Award Preliminary 3° Maroc Echecs 2013 : Section 2 moves
par Abdelaziz Onkoud
popularité : 2%
Preliminary award 3° Maroc Echecs 2013
Section : 2 moves
By Zoran Gavrilovski, IJ
Skopje, December 2013
|(Delobel Bernard :(1,2,3,4) ; Chernyavskyyv Mykola (7) ; Kozhakin Vladimir :(10,11) ;Labai Zoltán :(5,6) ;Muller Dieter :(8,9) ;Onkoud Abdelaziz :(13*,15*) ;Pergialis Nikos :(12) & Rotenberg Jacques :(13*,14,15*)|
I thank Abdelaziz Onkoud for inviting me to judge the #2 tourney for 2013. From him I received 15 twomovers on anonymous diagrams. The overall quality of the tourney is rather weak, as most of the problems show familiar themes or thematic combinations and some of them have constructional flaws.
My judging criteria were unchanged for this tourney. For those who haven’t read my award(s) earlier, I reiterate that a chess composition is both an artistic piece of work (which needs an interesting content and good economy and construction), as well as a puzzle (the latter is also valid about shorter problems, though quite skilful solvers do not need more than few minutes or even seconds to find the solution of most of the twomovers). The originality is an important element of a problem and can justify the problem’s high place in the award, but I am afraid that there are no strikingly original problems in this tourney. On the other hand, an overall lack of originality, including use of familiar mechanisms can decrease the overall impression.
Before presenting my comments on the entries which entered the award, I give reasons for my decision not to include 12 problems in the award.
No. 1 shows an interesting Zagoruiko change of mates in a 3 + 3 + 2 form, but there is an idle white rook in the solution and a checking refutation to the thematic try (this strong defence can be turned into a non-checking one and, also, a white bishop and a white pawn can be saved in a position in which the mates from one try would be shown in the set play as a new thematic phase).
No. 3 has three self-obstruction tries without particular originality, complexity (no changed mates or other substantial thematic elements) or economy (10+12 pieces).
No. 5 shows a very familiar Le Grand mechanism after bK flight and Barnes theme. This #2 reminds me of my own #2, which shows the above theme by using different key move pieces (hence this is not anticipation) with additional change of mate, Dombrovskis theme, Urania theme, White Correction and Threat Correction (see diagram I) in the Appendix).
No. 6 has three unified indirect battery mates in a setting with 8+12 pieces, but such content is hardly sufficient nowadays without some additional play (there is only one transferred mate and change of function of one white move). Moreover, the key pins a black rook, hence this move is too strong and thus unpleasant, regardless of the fact that the bR’s defence in the set play allows transfer of mate.
No. 7 is a kind of problem I dislike in principle because of its absolute symmetry in the Dombrovskis tries (with unpleasant flight-taking first moves) and solution, using the BK flights as thematic defences.
No. 8 has a hardly impressive content with only one pair of variation mates (not counting the threat), arising after three pairs of defences with different (though in each pair internally homogeneous) effects.
No. 9 shows good focal play by the BQ in two variations, but that’s almost all.
No. 10 deserves to be praised for its economy (5+1 pieces) and for nothing else, as the key takes two “non-provided” flights squares (including the square at which the bK captures the key-move piece in the set play), and gives only one flight, while the king’s flights in the solution only separate the double threat.
No. 11 is distinctive for the fortress of black pawns placed on all squares adjacent to the black king, but such position offers only a restricted scope for showing good content in a #2 form.
No. 12 catches one’s eye immediately because of its aristocratic position, but the two Gamage unpins (no Black Correction, as claimed by the author) are rather a reminiscence of the glorious “Good Companions” time, which produced much better and ambitious problems than No. 12. Therefore I am not convinced that this problem deserves to be honoured in a situation of lacking genuinely original elements or additional thematic content.
No. 13 uses the same matrix for producing an essentially similar content as that of No. 15, but with more (11+8) pieces. No. 13 wouldn’t be a serious candidate for being honoured even in a hypothetical case of not competing with No. 15, as 1.Se5 ? is refuted by the strong defence 1...R:d4+ !
No. 14 has an interesting play showing Odessa theme, achieved by alternation of Novotny in the first move on one square + Grimshaw defences on another square, and the same combination of these line themes on the same squares in an exchanged order. This thematic combination might not be novel, so this familiarity might have motivated the author to extend the content by adding a third phase. However, this addition merges the thematic variations from the virtual phases without any change of play and this repetition is a kind of anti-climax. Moreover, the concept of exchanging double threats and variation mates after different black defences corresponds to its “cousin” Pseudo le Grand and given that such forms are easier to achieve, they are less paradoxical in comparison with pure forms.
