www.arves.org - Hornecker-25 JT 2011

Hornecker-25 JT 2011

Siegfried Hornecker (1986) Germany

[Event "S1 Honorable Mention"] [Site ""] [Date "2011.03.19"] [Round ""] [White "Campioli, Marco"] [Black "Entry 34"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "6R1/1R4NN/8/8/1b1K4/2B5/2pppp2/2rbkr2 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "15"] [EventDate "2011"] [SourceDate "2005.01.24"] {Win} 1. Ng5 $1 Rg1 $1 {main} (1... Bxc3+ $1 {main} 2. Kc4 $1 (2. Kxc3 $2 Rh1 $1 3. Nf3+ Kf1 4. Nxd2+ (4. Nf5 e1=Q 5. Ng3+ Kg2 6. Nxh1+ $2 Kxf3 $1 $19) 4... Ke1 5. Nf3+ Kf1 6. Nf5 e1=Q+ 7. Nd2+ Qxd2+ 8. Kxd2 Rh3 $11) 2... Rh1 3. Nf3+ Kf1 4. Nf5 $1 e1=Q 5. Ng3+ Kg2 6. Nxh1+ Kxf3 $1 (6... Kxh1 {main} 7. Rh7#) 7. Rf7+ Ke4 8. Re8+ Be5 9. Ng3+ Ke3 10. Rxe5#) 2. Nf3+ Kf1 3. Nf5 $1 Bc5+ 4. Kxc5 e1=Q 5. Nh2+ Ke2 6. Kc4 $1 f1=Q {main} (6... f1=N {main} 7. Nd4+ $1 Ke3 $1 8. Re7+ $1 Kf4 $1 {main} (8... Kf2 $1 {main} 9. Rf7+ Bf3 10. Rxf3#) 9. Rf7+ Ke4 10. Re8#) 7. Bd4 $1 Rxg8 8. Re7# {An interesting battle between the White and Black forces that ends with the Black king being checkmated on e2, e3, e4, f2 and h1. While the battle here has a higher tension than in entry 47, the overall construction is worse with several Black pieces that never get an active role. I personally like this study, although I see no justification to place it higher than its concurrent. A honorable mention ex aequo, under the conditions outlined at entry 47, therefore is in my opinion the fairest measure.} 1-0

[Event "S1 1st Commendation"] [Site ""] [Date "2011.03.19"] [Round ""] [White "Timman, Jan"] [Black "Entry 40"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "6r1/p1p1p1pP/P1PpP1P1/8/2P1B3/2K3pp/3P2rq/R5bk w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "41"] [EventDate "2011"] [SourceDate "2005.01.24"] {Gewinn} 1. hxg8=N d5 2. Bf3 d4+ 3. Kb4 $1 d3 4. Nh6 gxh6 5. g7 h5 6. g8=N h4 7. Nf6 exf6 8. e7 f5 9. e8=N f4 10. Nd6 cxd6 11. c7 d5 12. c8=N d4 13. Nb6 axb6 14. a7 b5 15. a8=B bxc4 16. Bae4 c3 17. Bxd3 c2 18. Bf1 d3 19. Kb3 (19. Kb5) ( 19. Kc4) (19. Ka4) 19... c1=Q 20. Rxc1 Bd4 21. B1xg2# {The study for the first time shows in this well known matrix four promotions to knight and one promotion to bishop. I found instances of only knight promotions or of bishop promotions when fewer knight promotions had happened, for example Yochanan Afek, 3rd prize, MatPlus 2007, without any knight promotion. In spite of the minor dual and the difficult construction I feel that the novelty is worth a commendation. Since I like this study more than the two other commendations it is ranked as first commendation, even though this distinction only is awarded because of the bishop promotion.} 1-0

