No. I l l -(jVoLVII)

May 1994

Editorial B:C>arde d i t o r s •'.John Roycroft, 17 New Way Road, London, England NW9 6PLEd van de Gevel, Binnen de Veste36, 3811 PH Amersfoort, The NetherlandsTreasurer: /. a* Boer, Zevenenderdrift 40, 1251 RC Laren, The Netherlands

I • • . . • •

Life plays ixicks on us. My 'Farewell' in EG 102.2 in 1991 was premature. The return in1994 is sad because your editor's visionary hopes and plans for a 'great leap forward'with the transfer of EG from The Chess Endgame Study Circle in England to ARVES inthe Netherlands have been dashed. Reasons will never be made fully public, and indeedyour new (also old) editor neither knows, nor wishes to know, the full story. Suffice to saythat in 1993 after a painful spate of accusation and counteraccusa-tion the talented andhard-working Jan van Reek and Harrie Grondijs together resigned from ARVES to formSTES, a rijew project intending primarily to produce books. As a frustrated author himselfAJR was tempted to join STES. However, realising that EG would never have top priorityin STES' I affairs, and would indeed lose rather than gain in world- wide reputation, hedeclined Jfan and Harrie's invitation. In retrospect, a strong indicator in this decision wasthe change of EG emblem (or 'logo') in 1992 from the distinctive shape, dating back toEG3 in 1^66 and instantly recognised world-wide - if that changed, then other faux pasmight well follow. We wish Jan and Harrie well, and expect to keep in touch with them.AJR theri offered to resume the overall editorship of EG, an offer which ARVESChairman|| Bertholee accepted, it seems with some alacrity! The now permanent arran-gement is that AJR obtains and prepares on diskette all material for publication in EG, buthas no responsibility for production, subscriptions or finance. His brand new productioneditor colleague is Ed van de Gevel of Amersfoort - welcome, Ed! EG111, the issue nowin the reader's hands, is the first fruit of what we are confident will be a long period ofsmooth trans-channel European cooperation. There is much, much more to come. A wordof thanks. Not only ARVES, but EG supporters world-wide, owe a great debt of gratitudeto Harold van der Heijden, the man who nobly brought an end to the embarrassing post-EG108 hiatus by producing (from AJR's diskette material) EG 109 and EG110 on top ofhis responsibilities as editor of EBUR. We all regret the waste of valuable space caused bythe duplication in EG110, pointed out by several readers, of the 1991 Bron MT ofSverdlovsk/Ekaterinburg, already in EG104 (No.8351-8365). (A previous duplication, ofthe Bulgarian Shahmatna Misal 1974-75 informal tourney award, went largely unnoticed,but then EG106.1 is separated by 13 years from EG56.)

Unless you have a specific reason to write to AJR, please address all correspondence toEd - the perfect name for an ED-itor.John RoycroftLondon8iii94

330

TSERETELI-150As far as we can disentangle it the storyof this major international tourney,celebrating the 150th anniversary of theGeorgian folk poet's birth, reflects thetergiversations of recentGeorgian history. An announcement inShakhmaty v SSSR xi90 states thatM.Botvinnik will be a judge, along withI.Akobia. There is to be one section forwins, another for draws. Closing date:H91. From the beginning of 1992 nofewer than 84 'Tsereteli-award' positionscirculate informally round the world.They comprise 42 wins and 42 draws.The diagrams and solutions are on poorquality computer paper. There is neitherdate nor signature, and there are all kindsof errors in profusion. Positions from this'award' start to appear in magazines. Weare aware of acute shortage of paper inFSU-land, so could this be the best toexpect? But no, we are assured that therewill be a booklet, on the lines of theearlier Chavchavadze-150 award. Well,the booklet, dated 1991, reaches us latein 1993. It contains four awards(AKAKIA-150, NADAREISHVILI-70and NONA-50, as well as TSERETE-LI-150). We read that there were 260entries - not quite a world record (evenaccepting the combined number of entriesfor both sections, which amount toseparate tourneys). The sports newspaper"Lelo" is named as the tourney organi-ser/sponsor, but we also read the laconic'Publication: issues of the newspaperGeorgia on the Air* (ie, radio and TV),and in this connection we recall that IuriAkobia is Chief Engineer of GeorgianTelevision. There is no mention of Bot-vinnik. If we compare the 'original' 84with the booklet's 68 (33 wins, 35 draws)we find 18 of the 84 are now omitted,one (1st Prize, draws) appears in analtered setting, and two are completelynew. Analysis is fuller, and the fewremaining diagram errors are easily cor-

rected.EG's publication policy is clear, fol-lowing our principle of giving readers thebest and fullest information. We havedeliberately waited until a recognisablyofficial award became available beforegiving the positions to our readers, butwhile waiting we asked David Blundellto subject as many of the positions aspossible to his close scrutiny. In so doingDavid has achieved a minor miracle. Asa result, EG readers now have the best ofall worlds, a result not possible by thetempting alternative of dashing into printwithin 48 hours!! Since manyTSERETELI-150 positions have beenreproduced elsewhere and may thereforebe encountered with erroneous at-tributions, we also give, but withoutcomment, 17 (one was effectivelyduplicated) of the 18 studies that werewidely circulated but in the endeliminated.

We are puzzled that nowhere in thebooklet (whose existence is due to thegreat energy of Iuri Akobia) is theremention of 'provisional awards', 'confi-rmation time' or 'final awards', despitethe evidence that the informally circula-ted '84' served de facto as a provisionalaward and gave rise to many analyticalobservations, at least some of which weresuccessfully fed back to Georgia.Judge: Iuri Akobia (Tbilisi, Georgia).

