www.arves.org - Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020

Studies awarded for the Curierul Problemistic Award 2018-2020 tournament.

[Event "1. prize, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Martin Minski"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "2R5/2PK4/8/5k1r/8/8/8/1qN5 w - - 0 1"] 
 {A tour de force of high technical level. During the first 11 half moves, not a single piece is captured. Black and White go on the attack alternately. Given the tactical nature of the play it is hard to believe we are actually dealing with a miniature.} 1. Rb8 $1 (1. Rf8+ $2 Ke5 {/Kg6/Kg5} 2. c8=Q Rh7+ 3. Kd8 Qb6+ $19) 1... Rh7+ $1 (1... Qe4 2. Rb5+ Kg6 3. Rxh5 $11) 2. Kd6 (2. Kd8 $2 Rh8+ $19) 2... Rh6+ 3. Kd7 (3. Ke7 $2 Qe4+ $19) 3... Qe4 $1 (3... Qxc1 4. c8=Q $11 {battery}) (3... Qa1 4. c8=Q $11 {battery} Qg7+ $2 5. Kd8+ $18 (5. Ke8+ $2 Re6+ $19)) 4. Rb5+ $1 (4. c8=Q $2 Qe6+ 5. Kc7 Rh7+ 6. Kd8 Rh8+ 7. Kc7 Rxc8+ $19 ) (4. Rf8+ $2 Kg5 $1 $19) 4... Kf4 $1 (4... Kg4 5. c8=Q {battery} Qe6+ 6. Kc7 Rh7+ 7. Kb8 $11) (4... Kg6 5. Rb6+ Kg7 6. Rxh6 $11) 5. Rb4 $1 Rd6+ $1 (5... Qxb4 6. Nd3+ Ke4 7. Nxb4 $11) 6. Kc8 $1 (6. Kxd6 $2 Qxb4+ $19) 6... Qxb4 7. Nd3+ $1 Rxd3 {model stalemate} 1/2-1/2

[Event "2. prize, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Pjotr Murdzia and Martin Minski"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "3r3B/P6r/8/K4N2/8/2N5/p1Rn4/6kb w - - 0 1"] 
 {The starting position is messy, with four vs four pieces and two pawns that are about to promote. But the idea, excellently implemented with 3. a8Q, forcing a Black block on this square, lifts the study to prize level. In the end Black to move is unable to win with rook, bishop and knights vs two knights. This bears resemblance to Minski's first prize study of The Problemist 2016-16 (HHDBVI #4438, see appendix) The composers emphasize the use of all four corners in the study, but I don't consider this and asset of the study as the bishops are already on h8 and h1 in the initial position.} 1. Bd4+ $1 {deflection of the black rook from the 8th rank.} (1. Rc1+ $2 Kg2 $1 $19) 1... Rxd4 2. Rc1+ Nf1 (2... Kf2 3. Nd1+ Ke2 4. Ng3+ Ke1 5. Nc3+ Kf2 6. Nxh1+ $11) 3. a8=Q $1 ({logical try} 3. Nxd4 $2 a1=Q+ ({or} 3... Rxa7+ 4. Kb6 a1=Q 5. Rxa1 Rxa1 {with the same position}) 4. Rxa1 Rxa7+ 5. Kb6 Rxa1 6. Nc2 { position X with bBh1} Ra8 $1 $19) 3... Bxa8 4. Nxd4 a1=Q+ 5. Rxa1 Ra7+ 6. Kb6 Rxa1 7. Nc2 $1 {position X with bBa8, domination} Rc1 8. Ne2+ {fork} Kf2 9. Nxc1 $11 1/2-1/2

