Today (17th November 2023) I submitted a study to the tourney Chess Sudy Art 2023, which is held bei Serhiy Didukh on his site https://chessstudy.art/. I submitted the study by filling out a form and moments later it was published. That's great!
The tournament is restricted to studies with classic size: "There are 8-11 pieces in the starting position. The length of the solution is no more than 10 moves."
The number of pieces is no problem, but the number of moves is. I tend to build longer studies.
Here ist the start position.
White to move and draw.
Black is two pawns ahead, but there are more things in the start position we have to talk about. The Be4 attacks two knights, and the Pf7 is attacked too. Does that make sense?
I admit I didn't like it. But it is not illogical. The last black move could be pawn to d2 either from d3 or capturing something. And White's last move could be Bxe4. And maybe the Nh1 captured before that a rook, leaving something on e4 unprotected. So, it is not absurd, but there is this 10-move-limit! And none of the captures takes place.
I would also like to emphasize an advantage of the start position. The position is easy to evaluate. It's a two result game, as they say. And the mutual aims are quite clear and game-like.
In contrast, I've recently seen a lot of start positions that are completely unreal and then a storm comes in which half of the pieces is slaughtered before you can evaluate the position for the first time using human standards. Is that beauty? Not for me.
1. Bf3. This is one of two ways to stop Pd2. The alternative makes a try: 1. Bc2? Kg8
2. Bf4 Nd4 3. Ba4 h5! 4. Bxd2 Nxg3.
This is -+. The two pawns win for Black because White won't get a chance to sac both bishops for the pawns. Is this convincing? I very much hope so!
And this shows already the subject of this study: the irregularities of results, when one side has two knights! Here the knights are in favour, but that'll change below.
Back to the mainline. 1.. f6. Secures the f-pawn and the e5 square. The alternatives: 1.. Kg8 2. Bf4 Nd4 3. Bh5! = (please confer this with the try). Or 1.. Kg7 2. Bf4 Nf2 3. Bxd2 Ne5 4. Bc3 f6 5. Bb7 = or 1.. Nf2 2. Kxf7 d1=Q 3. Bxd1 Nxd1 4. Kg6 =. 2. Bf4 Ne5.
White is in trouble because now the natural moves lose.
See 3. Bd1 Nf2 4. Bxh6 Nxd1 5. Bxd2 -+ or 3. Bh5 Kg7 4. Bxd2 Nxg3 -+ or 3. Be2 Kg7 4. Bxd2 Nxg3 -+. The last two lines are similar to the try above, of course.
3. Bxd2! Committing to an endgame a piece down!
3.. Nxf3 4. Bxh6. (My composing over the last six months has led to a reflex that I hate: As soon as tablebase territory is reached, I check whether the author is using zugzwang, DTZ or other minable stuff. This bad habit prevents me from enjoying the position and it came with tourney participation.)
4.. Ne5. Best.
4.. Nxg3 5. Kf7 f5 6.Kf6 is a simple draw, since White will get the pawn or a knight one way or the other.
4.. Kh7 5. Kf7! (sacs the second bishop) Kxh6 6. Kxf6 with a standard draw, because the white pawn will step over the Troitsky line.
5. Kf8!
Here I have a second try: 5. Ke7? Ng4 6. Bd2 Kh7 7. Ke6 Kg6 (7... Nxg3? 8. Be1! = ) 8. Bc3 f5 -+.
5.. Kh7.
There is another Troitsky draw after 5.. Ng4 6. Bg7+ Kh7 7. Bxf6 Nxf6 8. g4 = .
6. Bg7 Ng6+.
The third Troitsky draw happens after 6.. Kg6 7. Bxf6 Kxf6 8.g4 =.
7. Kf7 f5 8. Kf6 Nxg3.
8.. Ne7 Bf8! loses the f-pawn for free.
Black has managed to keep his pawn and the bishop is in trouble!