331

SECTIOrf FOR WIN STUDIESNo. 9113 j| 1st PrizeG.Nadareishviii and M.Gogberashvili(Tbilisi)

l.Ra8+ !(e8Q? -Re4+;) Kbl/i 2.e8Q/iifRe4+ k.Kd2/iii bRd4+ (Rxe8;Rhl+)4.Kc3 icA+ 5.Kb3 Rb4+ (Rxe8;Rxb2)6.Ka3 I xe8 7.Rxe8 Kal 8.Rel+ blS+9.Rxbl+ Rxbl (Kxbl;Kxb4) 10.Ra2mate. Ii) Ra4 2jRxa4+ Rxa4 3.Rxb2 Re4+ 4.Re2wins.u) 2.Re2? fRe4 3.e8Q Rxe8 draw,iii) 3.Kldll? Rxe8 4Rxe8 Rc4 5.Rh7Rd4+. pr 3.Qxe4+? Rxe4+ 4.Kd2 Rh45.Re2 Rh2 draw."An original ending with interesting play,proof yet again of the miraculous pos-sibilities of rook endings. A productionof high class."

No. 911JI =2/3 PrizeD.Gurgerddze and O.Pervakov (Moscow)

LgRxg7 Sxf4+/i 2.Qxf4 Bd5+/ii 3.Kxd5,and:0-0-0+ 4.Kc6/iii Qxf4/iv 5.Ra8+ Qb8

6.Rc7 mate, orRd8+ 4.Ke6/v Qxf4/vi 5.Rg8+ Qf8

6Re7 mate.i) 0-0-0 2.Ke7+ Kb8 3Kxd8 wins. IfBd5+ 2.Kxd5 Sc3+ 3.Ke6 Qc4+ 4.Kf6Qd4+ 5.Kg6 Qb6+ 6.Kh7 Rxa7 7.Qc8+wins.ii) Qxf4 3.Rg8+ Qf8 4.Re7+ mates. OrQh3+ 3.Kf6 Qc3+ 4.Kg5 Qc5+ 5.Kh4Rxa7 6.Qb8+.ui) 4.Ke5? Qb5+ 5.Kf6 Rd6+ 6.Ke7Rd7+ 7.Rxd7 Qe5+ 8.Qxe5 stalemaite.iv) Qhl+ (Rd6;Kc5) 5.Kb5(Kc5) wins,Qd5+ 6.Kb4, but not 5.Kb6? Rd6+6.Qxd6 Qb7+ drawing,v) 4.Ke5? Qb5+ 5.Kf6 Rd6+ 6.Qxd6Qf5+ 7.Kxf5 stalemate,vi) Rd6+ 5.Ke5. Or Qh3+ 5.Rg4 Qb3+6.Qc4 Qb6+ 7.Kf5 Qf2+ 8.Rf4 wins."A pair of echoed checkmates with activepin of bQ."

No. 9115 =2/3 PrizeV.Neidze (Tbilisi) and E.Leun (Vilnius)

l .g8Q+ Kb7 2.Qxa8+/i Kxa8(Kxb6;Qxhl) 3.bc/ii Bb7 4.Bg2 e4(a5;c8Q+) 5.Bxe4 d5 6.Bxd5 alQ+ 7.Kh7Qe5/iii 8.c8Q+ Qb8 9.Bxb7 mate,i) 2.Qc8+? Kxb6 3.Qb8+ Bb7 draw,ii) Threatening 4c8Q mate. If now Kb74.c8Q+ Kb6 5Qb8+ Bb7 6.Qxd6+ wins,iii) Bl has systematically sacrificed bPP

332

with the aim of freeing the h2-b8diagonal for use of bQ."Smothered mate with active pin of bQ.Impressive."

No. 9116 4th Prize D.Gurgenidze

l...Rb5+ (dSe6;Kc4) 2.Kc4 Rc5+ 3.Kxc5dSe6+ 4.Kb6 Sd7+ 5.Ka7 Bxc3 6.Bd8(Bg3? Se5;) Bd4+ 7.cSxd4 (fSxd4?Sxc7;) with:Sxc7 8.Sd6+ Kxd8 9.Sc6 mate, orSxd8 8.Se7+/i Kxc7 9.Sb5 mate,

i) 8.Sb5? Sc6+ 9.Ka6 Sb4+ 10.Ka5 Sc6+ll.Ka4 Sb6+ 12.Ka3 Sa7 draw."Synthesis of two superb checkmateswith two self-blocks."David Blundell points out that this is aversion of the unsound study awarded2nd Prize in the initially circulatedaward.

No. 9117 =5/6 PrizeD.Gurgenidze and V.Kalandadze (Tbilisi)

l.Sc5+ Ka8 2.Sf6 Bf3/i 3.Se8 Sxa74.Sc7+ (b7? Kb8;) Kb8 5.S7a6+ Ka86.b7+ Bxb7 7.Sc7+ Kb8 8.Sd7 mate,i) Sxa7 3.b7+ Kab8 4.fSd7 mate."Dynamic play and an interestingclimax."

No. 9118 =5/6 PrizeAn.G.Kuznetsov (Moscow)

I.f7 d2 2.Bd4+ Khl 3.Be2 Bxe2+ 4.Kxe2Sf4+ 5.Kxd2 Se6 6.Ke3/i Sf8 7.Kf4/iiSh7 8.Kg3/iii Sf8 9.B- Sh7 10.Bc5 g5ll.Kg4wins.i) The first 'Re*ti' move. "David Blundell:6.Bc5 wins. If g5 7.Kc3 g4 8.Kc4 g39.Kd5 Sxc5 10.f8Q, or Kg2 7.Ke3 g58.Be7 g4 9.Ke4, or Kh2 7.Ke3 g58.Bd6+ Kh3 9.Ke4."ii) The second 'Re*ti' move.iii) A 'blockade* of bK, explaining2.Bd4. "The Re*ti idea with 'frustration'motivation: fortress and blockade. Theplay is sterile."

