MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

22:22 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum Endgame studies Study of the Year 2006
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Administrator [Monday, Oct 29, 2007 13:39]

Study of the Year 2006


(Quoted E-mail message by Yochanan Afek)

The Study of the Year award for 2006 has been granted by the PCCC (Permanent Commission of Fide for Chess Composition) to the following masterpiece from the special composing tourney held in memory of the British composer C.M.Bent. Yuri Bazlov (born 1947) has been a prominent Russian composer for the last four decades. It is for him the second time in a row to win this award. Please help us to promote it among chess enthusiasts in your own country by reprinting it in chess columns, magazines and websites. Thank you for your kind effort.

Yochanan Afek, spokesman of the studies sub-committee of the PCCC.


 
Yuri Bazlov
1st HM Bent MT
2006-07

(= 4+5 )
White to play and win
 
1.Be4+ (1.Qe4+ Kc5 2.Bxc4 Bf4+ 3.Kg6 Rxc4 4.Qa8 Re7=) 1…Ke6 2.Qc5! (2.Qb3? Rf4 3.Qxa4 Rxe4 =) 2…Bf4+ (2…Rfa7 3.Bd5+ Kf5 4.Qf8+ Kg4 5.Qf3+ Kh4 6.Be6 mating) 3.Kg6 Se5+ 4.Kh5 Rxe4 (4…Rd7 5.Bd5+ Rxd5 6.Sc7+ Kd7 (Kf5) 7.Sxd5 wins; 4…Rfa7 5.Bd5+ Kd7 6.Sf6+ Kd8 7.Be6 R4a5 8.Qb6+ Ke7 9.Sg8+ Kf8 10.Qd8+ Kg7 11.Qf6+ Kh7 12.Se7 wins) 5.Qd6+ Kf5 6.Qf6+!! Rxf6 7. Sg7 mate!
 
“An outstanding and aristocratic example of the familiar maximal selfblock mate, this study has an excellent quiet second move permitting black counterplay. All pieces move into their final position” (David Friedgood and Timothy Whitworth, Judges in the C.M. Bent MT 2006-07).
Midboard ideal mate with the last piece following four active self-blocks. All units move in the course of the main line of play and the only two captures are of white pieces (John Roycroft, chairman of the award committee).
 
(Read Only)pid=1635
(2) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Monday, Oct 29, 2007 21:25]

The award was published in 2007, not 2006!
So, please, stop making fool of us. This cannot be Study of the Year 2006.
You should have drunk less vodka during the Congress!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1636
(3) Posted by Frank Richter [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 10:06]

Enviously?

It is only cited. Please look here:
http://www.saunalahti.fi/~stniekat/pccc/study06.htm
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1637
(4) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 11:42]

They should have drunk less. Was vodka for free in Greece?
And I don't take as explanation J.Roycroft's words: "We can go by closing date".
Admit your mistake, dear study experts!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1639
(5) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 14:11]

You are right in pointing out that it's the publication date of the award which should count (and not the closing date) as it happens with FIDE Album for instance, but your comment about vodka and drinking habits (expressed in a public forum) is at least misleading, inappropriate and offending.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1640
(6) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 15:18]

My jokes may sound offensive. Please, be sure they are taken for compliments in Russia and Ukraine, 'cause vodka is our best friend. I kindly ask to forgive me those who have immunity against humour.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1642
(7) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 18:18]

Of course, the same study is an entry in the Riphey 2006.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1643
(8) Posted by Uri Avner [Tuesday, Oct 30, 2007 23:40]; edited by Uri Avner [07-10-30]

At least we are sure the study's birth year is 2006, even after drinking a glass or two of Metaxa or Ouzo, not Vodka!
No specific Album-like rule here as far as I know.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1644
(9) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 19:24]

Sergiy, Harry is hardly immune to humor. I took your comment in a humorous vein, but one thing I learned in dealing with people with different first languages and cultures is that we can easily make comments that can be mistaken for spite or sarcasm when they are actually meant "from the heart" and playful.

On a more serious note, I find one of the studies in the latest Mat Plus to be a contender for study of the year, at least in my eyes!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1646
(10) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 21:56]; edited by Arpad Rusz [07-11-01]

You are right Steven, that study is very nice!
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1647
(11) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 22:14]; edited by Sarah Hornecker [07-10-31]

Yes, it's very nice (if we mean the same one). :-)

Also, the chosen one (no pun intended) for 2006 also is nice, much more than the one disappointing me in 2005.

PS: I suggest reading Afek's article on self-blocks in a recent "Schach" (2006, I think). Maybe he'll send it if you kindly ask. *kidding* :D
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1648
(12) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Wednesday, Oct 31, 2007 22:42]

To Uri:
So, you dislike this study so much you're not letting it into the Album 2004-6?
The Study of the Year which is not necessarily the best study of the year(Y.Afek) cannot be published in the collection of the best studies of the year 2006 because its birth dates of 2006(U.Avner)! Where's my vodka? Maybe it can help to see things clearer?
To Steven:
When I first saw that SD gave comments to the originals published in Mat Plus I got scared of suffering from temporary losses of memory. Happily for me, it was SD and not SD.
It's a good study. I liked it at once. It's not a secret anymore that good contenders are those studies that J.Roycroft and Y.Afek like.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1649
(13) Posted by Uri Avner [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 01:49]; edited by Uri Avner [07-11-01]

To Sergiy:
I'm not a study expert. I was just talking about the "formal" aspect, because I thought this was your claim. But if the real issue is that you don't like the study, why not say it clearly rather than hide behind the fog of Vodka? There's nothing wrong about that.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1650
(14) Posted by Steven Dowd [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 03:07]

Now I am really confused and don't even know who is getting insulted here. :)

Is SD happy that SD is not SD because SD makes terrible comments or because SD thought he was suffering from a memory lapse and that he might be SD when really he is SD?

Now if I could just find a way to put the above in a chess problem, I might develop a new cycle.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1651
(15) Posted by Sergiy Didukh [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 07:11]

If I have said that closing date is only taken into account when there's a special need of establishing priority, would Uri believe me? I guess no. So, I'am trying to describe what additional paradoxes your suggestion brings. It defeats any logic. And what I really don't like is not the study but the way it is chosen.
Nothing wrong with your comments, SD. And I'm not speaking to myself.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=1652
(16) Posted by Arpad Rusz [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 12:10]

Bazlov has removed his study from the Riphey 2007, but he replaced it with "The study of the Year 2005"!! Probably that was really first published in 2006.
Both studies are very nice, I think they deserved to be chosen but maybe in another year.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1654
(17) Posted by Harry Fougiaxis [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 12:14]

The Codex itself is very clear. In formal tourneys, the publication date is the date that the award appears (i.e. the date that the honoured compositions are communicated to the public) and the priority date (necessary for anticipation check, for example) is the closing date of that tournament.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1655
(18) Posted by David Knezevic [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 12:20]; edited by David Knezevic [07-11-01]

 QUOTE 
Arpad:
Of course, the same study is an entry in the Riphey 2006.


Not any more! Meanwhile has been replaced by another entry which is - beleive it or not! - The Study of the Year 2005
:-o

Edit: Oh, Arpad has already said the same!
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1656
(19) Posted by Steven Dowd [Thursday, Nov 1, 2007 20:49]

To the "other" SD:

I think this is an interesting comment, because how anything is chosen can be critiqued, of course!

What would interest me is: What do you think the selection criteria should be? I personally don't know of any better ones, but am always interested in the "whys and wherefores"....
 
 
(Read Only)pid=1658

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum Endgame studies Study of the Year 2006