[Event "3. prize, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Vladimir Samilo"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "6k1/6p1/6p1/1P1p2K1/3p1BP1/1p6/3PP1P1/6b1 w - - 0 1"] 
 {An earlier version of this study went unawarded in my 45 JT. But infact this is another work, all together. Black's counterplay 1...d3 justifies the queen exchange in the introduction (without the exchange it would also have been difficult to avoid Black-to-move. The position after 7. g3 is funny and one of suspense. The king's will fight it out and in the end the check 11. e4+ saves White's day.} 1. b6 d3 $1 (1... b2 2. b7 b1=Q 3. b8=Q+ Qxb8 4. Bxb8 $11) 2. e3 $1 (2. b7 $2 Ba7 $1 3. Be3 Bb8 $19) 2... b2 (2... Bxe3 3. b7 $1 Ba7 4. Be3 { (e5) =}) 3. b7 b1=Q 4. b8=Q+ Qxb8 5. Bxb8 Bxe3+ $1 6. Bf4 {- return} (6. dxe3 $2 d2 $19) 6... d4 7. g3 $1 (7. Bxe3 $2 dxe3 $1 $19) 7... Kf7 {- zz} 8. Kh4 Kf6 $1 (8... Ke6 $6 9. Kg5 $1 ({try} 9. g5 $2 Bxf4 $1 10. gxf4 Kd5 $1 11. Kg4 Kc4 $1 12. f5 gxf5+ 13. Kxf5 Kb3 14. Kg6 Kc2 15. Kxg7 Kxd2 $19) 9... Kf7 10. Kh4 $11 {pos. draw}) 9. g5+ Kf5 10. dxe3 $1 {- theme} (10. Bxe3 $2 dxe3 $19) 10... d2 11. e4+ Kxe4 12. Bxd2 $11 {Theme of 12th Arves Ty (delayed capture) with zugzwang for black or white.} 1/2-1/2

[Event "2. hm, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Amatzia Avni"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "user"] [FEN "3N1B2/4p3/R6p/p3b1kP/2P5/p6P/p5K1/8 w - - 0 1"] 
 {A pretty study with a good introduction in the style of Wotawa. I think this study brings about an interesting discussion. The idea of Rg5! can be done with only 5 pawns on the board instead of 7. I noticed this and tried for some time to create a good introduction, but failed. My question is this: Is it essential that the implementation is economically perfect when presenting a small, pretty idea like this? Traditional conventions preach so. Or may pawns be added for the sake of a better introduction. I am honestly in doubt. [#]} 1. Ne6+ Kf5 (1... Kxh5 2. Ng7+ Kg5 3. Kf3 $3 (3. Bxe7+ $2 Kf4 4. Ne6+ Kf5 $1 5. Nd4+ Bxd4 6. Rxa5+ Ke4 7. Rxa3 a1=Q 8. Rxa1 Bxa1 $11) 3... a1=Q 4. h4+ Kxh4 5. Bxe7+ Bf6 6. Bxf6+ Qxf6+ 7. Rxf6 $18) 2. Nd4+ Bxd4 3. Rxa5+ Bc5 $1 {a clever defence} (3... e5 4. Rxa3 a1=Q 5. Rxa1 Bxa1 6. Bxh6 $18) 4. Rxc5+ (4. Bg7 $2 e5 5. Bxe5 Kxe5 $19) 4... Kf6 {[#]} (4... e5 5. Rxe5+ $18) 5. Rg5 $3 ({not} 5. Bxe7+ Ke6 $1 6. Re5+ Kxe5 7. Bf8 Kf6 $19) 5... hxg5 (5... Kxg5 6. Bg7 $18) 6. h6 Kf5 7. Bg7 e5 8. Bxe5 ({accurate.} 8. h7 $2 a1=Q 9. h8=Q Qb2+ $11) 8... Kxe5 9. h7 1-0