333

No. 9119 =Hon.MentionL.Mitrofanov (St Petersburg)N.Ryabinin (Tambov region)

andNo. 9120 =Hon.MentionV.Kalandadze

l.Rh4+ Kb5/i 2.Rh5+/ii Ka6/iii 3.Bd2Re3 4.Rab+ Kb7 5.Ra7+/iv Kb8 6.Sc6+Kc8 7.Bejl Rb3+/v 8.Kc2/vi Rb2+ 9.Kd3Rb3+ i o k c 4 Rbl/vii ll.Ba5/viii Rcl+12.Kb5 Rbl+ 13.Ka6 wins.i) Kd3 2iBf2 wins, Rb3+/ix 3.Kcl (alsoKa2) RcJ3+ 4.Kb2 Rc2+ 5.Kbl Rc56.Rd4+ Kc3 7.Sd5+ Kb3 8.Rd3+ Kc4(Ka4;Sc3i) 9.Rc3+ and Rxc5+.ii) 2.Bd2? Re3 3.Rb4+ Ka6 4.Rb6+(Ra4+, Rb5;) Ka7 5.Sc8+ (Sc6+,Kxb6;)Ka8 6.Be:|l Rb3+ 7.Kc2 Rb2+ 8.Kd3 Rbldraw.iii) Kc4jj3.Rc5+ Kd3 4.Bf2 wins, Ra65.Re5 Rf6 6.Sf5 Kd2 7.Rd5+ Kc3 8.Bel+Kc4 9.Re;5 Kd3 10.Sg3. Or Ka4 3.Bd2wins, Re3 4.Kb2 Rb3+ 5.Kc2, and6.Ra5+.iv) 5.Rb5ri? Ka8 6.Ra5 Kb8.v) Rd3 8|Ral (or Kb2) Rdl+ 9.Kb2.vi) 8.Ka2? Rb2+ 9.Ka3 Rbl, and 10.Ba5Ral+ 11 ia>3 Rxa5, or 10.Bg3 Ral+ Kb2Rbl+ 12.kxbl elQ+.vii) Rb4^Rc3)+ ll.BxR elQ 12.Ra8+,relieves the stalemate, enabling 13.Bxel.viii) I l i a 8 + ? Kc7 draw. If ll.Bg3? wKhas no hideaway, as the e-file is taboo.ix) Ra6 3.Sd5 and 4.Rd4 mate. Or Ra53.Rd4+Kc3 4.Bel+.Every annotation here is by David Blun-dell.

l.Rb7+ Kal/i 2.a7 Rh3 3.Rc7 Rb3+4.Kc8 Rh3 5.Rd7 Rc3+ 6.Kd8 Rh3 7.Re7Rd3+ 8.Ke8 Rh3 9.RH Rh8+ 10.Rf8Rxf8+ ll.Kxf8 g3 12.a8Q a2 13.Qc6Kb2 14Qb5+ Kc2/ii 15.Qa4+ Kb216.Qb4+ Kc2 17.Qa3 Kbl 18.Qb3+ Kal19.Qc2 g2 2O.Qcl mate,i) Kc2 2.a7 Rh3 3.Rc7+ Kb2 4.a8Q Rh8+5.Rc8 Rxc8+ 6.Kxc8 a2 7.Qb7+ wins,ii) "David Blundell: Unsound. Bl drawswith 14...Ka3, for example, 15.Qc5+ Kb316.Qe3+ Kb2 17.Qd4+ Kb3 18.Ke7 g219.Kd6 glQ 2O.Qxgl Kb2. A bit tricky,but I think that if Bl prevents checksfrom b4 he draws."

No. 9121 =Hon.MentionSh. and R.Tsurtsumia (Georgia)

l.Ra8 Ba5/i 2.Rxa5/ii Qxa5 3.Ra8 Ra64.Rxa6/iii Qxa6 5.b8R (b8Q? Qb5+;) Qa4

334

6.d8R (d8Q? Qdl+;) Qc6 7.Ra8+ Kb38.dRb8+ Kxc3 9.Ra3+ Kd2 10.Rb2+ Kdlll.Ral c3 12.Ka2mate.i) Ba7;, inhibits a later bRa6.ii) 2.Kcl? Rd6 3.Rhl Ka2 4.Rxa5 Qxa55.Rh2+ Kal 6.b8Q Qxc3+ 7.Rc2 Qelmate.iii) 4.b8Q? Qf5+ (Rxa8). Or 4.d8Q?Qb5+ 5.Kcl Qb2+ 6.Kdl Qxb7 7.Qd6+Kb3 8.Rxa6 Qhl+, perpetual check.Notes by David Blundell.

