|(1) Posted by Julia Vysotska [Tuesday, Oct 29, 2019 14:45]; edited by Julia Vysotska [19-10-29]|
2nd Pavle Orlov Memorial (26.10.2019)
Latvia is very grateful to Serbian team and to the main judge, Zoran Sibinović, for allowance to be the 2nd location for the 2nd Pavle Orlov MT!
Also, thanks a lot to Lithuanian solvers for joining us in Riga!
Due to European Team Chess Championship 2019 and also some local OTB chess competitions not all of usual Latvian participants could take part,
but those who could attend enjoyed the competition - see selection of photos I'm glad to share: http://photos.app.goo.gl/GicJ28V14zCN1UQU9
Some cute detail I just got to know about IM Pavle Orlov: his father was born in Vilnius (Lithuania), and father's brother - in Riga (Latvia).
This time the overall winner of the tournament became Martynas Limontas (Lithuania), who took part in the competition in Riga! :)
Results (https://www.wfcc.ch/wp-content/uploads/2019-10-26-SRB-MT-MultipleLocations-Results.pdf) are published @WFCC / Other rated solving tournaments 2019 (https://www.wfcc.ch/competitions/solving/other-rst-2019/)
Sincere congratulations to Martynas!
|(2) Posted by Marjan Kovačević [Tuesday, Oct 29, 2019 23:49]|
Some photos of the best participants in Pančevo, and the director Zoran Sibinovič (made by Djurica Serafimović):
|(3) Posted by Michael McDowell [Wednesday, Oct 30, 2019 18:15]|
The marking scheme for No.2 is very strange. No threat apparently needed to be given, and one defence is completely ignored.
|(4) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Thursday, Oct 31, 2019 17:21]|
@Michael, there were some issues with assigning points in some other problems but here I think everything is OK. Basically after the key move there is a zugzwang position. Key is the waiting move. Also bPg3xf2 is same variation as bRf1xf2 (2.Qb1). I never checked myself if there is some threat too but even if it is I believe there should be no points for threat. The goal is to checkmate black in three and goal is achieved even without the threat. I am sure that tournament director gave full points even to the solvers who wrote gxf2 instead of Rxf2 defense. Or, am I missing something?
Here is position of problem #2:
(= 8+8 )
|(5) Posted by seetharaman kalyan [Thursday, Oct 31, 2019 17:38]; edited by seetharaman kalyan [19-10-31]|
There is multiple threat of 2.Re~ for 3.Bc3#, but every black move defeats the threats. It can be seen as zz also. So the marking is correct.
|(6) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Thursday, Oct 31, 2019 17:50]|
Full score (5 pts) should be given for mates in 3rd move after ALL black moves.
So 1...gxf2/Rxf2 2.Qb1 is OK and missing one of these black (dual) moves should be punished.
With only 3 legal black moves, the deduction might at least be 1 whole point.
The threat 2.Re8/e7/e6/e4 ~ 3.Bc3# could never really/legally happen and should not be counted for solving points.
|(7) Posted by Miodrag Mladenović [Friday, Nov 1, 2019 09:20]|
I do not know if point should be deducted if only 1...Rxf2 is written and not 1...gxf2. In my opinion this is comparable to the problems where bP promotes any piece and then same 2nd white move is variation. Majority of directors will accept for example 1...b1Q instead of 1...b1~ . In my opinion if someone wrote b1Q he saw all variations. Or if there are two variations b1Q/R/B and b1S. In my opinion it's OK to write b1Q since Q has power of both R and B pieces (of course unless there are separate variations when R/B are promoted).
|(8) Posted by Nikola Predrag [Friday, Nov 1, 2019 12:15]|
Misha, there are different viewpoints. The same Pawn moves to the same square and then the promotion is a mandatory effect by the rules.
If the type of promotion is irrelevant, 1...b1~ shows it clearly/completely, however, the judge MAY accept 1...b1Q as an incomplete but still sufficiently relevant representation of the 'SAME-piece-to-SAME-square' move.
'DIFFERENT pieces capturing on the same square' is NOT a mandatory effect by the rules and it's the solver who must choose and show it. And especially when the 'third piece capturing on the same square' DOES make a difference - perhaps the solver wrongly thinks that 1...Bxf2 2.Re3 represents also 1...gxf2 2.Re3
A Director should carefully consider the relevant critical points before applying the
10. If a move is written incorrectly, unclearly or ambiguously, this variation or single solution is regarded as incorrect. If, however, the Director (or the jury, pt. 15) is absolutely sure that the correct move was intended, this variation or single solution can be regarded as correct.
|(9) Posted by Alain Villeneuve [Friday, Nov 1, 2019 14:07]|
About another solving contest,
it is funny that 2 problems are incorrect :
the 6 (#3) , with the 2 main lines having a major dual,
the 17 (s#3), with 4 (!) cooks.
No more posts
MatPlus.Net Forum Competitions 2nd Pavle Orlov Memorial (26.10.2019)