9. Kg5! Kxg7 Stalemate.
For completeness I mention 9.. Ne7 10. Bf8 Nd5 11. Bd6 =.
Needless to say it was this stalemate I wanted to show.
It can be moved across the board and even rotated 90 degrees (though only in one direction).
I decided that it was time for my first stalemate study, picked this position and begun. Now I hope that the stalemate isn't known. I did only check the studies on the ARVES site.
What can I expect? Well, although the closing date is still a few weeks away, there are a lot of very good studies already published. So, I am 99% sure that my study will not be in the award. This is no understatement and I don't silently think otherwise. I wanted to show my name in that competition and here it is!
Another question is more interesting: Is this a tactical study or again an endgame-type of study? The answer is simple: the few tactical motifs don't make it a tactical study. It is an interesting endgame highlighting known material irregularities and hopefully an unknown stalemate.
20th December 2023
Serhiy Didukh's award appeared absolutely on time today, both on Chess Study Art and on Arves. The deserved 1st prize-winner is Michael Pasman (Israel) ahead of Steffen Slumstrup Nielsen and Martin
Minski. The HMs go to Jan Timman, then again Nielsen and Pasman and a special HM to Daniele Gatti. Finally there are
three commendations (not ordered) for studies by Timman, Tarasiuk and yours truly.
Of course I'm very pleased. And surprised. A more detailed reaction will probably follow later.
21th December 2023
Here is the recap announced yesterday. First I quote from Didukh's award PDF his statement on the choice of the theme.
"The theme of the tourney asked composers to show something interesting with 8-11 pieces and the
main line within 10 moves. Such studies dominated in the past that’s why I think this size is
classical. Eleven pieces suffice to realize even some complex ideas while the requirement of 10
moves makes composers present them concisely. So, it was an opportunity to charm people who
like studies without long introductions and wild initial positions."
So any worries about my starting position were unfounded.
Most of the studies that took part in the tourney had been public for a long time and of course I had
looked at them all. But now, with Diduhk's comments, I understand some of them for
the first time. This does not apply to Pasman's great study: its quality is
completely obvious. But already Nielsen's second-place study I understand much better now.
And then there is this short comment on my study: "The idea of a stuck bishop in the battle vs. two knights and a pawn is new but it's hard to do better than Kasparyan."
Genrikh Kasparyan 1/2
4.p UV CSTV 1977
1.Kf6 Kg8 2.Bg2 Nd7+ 3.Ke7 Nde5 4.Kf6 Ng4+ 5.Ke7 Ngh2
6.Kf6 Kf8 7.Bh3 Nd4! [7...Nd2 8.Bf5!] 8.Bc8! Nf1! 9.Bb7! Ne3
10.Bf3! Nxf3 stalemate.
This is also a B vs NNP study with a stalemate, but - thank goodness - a completely different character
of play. Diduhk's comment shows me what the expert is paying attention to, while I
rather enjoyed getting somehow to the final position.
Overall, this tournament was another important experience for me and I am very grateful to Serhiy
Diduhk for organizing and judging.
Speaking of the stalemate position: I had also experimented with an even more airy stalemate. Here is my best result with it.
White to move and draw.
Thomas Niessen, first publication.
White is a piece and a pawn down, and the bishop and the pawns are attacked. On the other hand, White can give all material, if he gets the three black pawns in return.
1. Bc3 cxd4 2. exd6! Ne5+.
3. Kc5! (3. Kd5? c6+ 4. Kxd4 Nd7 -+) Nd7+ 4. Kc6! Nb8+ 5. Kc5 Nd7+ 6. Kc6 Ne5+ 7. Kc5 cxd6+ 8. Kxd4 Nf5+ 9. Ke4.
9.. Nc6 Protecting the b4 square. 10. Bb4 Pre-moved?
10.. Nxb4 Stalemate!
This looks great, right?
White's capture refusals in the introduction aren't bad either, but I didn't see any try. That's why I decided against it and that was probably the right thing to do.