No. 9123 =CommendationV.Vlasenko (Kharkov region)

No. 9122 =CommI.Bondar (Gantsevichi)

BTM2.Kh3 Rf3+ 3.Kh4 Rf4+/ii

4.Kh5 Rf8 5.Bg7 Rb8 6.Bb7+, with:Kd3 7.Bd5 Sd6/iii 8.Bg8 Sf7 9.Bxf7 c310.Bg8 c2 ll.Bh6 wins, orKf5 7.Bd5 Sd6 8.h8Q/iv Rxh8+ 9.Bxh8

Kf4 10.Kg6 Ke3 ll.Be5 wins,i) Sd6 2.Bg7 Sf7 3.Bxc4 wins,ii) Sd6 4.Bg7 Sf5+ 5.Kg5 Rg3+ 6.Kf6Rh3 7.Bc8 Rxh7 8.Bxf5+ and 9.Bxh7,winning.iii) c3 8.Bg8 c2 9.Bb2 wins,iv) David Blundell: "May be unsound. Wcan also force P-promotion: 8.Bg8 Rbl9.Bf6 Se4 10.Bh4 Rhl ll.Be6+ Kxe612.h8Q. How does Bl draw? I'd like tosee the composer's notes." The bookletobliges with: 9...Se8! and DB concurs,tidying up with 10.Bh4 Sg7+, or 10.Be6+Kxe6 H.h8QSxf6+.

l.Bb7+ Kd8 2.Ba6 Ke7 3.Sh7 f6 4.Bc4flQ 5.Bxfl Kf7 6Bd3/i f4 7.Kb6 Kg78.Kc5 f3 9.Kd4/ii f2 10.Sg5/iii fg ll.Ke3wins.i) 6.Bxh3? f4 7.Kb6 Kg7 8.Bf5 f3 9.Bd3f2 10.Sg5 fg, and now the plan to win bystalemating bK fails because it's realstalemate in the absence of bhP.ii) 9.Sg5? fg 10.Kd4 g4 ll.Ke3 g3 draw.iii) 10.Ke3? flQ ll.Bxfl Kxh7 draws.

No.9124 =CommendationI.Dadiani (Tbilisi)

l.Qxe5 de 2.f7 Qb8/i 3.Rxc7 Qd8 4.Rd7Qc8 5.Kb2 Qf8 6.a3 e4 7.Rd2, and Qe78.Rf2 Qf8 9.Rh2 wins, or Qb8 8.Kbl e39.Rh2 wins.i) Qa8 3.Rxc7 Qhl+ 4.Kb2 Qg2+ 5.Rc2Qxg6 6.f8Q+ wins.

335

No. 9125 =CommendationL.Mitrofanov and N.Ryabinin

I.g7 (gh?j Bd4+;) Bd4+ 2.Khl/i Ral+3.Kg2 Rgl+ 4.Kh2 Rxg7/ii 5.Bxg7 Ke76.Bh6 Be3 7.Rh8/iii Bxh6 8.Rxh7+ Ke69.Rxh6+ Kd5 lO.Kgl/iv c3 ll.Rh2 Kc412.Kfl Kd3/v 13.Kel c2 14Rh3+ Kd415.Kd2 wins.i) 2.Kh3? bxe5 3.g8Q Rh2+ 4.Kg4 Rg2+.ii) Bxe5-4 5.Kxgl Bxg7 6.Rf7+ Kd67.Rxg7 wins.iii) 7.Bg7[? Bd4 8.Bh6 Be3 would be apositional draw.iv) 10.Kgi(g3)? c3 ll.Rhl Kc4 12.Kf3c2 13.Ke2 Kc3 14.Rcl c5 15.Ke3 c416.R- Kbi 17.Kd2 c3+ draw.v) Kb3 l;3.Kel c2 14.Kd2 Kb2 15Rhlc5 16.Rclii wins.

No. 9126 =CommendationV.Kalyagin (Sverdlovsk/Ekaterinburg)

2.Kc2/i Sf8 3.Bh5 Kd4/ii 4.Bg6/iiiKxe4/iv 5.h7 Sxh7 6.Bxh7 Kf4 7.Bg6/vKg4 8.h5 Kg5 9.Bxf7 Kxf5/vi 10.h6wins.i) 2.Kbl? Sf8 3.Bh5 Kd4 4.Bg6 Kxe45.h7 Sxh7 6.Bxh7 Kd3 7.Bg6 (Bg8;Ke4)fg 8.fg Kc3 9.g7 a2+ 10.Kxa2 Kc2 draw,ii) Kd6 4.Bxf7 Ke7 5.Bg6 Sxg6 6.fg Kf87.h7 Kg7 8.h5 winning, but not 4.Bg6?Ke7 5.h5 fg 6.fg Sxg6 8.hg Kf8 drawn,iii) 4.Bxf7? Kxe4 5.Bg6 Kf4 6.h7 Sxh77.Bxh7 Kg4 8.Bg6 Kxh4 9.Bf7 Kg510.Be6 Kf4(g4) drawn. With thisP-configuration W wins only if wBdefends from the bl-e4 diagonal,iv) fg 5.h7 Sxh7 6.fg, and promotes,v) This gains a tempo by delaying the h5advance.vi) Kh6 10.Bc4 Kxh5 ll.Bd3 Kg412.Kb3 wins. Only this note is not byDavid Blundell.

No. 9127 =CommendationSh.Sukhitashvili (Georgia)

If l...Sf8;'2.Bxb3 and 3.Bxf7. So, I...b2+

l.Bgl Kg4 2.Ke2/i Kg3 3.Bh2+, and:Kg2 4.Se5 Kxh2 5.Kf2 Khl 6.Sg4/ii f3

7.Kfl f2 8.Sxf2+ Kh2 9.Se4 Khl 10.Kf2Kh2 ll.Sd2 Khl 12.Sfl h2 13.Sg3 mate,orKxh2 4.Kf2 Khl 5.Se5 Kh2 6.Sg4+ Khl

7.Kfl f3 8.Kf2 h2 9.Kfl f2 10.Sxf2 mate,i) David Blundell claims a seriousdual/cook with: 2.Bh2 Kf3 3.Se5+ Kf24.Sd3+(g6) Kg2 S.Kel O 6.Sf4+ Khl7.Kfl f2 8.Ke2 flQ+ 9.Kxfl Kxh2

336

10.Kf2, and wS delivers mate on fl.ii) 6.Sd3? f3 7.Kfl Kh2 draw.

