Award définitif du Mémorial Boujemâ Kariouch : section études.
par Siegfried Hornecker
popularité : 2%
Le 2° Prix a été retiré du palmarès en raison de sa participation au 20 MT Tolush.
Kariouch Boujema MT
Director : Abdelaziz Onkoud (Morocco)
Judge : Siegfried Hornecker (Germany)
The tourney was originally intended as a tourney to celebrate the 55th birthday of the name patron. Because of the unfortunate passing of Boujema, it is held as memorial tourney instead.
A biographical overview :
Boujemâ KARIOUCH est né le 2 novembre 1956 à Meknès , décédé à Khémisset le 3 septembre 2011. Boujemâ KARIOUCH a vécu son enfance et sa jeunesse en France entre Valberg, Juan - Les Pins, Antibes et Nice. Il a obtenu son Baccalauréat Lettres modernes, type français (éducation et étude scolaire en France-Nice). CV complet au lien suivant http://www.maroc-echecs.com/article...
There were a total of 26 entries of which one was impossible for us to decipher. The remaining 25 entries were judged anonymously. For an overview of the judging criteria, I refer to the tourney „Schach 2006-2007“ and to the refinements at the beginning of my studies composing career by having extensively used the databases by Harold van der Heijden, so I hope to intuitively be able to give a good judgment that will honor the deceased. To ensure a balanced view from a composer and solver point of view, the friendly help of Klaus Rubin once more proved invaluable. Gary Kevin Ware has proofread, and corrected, my English.
Much to my dismay, the overall level was not very high. Many studies did not even have a sufficient point.
I received an anonymous PGN file with a different numbering in the “White” field than the PGN order. For the award, the “White” field numbering will be used.
Since this is a formal tourney where unawarded studies won’t be published, I don’t see much reason to go into detail for each study why it was not included. Instead, a reason is given without concrete variations. Also, usually only the selection of studies for actual distinctions were tested for anticipations and correctness, all others were not tested.
3 – No, sorry ! The play has no points except the very well known sacrifice.
4 – A correct line of moves with arbitrary themes added does not make a study.
5 – The endgame of BBSS-SSS should be won for White, therefore 2.Bxe3 is in my opinion a dual.
6 – A lot of themes, and it also seems to be correct. However, I do not feel competent enough to judge this correctly. If I look at the themes, this must get a high distinction, but if I look at the impression the study makes to me, I don’t see anything special. Yes, the sacrifices are a theme here but they also make the whole play feel very forced. In an informal tourney this would be ranked, but in a formal tourney I feel the author should have the possibility to add something more spectacular, for example, an interesting ending.
7 – This kind of study very well has a right to existence, but the game-like play and position offers at least one very difficult side variation that could not be fully evaluated, but looks very much like a dual : 5.Qxf7+ Kh8 6.Sf6 Se5 7.Sxe4 Sxf7 8.Rxf7 Rxe4 ! 9.Rb6 Rxe3 10.Rbxb7.
11 – Well-known opposition with interesting tries, but in my opinion not enough originality for a distinction.
14 – Uninteresting play with only 5.gxf6 being a small point that is however in my opinion not sufficient for a distinction.
19 – The beginning is known by a study of the judge (chessproblem.net, 28th June 2011) which is of course bad luck for the author who found it independently. Leaving this aside, the sidelines are too complicated, e.g. 5...Qf4 6.Qg1 Bg3 7.Qh1+ Bh2 8.Kg6 Qf5+ 9.Kh6 c3 10.Sg5+ Kg3 11.Sfe4+ Kf4 !! 12.Qxh2+ Ke3 and I don’t see how White can win.
20 – I must repeat myself : A correct line of moves does not make a study.
21 – The play is too forced. After this first evaluation, there were 15 studies of acceptable quality remaining for judging. Of them, the following ones were excluded :
2 – Not enough study-like content.
10 – With the exception of the mutual zugzwang that is easy to see there seems to be no artistic content.
16 – At this time it is impossible to look through all possible predecessors in view of the recently published books with six piece positions by Christian Poisson, therefore an anticipation check is impossible. Of course, this constitutes an “in dubio pro reo” case where the judge has to assume the study is original. Assuming it is so, he finds that while the king walk is interesting, it does not allow for a distinction. All in all, he finds the study offers no sufficient battle and the starting and ending points of the White king might constitute a task, but are too artificial to be artistical.