[Event "1. commendation, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Pavel Arestov and Peter Krug"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "8/8/8/4p2k/4n3/p7/7P/2KR4 w - - 0 1"] 
 {Long (too long) precise play and an amusing systematic manoeuvre by rook and knight. The finishing touch 17. Rf8 is attractive as well.} 1. Rd5 $1 ({Try} 1. Re1 $2 a2 $1 2. Kb2 Nf2 $1 3. Rxe5+ Kh4 $1 4. Re8 (4. Kxa2 Ng4 $11) 4... Kh3 5. Rh8+ Kg2 6. h4 Kh3 7. h5 Kh4 8. h6 Kh5 9. h7 Kg6 10. Rf8 Nd1+ {Nd3} 11. Kxa2 Kxh7 $11) 1... Kh4 2. Rxe5 Nf6 (2... Nf2 3. Re8 $3 ({but not} 3. Re7 $2 Kh3 4. Rh7+ Kg2 5. h4 Kh3 $11) 3... Ng4 4. Rh8+ Kg5 5. Kb1 $18) 3. Re7 $1 Kh3 4. Rf7 $1 Ng4 5. Rh7+ Kg2 6. h4 Kh3 7. Kb1 $1 Nf6 8. Rh6 Ng4 9. Rh5 $1 (9. Rh8 $2 {Rh7 } Nf6 {loss of time}) 9... Nh2 $1 (9... Nf6 10. Rf5 Ng4 11. h5 $18) 10. Rh8 $1 (10. Rh7 $2 Kg4 $11) 10... Ng4 11. Ka2 (11. Rh7 {Rh5,Ka1 - loss of time}) 11... Nf6 12. Rh6 Ng4 13. Rh5 Nh2 14. Rh8 $1 Kg4 $1 (14... Ng4 15. Kxa3 $18) 15. h5 $1 (15. Kxa3 $2 Nf3 16. h5 Nh4 $11) 15... Kg5 16. h6 Kg6 17. Rf8 $3 (17. h7 $2 Kg7 $11) 17... Kh7 $1 (17... Kxh6 18. Rh8+ $18) 18. Rf4 $1 Kxh6 19. Rh4+ {win} 1-0

[Event "2. commendation, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Pavel Arestov and Alexander Zhukov"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "K7/1p5p/8/6p1/1R6/4Pk2/8/8 w - - 0 1"] 
 {White avoids capturing pawn-b7 to avoid a future stalemate with rook vs. h-pawn. This stalemate remains hidden between the lines (or outside the lines in fact) and this takes away almost all clarity and attraction of the study.}  1. e4 Kf4 2. Rb5 $3 ({Try:} 2. Kxb7 $2 h6 $3 3. Kc6 Ke5 $1 4. Kc5 h5 5. Kc4 Kxe4 6. Kc3+ Ke3 7. Rb5 g4 $1 8. Rxh5 g3 9. Rg5 Kf2 10. Kd2 g2 11. Rf5+ Kg3 $11 12. Rg5+ Kf2) 2... g4 $1 (2... Kxe4 3. Rxg5 $18) (2... h6 3. e5 Kf5 4. e6+ Kxe6 {main line}) 3. e5 Kf5 4. e6+ $1 (4. Kxb7 $2 Ke6 $1 5. Kc6 h5 6. Rd5 g3 $11) 4... Kxe6 5. Ka7 $3 (5. Kxb7 $2 Kf6 6. Kc6 g3 7. Rb3 h5 $11) 5... b6 $1 (5... Kf6 6. Kb6 $1 Kg6 7. Kc5 h5 8. Kd4 $18) 6. Kb7 $3 (6. Kxb6 $2 h6 {Kf6} 7. Kc5 Ke5 $1 8. Kc4+ Ke4 9. Kc3 Ke3 $11) 6... h6 $1 (6... Kf6 7. Kc6 g3 8. Rb3 { main line}) 7. Kc6 $1 g3 (7... Kf6 8. Kd5 Kf5 9. Kd4+ Kf4 10. Kd3 g3 11. Ke2 $18) 8. Rb3 $1 g2 9. Rg3 $1 (9. Rb1 $2 Kf5 10. Rg1 h5 11. Rxg2 h4 $11) 9... h5 10. Rxg2 {win} 1-0