No. 9128 =Special PrizeD.Gurgenidze and L.Mitrofanov

"Which is the stronger, rook-pair orbishop-pair?" 1.BB+ Kxd2 2.Bc6, and:Rc8 3.Bxd7 Rxc5 4.b7, a single B

against both rooks, orRd4 3.Bxe8 Rb4+ 4.Ka3 Kc3 5.Bf7 Rbl

6.Bd5 Kd4 7x6 Rxb6 8.c7 Ra6+ 9.Kb4wins.

No. 9129 =Special PrizeD.Gurgenidze and G.Nadareishvili

l.Rgl Kh2 2Rg4/i h3 3.Kc4 a5 4.Kd3 a45.Ke2 a3 6.Kfl a2 7.Ra4/ii alQ+ 8.Rxalwins.i) 2.Rg8? a5 3.Kc4 a4 4.Kd3 a3 5.Ke2 a26.Ra8 Kg2 7.Rxa2 h3 8.Ke3+(Kel+,Kgl;) Kg3 9.Ra8 Kg2 10.Rg8+Kfl draw.

ii) "With wK on f2 or f3, now alQ8.Rxal stalemate. And wKf4 would ruleout the move wRa4."

No. 9130 =Special PrizeV.Kalandadze

I.g7 Rd5+ 2.Kc4 Rc5+ 3.Kb4 Rb5+4.Ka4 with:Rg5 5.Rh8+ Kgl 6.g8Q Ra5+ 7.KM

Rb5+ 8.Kc4 Rf5 9.Qb8 Rg4+ 10Kd3Rf3+ ll.Ke2 Rf2+ 12.Ke3 wins, orRa5+ 5.Rxa5 Rf4+ 6.Kb5 Rg4 7.Ra7

Rg6 8.Kc5 Kg2 9.Kd5 Kg3 10.Ke5 Kg4ll.Ral Kf3 12.RH+ Ke3 13.Rf7 wins.

No. 9131 =Special PrizeE.Kvezereli (Tbilisi)

I.a7 Sc6+ 2.Kb7 Sxa7 3.Kxa7 Be8(Kc6;Kb8) 4.Kb7/i Bc6+/ii 5.Kc7 Bxa46.a6 Bb5 7.Kb7 and Bc6+ 8.Kb6, orBa4(d7,e8) 8.a7 Bc6+ 9.Kc7 wins,i) W is in zugzwang after 4.Kb6? Bxa4

337

5.a6 Bc6, for 6.a7 Ba8 7.Kc7 Bc6 draw,and it is no better after 5.Kb7 Bc6+6.Kc7 Bb5 7.Kb7 Bc6+ draw.ii) Bxa4 5.a6, and Bc6+ 6.Kb6(zugzwang!), or Bb5 6.a7 Bc6+ 7.Kc7wins.

No. 9132 Special PrizeR.Tavariani (Tbilisi)

I.g4 flQft 2.Bxfl+ Kxfl 3.Bb8/ii Ke24.Bxa7 Kf3 5.Bxb6 Be7 6.Bc7 Kxg4 7.b6Bc5 8.b7 ||Ba7 9.Ka3 Kf5 10.Kxa4 wins,i) Kf3 2Bb8 flQ 3.Bxfl Kxg4 4.Bxa7wins.ii) 3.Bf4?, Ke2 4.g5 Kd3 5.g6 Bf6 6.Ka3Ke4 7.Bli6 Kf5 8.g7 Bxg7 9.Bxg7 Ke610.Kxa4 Kd7 draws.

No. 9133 =Special PrizeSh.Tsurtsumia and R.Martsvalashvili(Georgia^

4.Rg7+ Rf7 5.Rxf7+ Ke8 6.Rxf6+ Ke77.RH+ Ke8 8.Rxf4+ Ke7 9.Rf7+ Ke810.Rxf3+ Ke7 11.RH+ Ke8 12.Rxf2+Ke7 13.Rf7+ Ke8 14.Rxfl+ Ke7 15.Rf7+Ke8 16.Kc8 wins.

No. 9134 =Special PrizeSh. and R.Tsurtsumia

l.Sb3+ Ka6 2.aSc5+ Bxc5 3.b8R/i Qa4+4.Kxc5 Qa3+ 5.Kd5 Ka7 6.c8R wins,i) 3.b8Q? Qa4+ 4.Kxc5 Qc4+(Qc6)-K

No. 9135 =Special Hon.MentionS.Zakharov and L.Mitrofanov(St Petersburg)

l.Re6 Rfc5 2.Bh5 Rxe6 3.Rg8+ Kxe7

l.Bh3/i Bf3+ 2.Kc2 Be4+ 3.Kb3 Bd5+4.Ka4 Bc6+ 5.Ka5 Bb7 6.Bg2 wins.AJR: See Deceptive Simplicity for sup-porting lines. This absolutely perfectstudy was published in Suomen Shakki(Finland) in 1991.

338

No. 9136 =Special Hon.MentionYu.Zemlyansky (Krasnoyarsk)

l.Ral Rf2+/i 2.Kg5 Rxf5+ 3.Kg6 Rf84.a7 Ra8/ii 5.Rbl Sf7 6.Rb8+ Sd8 7.Kh6Rxb8 8.abB Sf7+ 9.Kg6 Sd6 10.Bc7/iiiSf7 ll.Bf4 Sg5 12.Be5 mate,i) Rh5 2.Ra5 Sxf5 3.a7 wins,ii) Sg4 5.a8Q Se5+ 6.Kg5 Rxa8 7.Rxa8+Kxh7 8.Ra7+ Kg8 9.Re7 wins bS.iii) 10.Ba7? Sf5 ll.Bc5 Se7+ draw."The mate by wB is hard to predict."The study is a version (correction?) ofthe following (same composer) thatfigured among the '84'.f4h8 0403.30 d4f6f7.a6f5h7 5/3+.l.Ra4 Sh6 2.Kg5 Rxf5+ 3.Kg6 Rf8 4.a7Ra8 5.Rb4 Sf7 6.Rb8+ Sd8 etc.

