Rechercher dans le site
fontsizeup fontsizedown

Award Problemaz 2008 : MT Mohamed.H.Bahaoui, 22/10/1933- 19/07/2007.

jeudi 27 septembre 2012
par Abdelaziz Onkoud
popularité : 1%

- Award Studies Problemaz 2008
- MT Mohamed H.Bahaoui (22/10/1933- 19/07/2007)
- By Harold van der Heijden
- FIDE judge for endgame studies
- 26/09/2012, Deventer, the Netherlands

First I have to apologise to the composers and readers of Problemaz for my seriously delayed award. Unfortunately, the overall level of the tourney was low, with only a single study standing out, which however would probably not have won high distinction in a major tourney. A positive point is that all studies seem to be sound !

The following studies did not make it into the award :

#255 : 7.Bh2 !! is a nice move, but (in the lines provided to me) the composer manages to hide the subtle difference between 7.Bg3 ? and 7.Bh2 ! After 7.Bh2 ! Kc1 8.Kc3 Kd1 9.Kd3 the difference is that after 9...c5 10.Kc3 Ke2 the only drawing move is 11.Bg1 ! After7.Bg3 ? Kc1 8.Kc3 Kd1 9.Kd3 c5 10.Kc3 Ke2 the move 11.Bf2 is not possible.

#256 : Bristol manoeuvre where White has to chose the right combination of clearance move and retreat. Only 1.Bc3 and 2.Qd4 work, since both pieces have to deal with the dangerous d-pawn : the wQ has to guard the promotion square, while the wB must be able to capture the pawn at move 6. The rest of the study is hardly interesting, except for the bonus of the final stalemate.

#257 : Castling in studies is not so special any more : there are 390 studies present in my database in which White castles during the main line. Here White, being a full rook up, finds a way out of the double attack my building a battery by castling. The same idea was shown by Saetta e1d8 1952 (HhdbIV#25988).

#343 : The highlight of this study is the first move. Another example where the composer just selects the “longest” lines, rather than illustrating the tiny difference between key and (thematic) try. 1.Be4 ? Ba6 2.Kf6 (like the main line) fails to 2...Rf8+ cannot be met with 3.Bf7. Of course, then the main line should run : 1.Bd5 Ba6 2.Kf6 Rf8+ 3.Bf7, but also 3.Ke7 and 3.Kg6 win here. But that would hardly make it a study, wouldn’t it ? As a consequence, 1.Be4 ? is not a thematic try and the highlight of the study is lost.

#344 : Only obvious moves.

#440 : The composer calls 1.Sf6 ?/9.Sc3 thematic tries, but their refutations are rather different from the main solution. 3.Sg3+ gets two exclamation marks, but it is (almost) the only way to prevent a quick loss of that knight (Black threatens Kxh2-h3-h4). Although White has to avoid some pitfalls, the remaining moves are obvious.

#443 : The stalemate, also with a similar introduction and a rush of both kings, is known from Gorgiev a1e2 1975 (HHdbIV#42389) and Aliev d2a4 2003 (HHdbIV#70243).

PDF - 69.4 ko

Award Problemaz 2008 : MT Mohamed.H.Bahaoui, 22/10/1933- 19/07/2007.

441 -Sergiy DIDUKH & Abdelaziz ONKOUD
Problemaz 2008

1.b5+ Kxb5 2.Ba4+ Kxa4 3.Kxc3+ Ka3 4.Rh1 b5 5.d4 b4+ 6.Kd2 b3 7.Rh8 b2 8.Kc3 b1S+ 9.Kc2 Sc3 10.Rh1 b5 11.Kxc3 b4+ 12.Kd2 b3 13.Rh8(6) b2 14.Kc3 b1S+ 15.Kc2 Sc3 16.Rh1 Sb5 17.Rh3+ Ka4 18.Kb2 wins.

#441 : After an appropriate introduction the composers managed to double an idea by Onate d4h4 1963 (HhdbIV#33604).


Logo de Jean-Marc Loustau
mercredi 3 octobre 2012 à 07h27, par  Jean-Marc Loustau

Mr Heijden writes in his award about the studies I have published elsewhere with the same material :
-  Majority of these studies have hardly any study-like content
-  these studies are auto-anticipated

These words commit only Mr Heijden. They directly mean that first I am not intelligent enough to understand what is or should be the content of a study, and then that I am dishonest because I don’t hesitate to auto-anticipate myself - possibly with the hope of getting multiple recognitions/awards (or may be am I too idiotic to understand that I am auto-anticipating).

Of course I completely disapprove these remarks : they are false, offensive, defamatory, obviously made for denigrating my work, and finally indirectly attacking my reputation. So to clarify things, here is my answer to Mr Heijden’s lies :

-  All the studies I have published have a thematic content (or a set of thematic contents) as a main point, in most cases explicitely nameable, with in all cases an aesthetic dimension (the magazines in which the studies were published sometimes have not underlined these thematic or aesthetic dimensions, in spite of the fact they were always indicated in my solution). Of course, aesthetics is a subjective matter : I don’t hope that everybody finds beauties in these studies, this is a matter of tastes or points of view, but all the aesthetic concepts have the right to exist and to be expressed, even if they are not shared. So I assert that these studies have a content, a thematic and/or aesthetic one, and I hope that, even if it is subjective, my point of view (based on my past and experience in the field of chess composition) deserves to be taken into account.
-  There is definitively no case of auto-anticipation in my published studies : each one has is own content (I don’t speak about the very rare cases of versions, which were always explicitely indicated, and even these cases could be discussed). I do think that Mr Heijden has decided, without checking anything, that the studies were auto-anticipated (may be he has been told that they were by someone who would prefer not to see any more these diagrams)… In any case, he cannot prove it, for the simple reason it is a pure lie.

(A parenthesis : Mr Heijden writes also that these studies are “exceedingly difficult to understand (which is not intended as a positive feature here)”. I agree that most of these studies are indeed difficult to understand, and I agree that it’s not a good point. All of them are nevertheless humanly understandable (I have indeed understood them), but that needs some work, particularly to understand some principles which today are not explained in the end-game theory books. I intend to publish some day in a book or a website some explanations which could help the player and people interested to get a better understanding of this material, and thus to get the tools to obtain a quicker understanding of the studies themselves (this is not just fine words : about 50% of the work is already done, but that needs time and I have not a lot). But the main question is not in this message about the understandability, nor the quality or interest of these studies. The question is : “can anybody make hurtful remarks, untrue and slanderous talks, denigrating the accomplished work and indirectly attacking the moral integrity of the targetted person ?”. End of the parenthesis)

By the way, if someone could kindly suggest to Mr Heijden to remove my studies from his database, I would be very grateful ! From his point of view, his base would have better quality (these studies being not studies “study-like”) and from my point of view there is nothing worse for my studies than being recorded with a badly written solution with unrelevant comments or no comment at all.

I apologize for this long message, but I hope it will be understood that I cannot let public insults without answering.

Jean-Marc Loustau