17 – The underpromotion is nice, and should in my opinion be published somewhere, but it does not allow a distinction, the forced play in the rest of the study does not help either. The case would be different if an en passant capture would be shown, when there would be a Valladao.
23 – The checkmate is very well known, while the road leading to it is hardly noteworthy.
25 – The overall play is too forced.
Peter KRUG (1), Marcel DORE (2), Marco CAMPIOLI (3,4,5 and 6), Gerhard JOSTEN (7), Alain PALLIER (8 and 9), Iuri AKOBIA (10 ,11 and 15), János MIKITOVICS (12), Richard BECKER (13), Gert Wilhelm HORNING (14*), Gerhard JOSTEN (14*), Christian POISSON (16), Luis Miguel GONZALES (17) , Sergiy DIDUKH (18), Mario Guido GARCIA (19 and 20), Daniel KEITH (21), Yochanan AFEK (22), Jarl H. ULRICHSEN (23) and Emil MELNICHENKO (24,25 and 26)
A total of nine studies are for this reason included into the award. Those were on average, of medium quality, but there were two studies that in the opinion of the judge stood out. Two prizes, two honorable mentions and five commendations are awarded.
|MT Boujemâ Kariouch|
|Maroc Echecs 2011|
prize Study no. 1. After a highly geometrical introduction, including a logical foreplan to remove the Pa4, the seemingly paradoxical switchback 13.Qh8, when the position after the second move is reached without Pa4 – but with Black to move – forces said Black to sacrifice his knight. The White play has to remain very exact, in the end, allowing Black counterplay that succeeds in the promotion of his pawn to a queen. However, White manages to quickly win this queen. The study overall maintains an excellent flow, with the exception of the deeper moves like 17.Qg7. In conclusion, I find this the best study of the tournament and in the complete view of the composition find awarding a prize acceptable.
Solution auteur :
1.Se4+ Kb1 2.Sc3+ Ka1 3.Sxa4+ Kb1 4.Sc3+ Kc2 5.Dh7+ Kb2 6.Sa4+ Ka1 7.Dg7+ Kb1 8.Sc3+ Kc2 9.Dg6+ Kb2 10.Sa4+ Ka1 11.Df6+ Kb1 12.Sc3+ Ka1 !
[12...Kc2 13.Df5+ Kb2 14.Sa4+ Ka1 15.De5+ Kb1 16.Sc3+ Kc2 17.De4+ Kb2 18.Sa4+ Ka1 19.Dd4+ Kb1 20.c6 Sxb6 21.cxb7]
13.Dh8 ! Sxb6 14.cxb6 c5+ 15.Kb5 !
[15.Kxc5 ? Kb2=]
[15...Dc2 16.Da8+ Kb2 17.Sa4+ Kb1 18.Dxb7 Db3+ 19.Kxc5]
16.Sd5+ Ka2 17.Dg7 g3
[17...Dd3+ 18.Kxc5 Dc2+ 19.Dc3]
19.Kxc5 Dc2+ 20.Kd4 ! Dd2+ 21.Ke4
[21.Ke5 ? g2 22.Da7+ Kb1 23.b7 Dg5+=]
21...g2 22.Da7+ !
[22.Da6+ ? Kb2 23.Db5+ wird sehr schön widerlegt 23...Ka1 !! 24.Da4+ Kb2 25.b7 De2+ 26.Kf5 Dh5+ 27.Ke6 Dg6+ 28.Sf6 Dg3=]
22...Kb1 23.b7 De2+
[23...De1+ 24.Kf5 ! (24.Se3 ? Db4+ 25.Kf3 g1D 26.b8D Dh1+=) 24...Df1+ 25.Ke6 (25.Sf4 ? Db5+ 26.Kg4 Dg5+ 27.Kf3 g1S+=) ]
24.Se3 g1D 25.b8D+ Db2 26.Dxb2+ Kxb2 27.Sc4+
|Award MT Boujemâ Kariouch|
|Par Siegfried Hornecker|