No. 9137 =Special Hon.MentionA.Manvelyan (Erevan)

Kc5 7.Rd7/ii Kd4 8.Bb7+ K- 9.Rxc7wins.i) 5.Rb7? Ra8 6.Rxc7 Rxg8 7.Kxa6 Rgl8.Rc8 Ral+ 9.Kb7 Rbl+ 10.Kc7 Rhlll.Kb7 Rbl 12.Kc7 Rhl 13.Rd8 Rh6draw.ii) Claimed to be reci-zug.

No. 9138 ^Special Hon.MentionN.Rezvov and V.Chernous (Odessa)

l.g8Q Sxg8/i 2.Kb7+ Bc8+ 3.Rxc8+ Kd74.Rd8+ Kxd8 5.Sc6+ Kd7 6.f7 d57.fgQ/ii Sd6+ 8.Kb6 hlQ 9.Qg7+ Ke610.Sd4 mate.i) hlQ 2.Qg5 Qbl+ 3.Ka7+ Bc8 4.f7+Kd7 5.f8S+ Kc7 6.Qe7+ mates.ii) 7.f8Q? Sd6+ 8.Kb6 Sc8+ 9.Kc5 hlQ.

No. 9139 =Special Hon.MentionE.Kvezereli

I.c5 (Re8? Rb7;) Kb2 2.c6 Kc3 3.Re8Kd4 4.Rxb8 Kc5 5.Rd8/i Kxc6 6.Bd5+

I.g7 Rd3+ 2.Ke2 Rd8 3.Kf3 Kh4 4.RclRg8 5.Kf4 Kh5 6.Kf5 Kh6 7.Kf6 wins.

339

No. 9140 =Special CommendationA.Ivanov (Chuvashia)

l.Ba3 Rbl 2.Bxf8 Rfl+ 3.Kg3 Rxf84.Rc5+ % 6 5.Rc6+ Kg5 6.Sc7 Rb87.Sa6 Rl 7 8.Sc5 Rb8 9.Se4+ Kf510.Sd6+ Kg5/i ll.Sf7+ Kf5 12.Kf3 and13.g4 mate,i) Ke5 ll.Rxb6 Rxb6 12.Sc4+ wins.

No. 9141 =Special CommendationA.Ivanov |!

l.Bf3 Rb8+ 2.Kc7 Rb2 3.Be4+ Kh64.Rh3+ Kg5 5.Rg3+ Kf4 6.Rxg2 Kxe47.d3+ Kxd3 8.Rxb2 d5 9.Kd6 d4 10.Rb5,with: j •Kc2 ll.Rc5+ Kb3 12.Rd5 Kc3 13Ke5

d3 14.Ke4 d2 15.Ke3 wins, orKe2 ll.Re5+ Kf3 12.Rd5 Ke3 13.Kc5

d3 14.Kc4 d2 15.Kc3 wins.

No. 9142 =Special CommendationA.Manvelyan

l.Re6 c6 2.b6 Ra6 3.Kc2/i Rxb6 4.Bd3+g6 5.Rxg6 Kh8 6.Kc3z Kh7 7.RXC6H- and8.Rxb6 wins.i) Thematic try: 3.Kc3? Rxb6 4.Bd3 g65.Rxg6 Kh8, leaves W in zugzwang.

No. 9143 =Special CommendationG.Metreveli (Georgia)

LhSg4 hg 2.b7 h2 3.Se4+ Sxe4 4.b8QhlQ 5.Qe5+ K- 6.Qh8+ wins.

340

No. 9144 =Special CommendationV.Pankov (Moscow)

l.Sd6/i Kb4 2.Ke3, with:Bal 3.Ke4 Kc5 4.Sf7 Bg7 5.Kf5 Kd5

6.Kg6 Bal 7.Sg5 and 8.Kf7, orBg7 3.Kf4 Kc5 4.Se8 Bh8 5.Kg5 Kd5

6.Kf5 Kc6 7.Ke6 Kc5 8.Kf7 Kd5 9.Sg7Kd6 10.Sh5 Kd7 ll.Kf8 Kd8 12.Sf4 Kd713.Kg8 Ke8 14.Se6 Ke7 15.Sg7 Kf616.Kxh8 Kf7 17.Se6 wins,i) Thematic try: l.Kd3? Kb4 2.Sd6 Bh8?,but 2...Bg7!

No. 9145 =Special CommendationSh. and R.Tsurtsumia andR.Martsvalashvili

l.a8Q+/i Kxa8 2.c8Q+ Rxc8 3.d7 Rb8+4.Kxal h3 5.d8Q Rxd8 6.e7 Rb8 7.e8QRxe8 8.f7 Rb8 9.f8Q Rxf8 10.g7 Rb811.h7 wins.i) l.c8Q? Rxc8 2.d7 Ra8 3.e7 Rbl+4.Kxa2 Rb6 and Bl wins.