[Event "3. commendation, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Pavel Arestov"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "3K3R/8/2p1p3/8/8/3k4/8/8 w - - 0 1"] 
 {Why is 1. Ke7!! a win, and 1. Kc7? a draw in this assymmetry study? This important question is not answered in the variations of the study. In fact this is so, because after 1. Ke7 White has 12. Rd8+ Ke1 13. Kc2 (other move orders are possible for White which is probably why the composers ended the study with 12. Rd8 +-) e2 14. Rf8 c3 15. Kc1 c2 16. Rh8! It is amusing that 1. Ke7 means the king will end up on the queen's side, while 1. Kc7 puts the king on the kingside.} 1. Ke7 $3 ({Logical try} 1. Kc7 $2 e5 $1 2. Rd8+ Kc3 $1 3. Kd6 e4 4. Re8 Kd4 5. Ke6 c5 $1 6. Kf5 c4 $1 7. Kf4 Kd3 $1 8. Rd8+ Ke2 $1 9. Rc8 Kd3 10. Kg3 c3 $1 11. Kf2 Kd2 $1 12. Rd8+ Kc1 {draw} 13. Ke2 c2 14. Rb8 e3 15. Ke1 e2 16. Kxe2 {stalemate}) 1... c5 $1 (1... e5 2. Kf6 e4 3. Rd8+ Kc3 4. Re8 Kd3 5. Ke5 e3 6. Kf4 e2 7. Kf3 $18) 2. Rd8+ $1 (2. Kxe6 $2 c4 3. Kd5 c3 4. Rh3+ Kd2 5. Kd4 c2 6. Rh2+ Kd1 7. Kd3 c1=N+ $1 $11) 2... Ke3 $1 (2... Ke4 3. Kd6 c4 4. Kc5 c3 5. Kb4 c2 6. Rc8 $18) 3. Kd6 $1 (3. Rc8 $2 Kd4 4. Rd8+ Ke3 {loss of time}) 3... c4 4. Rc8 (4. Kc5 $2 c3 5. Kb4 c2 6. Rc8 Kd2 $11) 4... Kd4 (4... Kd3 5. Kc5 c3 6. Kb4 c2 7. Kb3 $18) 5. Kc6 $1 e5 $1 (5... c3 6. Kb5 Kd3 7. Kb4 c2 8. Kb3 $18) 6. Kb5 (6. Rd8+ $2 Ke3 7. Kb5 c3 8. Kb4 c2 9. Rc8 Kd2 $11) 6... e4 7. Kb4 $1 Kd3 8. Rd8+ Kc2 $1 9. Re8 $1 (9. Kxc4 $2 e3 10. Ra8 e2 11. Ra2+ Kd1 12. Kd3 e1=N+ $1 $11) 9... Kd3 10. Ka3 $1 (10. Rd8+ $2 Kc2 11. Re8 Kd3 { loss of time}) 10... e3 11. Kb2 Kd2 12. Rd8+ {win} 1-0

[Event "5. commendation, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Geir Østmoe"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "1k5K/8/8/6P1/1q5B/8/8/3B4 w - - 0 1"] 
 {A technically perfect study, but also a somewhat technical one that failed to excite me. Often in such studies where White attempt to lose his bishop(s), the advanced pawn is on the a-, c-, f- or h-files and the motivation is stalemate. Here it is about unavoidable promotion. Østmoe had a similar study for Kondratiuk MT 4th/5th prize 2018.} 1. Bg3+ Kc8 2. g6 Qe4 $1 {Attacking both g6 and d1 (via h1).} ({After} 2... Qf8+ 3. Kh7 Qf5 {, one option is} 4. Kh6 Qh3+ 5. Bh5 Qxg3 6. g7 {drawing because of the threat Bf7.}) 3. Bc2 $3 (3. g7 $2 Qh1+ 4. Kg8 Qxd1 {wins.}) 3... Qxc2 4. g7 Qc3 5. Kh7 (5. Bf4 $2 Qh3+ { wins.}) 5... Qd3+ 6. Kh8 Qd4 7. Bf4 $1 {With the queen on c3, this was losing, but with the queen on d4, it is necessary.} (7. Kh7 $2 Qe4+ {(or Qd7)} 8. Kh8 Qh1+ {wins.}) 7... Qf6 {The only way to prevent Bh6.} (7... Kd7 8. Bh6 Ke7 9. Kh7 Qe4+ 10. Kh8 {draws.}) 8. Bg5 $1 Qxg5 9. g8=Q+ Qxg8+ 10. Kxg8 1/2-1/2

