Before we start, I would like to reply to a comment that was made in the discussion about the previous column, where it was said that the Ortueta-Sanz game and the study are both shown on Tim Krabbé’s website. There are two points I want to make here: the first is that this is, of course, correct, but I believed the study needs greater exposure. The context with the two games was chosen because those are outstanding examples for the power of a few pawns working together. I will, however, try to avoid studies in the future that have already been shown there (but I have selected for the next month a study that was reprinted in an equally famous Russian book),
The second point is that Tim Krabbé has great taste, not only by selecting this as one of his favorite studies. I can wholeheartedly recommend his work on "Chess Curiosities" (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1985).
There was also a discussion on the difficulty of the studies in the first column. Unfortunately I can only try my best to explain what happens in the play. With this being said, let us begin. This time I would like to provide some background information on the topic of composition tourneys for studies, but those for other genres work similarly.
Original studies are usually sent to two kinds of tourneys (unless they appear in another source, such as a website or book): informal tourneys are those run by magazines, where occasionally studies appear, usually together with a solving contest that also runs over the entire time. At the end of the time period (usually a year or two) the best studies are then crowned in a small award by a judge, or – as was also done sometimes – even by solvers. The solvers, on the other hand, usually receive book prizes for each half year or year of solving, if they are the best solvers of that time period in the magazine.
So the studies are published and later judged, where the magazine sponsors the prizes and an editor does the work for the columns and solvers. Formal tourneys are announced separately, the studies can be sent to a director (usually not identical with the judge) and are judged later, where the studies not appearing in the award are not published. Those tourneys are run by study enthusiasts who might even be prominent figures in chess otherwise. As a famous example, ten years ago, the – sadly now late – Mark Dvoretsky held a contest for “Studies for practical players”, which he included in his book of the same name.
While in informal tournaments usually all studies are welcome, formal tournaments might make special limitations (such as themes or the number of entries, or in case of the Dvoretzky tourney that they appeal to OTB players), those were also made for the study shown today and the bonus study.
Speaking of players that like studies, last year the Indian GM Abhijeet Gupta presented a study where a knight defeats an entire kingdom. Just like pawns, or like any other piece for that reason, knights can be very powerful in the correct situation, defeating even an entire army single-handedly. But knights are just as amazing when it comes to a lot of different patterns – domination of pieces, building fortresses, forking king and queen, even helping in and delivering the smothered mate.
The duty of judges in tourneys – be they formal or informal – is heavy, and they have to follow their conscience. A judge must check for anticipations, that means if the same idea has been shown before; check for incorrectnesses, i.e. if there are multiple solutions; or if Black has a better defense where he wins; or if the study wants White to win, but draws; and finally weigh in all factors to find a fair judgment to award the studies with prizes, honorable mentions and commendations. I have judged six tourneys myself, and have made two big mistakes in them – an indication on how difficult it is to find a fair judgment. Today I want to show one of them, a study that, based on what seemed a too difficult sideline to me, I awarded only an honorable mention while it would have clearly deserved a prize.
|
|
Dennis Eschbach is a German studies composer about whom I have no further information. In the Harold van der Heijden database, only five studies of him exist so far, but they are all of good quality.
The following study, while not being an official “study of the month” (I decided – spoiler – to show something with each piece, in ascending order, for two months each), is a great recent pawn endgame which I believe readers will enjoy, so it can be seen as a small bonus. The full preliminary award, which only contains one other study, is available at the forum chessproblem.net.
The theme of the tourney was proposed by your author: pawn endgames, where the focus is not on promotions. It is incredible how this study shows something new, even with only six pieces. But then, as a proverb from India says, chess is a sea in which a fly can swim and an elephant drown.
In the end, I want to give a study for the readers to solve. It is possible to see the entire combination from the first diagram for a good player, and in fact, after maybe 20 minutes, I did so myself when it originally appeared. My friend Martin Minski awarded it with the highest distinction, the first prize. Do you agree with me that it is nice to solve? If not, you can simply have the solution shown – after a week or two.
Again, we would like to remind readers of the Reddit IAMA with Siegfried on 12 March 2017, 19:00h Berlin time (1:00 PM EST) where you can ask anything about chess composition.
 |
About the authorSiegfried Hornecker (*1986) is a German chess composer and member of the World Federation for Chess Composition, subcommitee for endgame studies. His autobiographical book "Weltenfern" (in English only) can be found on the ARVES website. He will present an interesting endgame study with detailed explanation each month. |