SECTION FOR DRAW STUDIESNo. 9146 1st PrizeD.Gurgenidze

l.Rxa2/i Rc3+ 2.Kd4 Rd3+ 3.Ke4 Re3+4.Kd4 aRd3+ 5.Kc4 Rb3 6.Ra3 (Rf2+?Ke7;) eRc3+ 7.Kd4 Rd3+ 8.Ke4 Rh39.Kd5 Rh5+ 10.Kc6 Rbl/ii ll.Ral/iiiRb2 12.Ra2 Rb3 13.Ra3 Rb4 14.Ra4bRb5 15.e7/iv Kxe7/v 16.Re4+/vi Kf717.Rf4+ Kg7 18.Rg4+ Kh7 19.Rh4,draw.i) l.Rf2+? Kxe6? 2.Rxa2 Rc3+ 3.Kd4Rd3+ 4.Ke4 Re3+ 5.Kd4 aRd3+ 6.Kc4Rb3 7.Re2 draws, but this is a thematictry, for Bl wins by playing insteadl...Ke7 2.Rxa2 Rc3+ 3.Kd4 Rd3+ 4.Ke4Re3+ 5.Kd4 aRd3+ 6.Kc4 Rb3 7.Ra3eRc3+ 8.Kd4 Rd3+ 9.Ke4 Rh3 10.Kd5Rh5+ ll.Kc6 Rxa3 12.b8Q Rc3+ 13.Kb6Rb3+, and Bl wins.ii) Rxa3 ll.b8Q Ra6+ 12.Kd7 Rh7+13.e7 Rxe7+ 14.Kd8 draw.iii) Il.e7? Kxe7 12.Re3+ Kf8 13.Rf3+Kg8 14.Rg3+ Kh8 wins.Or ll.Ra8? hRb5 12.Ra7 Kxe6 13.Kc7Kd5 14.Kb8 Kc6 15.Ka8 Rhl 16.b8Q(Ra6+,Kc7;) Rxb8+ 17.Kxb8 Rh8 mate.iv) 15.Ra5? hRc5+ 16.Kd6 Rd5+ 17.Kc6Rxa5 wins.Or 15.Ra8? Ke7 16.b8Q hRc5 mate.Or 15.Rc4? Rbl and hRb5, winning.v) hRc5+ 16.Kd6 Rd5+ 17.Kc7 draw.vi) 16.Kc7? Rh7 17.Kb8 Kd8 18.Rd4+Rd7 wins."Double-edged play with precise interac-

341

tion of the pieces. No doubt at all agrandmasterly product of high art."[The position is a correction of what wasoriginally circulated, namely:

c4f6 0700.11 d2a3b3.b7d4 3/4=.The given solution was: l.Ra2 Rc3+2.Kxd4 Rd3+ 3.Ke4 Re3+ 4.Kd4 aRd3+5.Kc4 Rb3 6.Ra3 eRc3+ 7.Kd4 Rd3+8.Ke4 Rh3 9.Kd5 Rh5+ 10.Kc6 Rbl/ill.Ral Rb2 12.Ra2 Rb3 13.Ra3 RM

No. 9148 =2/3 PrizeV.Neidze

14.Ra4 bkb5 15.Rf4+ Kg7 16.Rg4+ Kh817.Rh4, draw.i) But David Blundell pointed out: "Blwins with 10...Rxa3 ll.b8Q Ra6+12.Kb7 (Kc7,Rh7+;) Rb5+."]

No. 9147 |=2/3 PrizeV.Vlasenkb

Neither Iib4? nor l.Kb2? offers W sal-vation. Ik6! f4 2.Ra5/i Bfl 3.Ka3 f34.Kb4 Keb 5.Ral Be2 6.Ka5 f2 7.b4 flQ8.Rxfl Bxfl stalemate,i) 2.Kb2?| f3 3.Kc3 Ke3 4.KM f2 5.RalflQ 6.Rxfl Bxfl 7.Ka5 Kd4 8.b4 Bg2,by-passes the stalemate and Bl wins."A fresh stalemate with a pair of activeself^blocks."

6.b3+ Kxb3,

(Bxd3?Qd3 8.Bdl,

l.Qe4+ b4 2.Qe8+ b5 3.Qf7/i Sxc24.Qxb3+ Kxb3 stalemate, or, avoidingthis outcome,3...Qe3 4.Qxb3+/ii, with:Qxb3 5.Kxal Qxc2

stalemate, orSxb3 5.Ka2 Qd3 6.Bdl

Qc4 7.Bc2 (Kbl? Qcl+drawn.i) David Blundell: 3.Qg8 also, but notnot 3.Qe2? Sxc2 4.Qxc2 Qf6 and5...Qxb2+.ii) David Blundell: 4.Kxal? Qcl+.4.Bdl? Qd4 5.Qxb3+ Sxb3 6.Bc2 Qgl+."A synthesis of parallel and consecutivestalemates and positional draw by per-petual pin of a knight."

No.9149 =4/5/6 PrizeV.Kalandadze

342

LSc7 (Sc3(a3)? Bh7+;) Kb6/i 2.Bc4Sh6+ 3.Kg7 Sf5+ 4.Kh8/ii Kxc7/iii 5.Ba2Bc2 6.Bb3 Bd3 7.Bc4 Be4 8.Bd5, draw.i) Sh6+ 2.Kg7 Sf5+, and 3.Kf6 Sh7+4.Ke6 Kb6 5.Kd7 draw, but not 3.Kh8?Sf7+ 4.Kg8 Sh6+ 5.K- Kb6 wins.ii) 4.Kg6? Sf3(h3) 5.Sa8+ Ka7 wins.4.Kf6? Sh7+ wins.iii) Sd6 5.Se6 Sf7+ 6.Kg7 draw."Amalgam of stalemate and positionaldraw."