[Event "6. commendation, Curierul Problemistic 2018-2020"] [White "Vladimir Samilo"] [Black ""] [Result "1-0"] [Annotator "stjef"] [FEN "N3N3/3r4/8/3nP2B/k5p1/2P5/7p/7K w - - 0 1"] 
 {I would have begun this pleasant study with 4. Nb6. Again a try (5. Nd7) gives a study a little extra that made me include it in the award. It is a big shame that the echo variation 2..Rd8 3. Nb6+ Kb5 4. Nd7! Rxd7 5. Be8 does not work (3. Nc7 wins as well). Good study for solving.} 1. Nf6 $1 (1. Bxg4 $2 Re7 $1 2. Nf6 Ne3 3. Bd7+ Kb3 $11) 1... Nxf6 2. exf6 (2. Nb6+ $2 Kb5 3. Nxd7 Nxh5 $1 $11 (3... Nxd7 $2 4. Be8 $1 Kc6 5. e6 $18)) 2... Rd1+ $1 (2... Ka5 3. f7 Rd8 4. Nc7 $18) (2... Rd8 3. Nb6+ (3. Nc7 $18) 3... Kb5 4. Nd7 Rxd7 5. Be8) 3. Kxh2 Rd8 4. Nb6+ (4. Nc7 $2 Rh8 5. f7 Rxh5+ $11) 4... Kb5 (4... Ka5 5. Nc4+ $18) 5. Nd5 $3 {- point} ({try} 5. Nd7 $2 Rh8 $1 (5... Rxd7 $2 6. Be8 $1 $18 {- pin}) 6. f7 Rxh5+ $11) 5... Rxd5 (5... Rh8 6. Nf4) 6. c4+ Kxc4 7. Bf7 {- pin} Kc5 8. Bxd5 Kxd5 9. f7 Ke6 10. f8=Q $18 {Theme of 4th Youth CCC with pointe on the 5th move.} 1-0

Appendix:

[Event "1.p The Problemist"] [Date "2016"] [White "Martin Minski"] [Black ""] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [FEN "q4k2/1b1P2N1/5P2/1n2n3/1N6/1R4K1/2R2B2/3r4 w - - 0 1"] [PlyCount "33"] [EventDate "2016"] 
 {The Problemist=7 The Problemist/1 (EG#22798).} 1. Ra2 $1 (1. Ne6+ $2 Kf7 $1 (1... Kg8 $2 2. Ra2 Qb8 3. Ba7 $1 Nxa7 4. Na6 Qa8 5. Nac7 Qb8 6. Na6) 2. d8=Q Rxd8 3. Nxd8+ Qxd8) 1... Qb8 2. Ba7 $1 (2. Na6 $2 Bxa6) 2... Nxa7 3. Na6 Qa8 4. Nc7 (4. Ne6+ $2 Kf7 5. d8=Q Rxd8 6. Rxb7+ (6. Nxd8+ Qxd8 7. Rxb7+ Kxf6) 6... Rd7) 4... Qb8 5. Na6 Rg1+ 6. Rg2 $1 (6. Kh3 $2 Bg2+) (6. Kh2 $2 Nf3+) (6. Kf2 $2 Nd3+ $1 7. Kxg1 Qg3+) 6... Rxg2+ 7. Kh3 Rh2+ $1 8. Kg3 $1 Rh3+ $1 (8... Qd6 9. d8=Q+ Qxd8 10. Ne6+ Kg8 11. Nxd8 Rg2+ 12. Kh3) (8... Nxd7+ 9. Nxb8) 9. Kxh3 Bg2+ $1 10. Kxg2 Qa8+ 11. Kg1 $1 (11. Kh2 $2 Kf7 $1 12. Rb7 Kg6) (11. Kf2 $2 Kf7 $1 12. Rb8 Qf3+ $1) 11... Nxd7 12. Rb8+ $1 (12. Ne6+ $2 Kf7 $1 13. Rb8 Qd5 $1 14. Rf8+ Nxf8) ( 12. Nc7 $2 Qc8 $1) 12... Nxb8 13. Ne6+ Kg8 14. f7+ $1 (14. Nac7 $2 Qf3 $1 15. f7+ Qxf7) 14... Kxf7 15. Nac7 Qb7 (15... Qc6 {<main>} 16. Nd8+ Ke7 17. Nxc6+) ( 15... Qe4 {<main>} 16. Ng5+ Kg6 17. Nxe4) (15... Qf3 {<main>} 16. Ng5+ Kg6 17. Nxf3) 16. Nd8+ Ke7 17. Nxb7 1/2-1/2