I believe that the remaining problems are worthy of being honoured, even though they might have failed to enter an award in a stronger tourney.
|N°15 : A.Onkoud & J. Rotenberg||N°2:Bernard Delobel||N°4:Bernard Delobel|
|3° Maroc Echecs 2013||3° Maroc Echecs 2013||3° Maroc Echecs 2013|
|1st Commendation||2nd Commendation||3rd Commendation|
|Mat en 2 coups , vv||Mats en 2 coups , *v||Mats en 2 coups , *|
1st Commendation, No. 15 :
1.Sa2 ? [2.Rf1# A, 2.Qh1# B], 1...Bb5 !, 1.Sd3 ? [2.Qh1# B, 2.Rf1 ?], 1...Bh2 2.Rf1# A, 1...b:c2 !, 1.Se2 ! [2.Rf1# B, 2.Qh1 ?], 1...Bg3 2.Qh1# A, 1...d3 2.Sc3#. This harmonious and natural combination of Pseudo le Grand, Sushkov and Barnes theme is realized with the help of White Correction by the wSc1 (1.Sa2 ? has an effect of a random move). The overall concept seems familiar in general (I vaguely remember seeing a similar mechanism with only two free square for the wS, thus allowing another pair of phases with S-battery creation and unique S-threats in these phases). A research in two databases revealed a twomover with similar use of closure of white line’s pieces’ access to one and the same square in the context of dual threat avoidance (see diagram II) in the Appendix), but this #2 does not anticipate No. 15. The contents of the two problems are slightly different, but I prefer II), whose changed play suggests that the author of No. 15 shouldn’t confined his efforts only to finding an elegant setting. The use of the wBe3 is not controversial (with wBe3=wPe3 and bPd4=wPd4 first white moves would take a flight to the bK), given that the technical variation 1...d3 justifies its role in the solution. The use of the bRb4 instead of a wPb4 is not just a matter of taste, as with wPb4 the plausible try 1.S:b3 ? Bb5 ! would blur the thematic play.
2nt Commendation, No. 2 :
1...e:d4 2.Q:e6#, 1...e:d5 2.Q:e5#, 1...K:d4 2.Qc5# A, 1.Qc5 ? [2.d:e5#], 1...e:d4 2.Qc1#, 1...e:d5 2.S:d5#, 1...e4 !, 1.Be4 ! [zugzwang], 1...e:d4 2.Sg2#, 1...e:d5 2.Sf5#, 1...K:d4 2.Qc5# A, 1...Sa3 2.S( :)c2#. The set play is unified by line opening moves of black pawns, but the try is not very convincing. Solvers would be possibly frustrated after realizing that the white queen merely changes the set mates by arriving to c5 without managing to provide a mate after 1...e4, which is the only defence to which no mate is prepared the set play. Composing experts would dislike the existence of concurrent tries, notably the plausible 1.Qc7 ?, which is also refuted by 1...e4 ! The try’s flight-taking first move is strong and generally inappropriate for a thematic phase, but this drawback is slightly compensated by the presence of this move as a mate in the set play. Most of the pieces are well exploited, but the distant Bf8 has a rather minor role.
3rd Commendation, No. 4 :
1...Bf6/Bf5 2.Qf4#, 1...Rg2 2.Bd4#, 1.Qf8 ! [2.Q:h8#], 1...Bf6 2.Qb8#, 1...Rg2 2.Q:f5#, 1...Bf5 2.Qf4#, 1...Be4 2.Bd4#, 1...Bg7 2.Q:g7#. The problem does not show Rukhlis theme, because 1...Bf5 2.Qf4# already exists in the set play. Such “black dual” is acceptable (though still unpleasant) feature only in the context of change of mates, but not in the context of change of defences, i.e. transfer of mates. Furthermore, even in a hypothetical case of non-existence of the above impurity, the transfer of the mate 2.Qf4# could hardly count as pure, as the white queen arrives on f4 from different squares and hence this mate is not identical in the two phases. Nevertheless, the setting is elegant and the play is sufficiently interesting, with line opening (1...Rg2 in both phases and1...Bf5 /Be4 with Black Correction in the solution) and self-blocking on f6.
I congratulate the authors of honoured problems and I also thank all the participants for supporting this tourney with their original problems.
|I)Zoran Gavrilovski||II)Abdelaziz Onkoud|
|3rd Pr. Belgrade Internet Tourney 2012||The Britisch Chess Magazine 2008|
|Mat in 2 moves * vvvvv||Mat in 2 moves *vv|
I) 1...K:f5 x 2.Bg6# A, 1.Bg6 ? A [2.f6# B] Rg8 !, 1.f6 ? B [2.Bg6# A] R:e8 !, 1.Rc6 ? [2.Sd6# C], 1...K:f5 x 2.Bg6# A, 1...Rd8 !, 1.Rd7 ?! [2.Sd6# C], 1...K:f5 ! x, 1.Bf6 ? [2.Qg4#/Qf3# D/E] g4 ! y,1.Sd7 ? [2.Qg4# D], 1...K:f5 x 2.Qf3# E, 1...g4 y 2.Sf6#, 1...d2 !, 1.R:d5 ! [2.Qf3# E], 1...K:f5 x 2.Qg4# D, 1...g4 y 2.R:d4#, 1...B:d5 2.Sd6# C, 1...K:d5 2.Bc6#.
II) 1...b:c4 2.B:c4#, 1...S:c5 2.R:c5#, 1.Sd ? [2.Rd1#/Rd4# A/B], 1...Sc3/S:c1 2.Sb4#, 1...Bf6 !, 1.Sc2 ? [2.Rd1# A, 2.Rd4 ?], 1...S:c5 2.Rd4# B, 1...Bf6 2.S:e3#, 1...Sa 2.S2( :)b4#, 1...e2 !, 1.Se2 ! [2.Rd4# B], 1...b:c4 2.Rd1#, 1...Bf6 2.Sf4#, 1...Sc3/Sc1 2.S( :)c3#.