[Event "S2 2nd Prize"] [Site ""] [Date "2011.03.19"] [Round ""] [White "Akobia, Iuri"] [Black "Entry 6"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/4p2p/8/5p2/4p3/8/3P1P1P/1k1K4 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "23"] [EventDate "2011"] [SourceDate "2005.01.24"] {Remis} 1. d3 exd3 2. Kd2 h5 3. h4 (3. f4 $5 e6 $1 (3... h4 $2 4. Kxd3 e6 5. Kd2 Kb2 6. h3 $1 {zz} 6... Kb3 7. Kd3 {zz} 7... Kb2 8. Kd2 $11) 4. Kxd3 Kc1 5. h4 Kd1 $19) 3... e6 4. Kc3 $3 {zz} (4. Kxd3 $2 Kc1 {zz} 5. f4 Kd1 $19 {zz}) 4... Kc1 {main} (4... e5 {main} 5. Kxd3 Kc1 6. Kc4 Kd2 7. Kd5 e4 8. Ke5 Ke2 9. Kxf5 Kf3 10. Ke5 $11) 5. Kxd3 {zz} 5... Kd1 6. f4 $1 {zz} (6. Ke3 $2 e5 7. f4 e4 $19) 6... Kc1 7. Kc3 Kd1 8. Kd3 Ke1 9. Ke3 Kf1 10. Kf3 Kg1 11. Kg3 Kh1 12. Kh3 $11 {I am well aware that another judge could have made this the tourney winner. There is no flaw in this study, the zugzwang also has a try that is much more easy to see than the solution. The move 4.Kc3 is probably the most surprising move in the tourney. Why only the second prize then? Well, maybe only for the same reason why the famous masterpiece by Gurgenidze and Kalandadze of Shakhmaty v SSSR 1975 won only the second prize: Bad luck that there was a study of equally high quality in the tourney and the judge liked it more. At first I was not very impressed by the content, but then I never could have forgiven myself to rate this lower than it deserves to be. In a world where Oleg Pervakov/^s idea in 64 Shakhmatnoe Obozrenye 2000 wins a first prize only for one surprise move - in a regular tourney - there is no reason to give a similarly surprising move, with some not too bad foreplay, not a prize.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 3rd Prize"] [Site ""] [Date "2011.03.19"] [Round ""] [White "Becker, Richard"] [Black "Entry 55"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "K7/2PPP3/1k3PP1/6p1/7p/5P2/3p3P/8 b - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "38"] [EventDate "2011"] [SourceDate "2005.01.24"] {Black to move, White draws} 1... d1=Q 2. c8=N+ $1 Ka6 3. d8=N $1 Qxf3+ 4. Kb8 Qf4+ 5. Nd6 Qxd6+ 6. Kc8 Kb6 7. e8=N $1 Qd3 8. f7 $1 Qf5+ 9. Ne6 Qxe6+ 10. Kd8 Kc6 11. f8=N $1 Qa2 12. Ke7 Qa3+ 13. Kf7 Qa7+ 14. Kf6 Qf2+ 15. Ke7 Qc5+ 16. Kf7 Qd5+ 17. Ke7 g4 18. g7 g3 19. hxg3 hxg3 20. Nf6 $11 {It is impossible to not give this study a prize, showing for the first time a fourfold knight promotion in the pawn endgame. However, the partial anticipation has to be considered, consisting of the first seven moves and most of the setting. It is apparent that Richard Becker/^s study in ChessStar of April 2010 and my study of Problem-Forum 2011 (composed after Becker/^s study was published but without knowing it) were either known to the author or rediscovered. In any case, the ranking of this study has to be lowered significantly by this. However, in this special case the study still deserves a prize for the huge improvement. In a completely original setting I would not have hesitated to give the first prize to the study.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "S2 Special Prize"] [Site ""] [Date "2011.03.19"] [Round ""] [White "Afek, Yochanan"] [Black "Entry 36"] [Result "1-0"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/7p/P6P/4p3/6p1/1P2K2p/1P4Pk/8 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "33"] [EventDate "2011"] [SourceDate "2005.01.24"] {Win} 1. g3 $1 Kxg3 2. a7 e4 $1 (2... h2 3. a8=B $1 Kh3 4. Kf2 g3+ 5. Kf1 $18) 3. a8=R $1 Kh2 4. Ra7 $1 Kg2 5. Kxe4 $1 g3 6. Kf4 h2 7. Ra1 Kh3 8. Kf3 g2 9. Ra5 $1 g1=N+ 10. Kf2 Nf3 11. Ra1 $1 Ne5 $1 12. Rd1 $1 Ng4+ 13. Kf3 Nxh6 14. b4 Ng4 15. b5 Ne5+ 16. Kf4 Nc4 17. b3 $1 $18 {There is a good reason why this study's evaluation must take up more space than the usual one page I decide for an entry. The author wrote - and I did therefore not look for anticipations for this study - the following lines: 1974 I published the following study in the Polish monthly "Szachy" [Position without Pb3] The study won initially the first prize and later was disqualified due to a non original stalemate position!! At the time it was a blow for a young composer to see a famous composer sending a false appeal in an attempt to improve his position in the final award. Some famous composers are still doing it but I care a bit less. Recently I discovered that I can improve on that youth effort by adding just one pawn. The result: All four underpromotios are now displayed in a King and pawns ending. Moreover the 2 underpromoted pieces continue their accurate fight for another (record?) 8 more moves. The study might be found suitable for both tourney sections and I leave it to Siegfried to decide. (See below). He should therefore kindly be aware of all these details of the story. While I have to agree with the author that - let me say it in my own words - the judge must have been not very competent for excluding the study from the award due to an anticipated stalemate position (a claim that indeed is correct, by the way) there of course is no way to revise that judgment after such a long time. However, there is a way to do justice to the work, a stunt that however makes it unable to give out any reward, that would have been promised for an usual placement, for its entrance into the award. The study, in full knowledge of the above story as submitted by the author, is awarded for its construction as a whole, and not only of the final eight moves, a special prize. Yes, this is an unjustified distinction, but it is necessary to counter the unjustified removal of a distinction! If the study would have to be judged normally, it could never have received a prize again in view of the predecessor. I hope for the author/^s understanding that I can/^t award a monetary prize for this improvement. However, as a consolation I can offer him a book prize. Do two injustices balance each other out? I hope so. There must be a human view towards art and its creators, one that in rare cases like these must outlaw the usually applied technical view. I know my judgment of this study is wrong on the technical view, but on the human view it could not be correct to refuse this study the justice it deserves.} 1-0

Awards || tournament results

Daily task - Stalemate