5#, 1... Rd3!; 1.Bc3!? Kd3!; 1.Be3!? Rd3 2.f3#(A), 1... Sc3!; 1.Be5!? Rd3 2.Rf4#(B), 1... d4!; .Bf6!! ~ 2.Qd5#, 1... Rd3/Sc3/Bc5/Se7 2.Sg5(C)/Qe3/Sc5/Qd4#, 1... Kd3/d4/Sf2 2.Qc2/Qf5/Sf2#
|
#2
| III - Viktor Melnichenko and Valentin Rudenko
The Problemist 1977
1... Rd4/Bd5/Bf6 2.Qf4/Sc6/Bf6#; 1.Se~? ~ 2.Qe4,Qf4#, 1... Rd4!; 1.Sc5? ~ 2.Qe4#, 1... Sf2!, 1... Rd4/Bd5 2.Sd7/Qf4#, 1... Kd4 2.Qe4#; 1.Sg5! ~ 2.Qf4#, 1... Rd4/Bf6 2.Sf7/Qe4#, 1... Kf6 2.Sf7#, 1... Kd4 2.Qf4#.
|
|
|
Serbian Chess Problemists' Society