No. 9150 =4/5/6 PrizeA.Sochniev and L.Mitrofanov

l.Rf5/i Rf2+ (Bxe4;Re5) 2.Kel/ii Re2+3.Kdl/iii Re3+ 4.Kcl/iv Rel+ 5.Kd2Re2+ 6.Kdl/v Bxe4 7.Re5/vi Re3 8.KclRc3+/vii 9.Kb2 Rc4/viii 10.Kb3/ix Bd3/xIl.g7/xi Kh7 12.g8Q+/xii, with apositional draw/xiii.i) I.g7? Rxe4+/xiv 2.Kd2 Kxg7 3.Rb5Re6 wins. All the play revolves aroundbP. Bl strives to disentangle and protectbP.ii) 2.Kcl? Rc2+/xv, and 3.Kxc2 Bxe4+4.Kc3 Bxf5 5.Kc4 Bd7, or 3.Kbl Bxe44.Re5 Bxg6, winning.iii) 3.Kfl? Bxe4 4.Re5 Re3 5.Kgl Rg3+6.Kh2 Rg2+, and Bl achieves his aim:7.Kh3 Bc6 and Rxg6.iv) 4.Kd2? Bxe4 5.g7 Rd3+ 6.Ke2 Kxg77.Re5 Bg6 8.Re7+ (Re6,Rb3;) Kf6(h6)wins.v) But here 6Kc3 also draws, Bxe47.Rb5 Rc2+ 8.Kd4, or Re3+ 7.Kc4 (or

Kb2) Rxe4+ 8.Kb5 Bg4 9.Rf6, winningbP. David Blundell, to whom practicallythese notes are due, comments: "Aninteresting choice of main line. After6.Kdl the position is the same as after3.Kdl. The composers are no doubtaware of the dual with 6.Kc3, their inten-tion being to demonstrate the uniquenessof the surprising 4.Kcl. Common prac-tice would be to omit moves 3-5 anddemonstrate 3...Re3 as a sideline." AJR:The latter practice is best. The alter-native, as here, has (poor!) justification inthat it eliminates an annotation, relies onthe 3-fold repetition rule (before a drawcan be claimed) of otb play (irrelevant tostudies) - and (artificially) lengthens thesolution.

vi) 7.g7? Kxg7 8.Rg5+ Kf6(h6) 9.Rb5Bf3 10.Rxb6+ Re6+ wins,vii) Kg7 9.Re7+/xvi and Kf6 10.g7 Rc3+ll.Kb2 Rc2+ 12.Kb3 Bh7 13.Re8 Rg214.Rb8, or Kf8 10.g7+ Kg8 ll.Kd2 Rd3+12.Ke2 Bf5 13.Re5 Bh7 (Bg6;Re6)14.Re8+ Kf7 (Kxg7; Re7+) 15.Rh8 Kxg716.Rxh7+.viii) Rc2+ 10.Kb3, and Re2 ll.Rb5 Rel(Bc2+;Kc3) 12.Kc3(c4) Rcl+ 13.Kd4Rbl 14.Rxbl Bxbl 15.Kc4 (for Kb5), orBd3 ll .Re3 (Rd5? Bc4+;) Bf5 12.Re5Rf2 (Rc5;Rxc5,bc; Kc4) 13.Rb5 Rfl/xvii14.Ka2(c3) Be6+ 15.Kb2 Rf2+16.Kc3(cl) Rf3+ 17.Kb2 draw, or Bxg6ll.Re6 Rcl 12.Ka2 b5 13.Rb6 Rc514.Kb3 Kg5 15.KM..ix) 10.g7? Kxg7 ll.Kb3 Rd4 12.Kc3Rd3+ 13.Kc4 Bg6 14.Re7+ (Re6,Bf7;)Kf6 15.Rb7 Rd6 16.Kb5 Bd3+ wins. Cf.(x).x) Rd4 ll .Kc3, and Rd3+ 12.Kc4 Bxg613.Re6 wins bP, or Ra4 12.Kb3 Bc613.Re6 Bd5+ 14.Kxa4 Bxe6 15.Kb5,drawing.xi) ll.Re3? Bfl 12.g7 Kxg7 13.Rg3+,and Kh7 (h8) wins, but not Kh6? 14.RORcl 15.Kb2 Rel 16.Rf6+. And notll.Rd5? Bfl 12.g7 Kxg7 13.Rd7+, andKg8(h8) wins, but not Kf8?

343

14.Rd6 Rcl 15.Kb2.xii) 12.Rg5? Rc8. 12.Rh5+? Kg813.Rd5 B?2 (fl) 14.Re5 Bfl 15.Re8+Kxg7 16.Rb7+ Kf6 wins, for "There is nopositional draw with bBfl." 12.Re8?Rg4 13.Kc3 Bc4 14.g8Q+ Bxg8 15.Rb8Rc4+ and Rc6, winning.xiii) The I supplied solution continues:Kxg8 l3.Rg5+ Kh7 14Rh5+ Kg715Rg5+, jlraw because Kf7 16.Rd5 Be217.Re5 Bit 18.Rf5+, but DB writes: "thesolution should end at this point becauseof the alternative perpetual13.Re8+ Kg7 14.Re7+ drawing, sinceKf6(f8) 15.Re3 Bfl 16.RO+."xiv) Kxg7|f? 2.Rg5+ Kh6 3.Rg3 Bh5 4.Sf6draw.xv) Rfl+? 3.Kd2 Rdl+ 4.Ke3 draw. Or3.Kb2.xvi) 9.Kd2? Rd3+ 10.Ke2 Bxg6 andRb3(d6).xvii) Be6> 14.Kc3 and bB blocks 6thrank. Or Bc2+ 14.Kc3 Rf6 leaves bB enprise. I"The mo\fes 4.Kcl, Il.g7 and 12g8Q+are

No. 91511=4/5/6 PrizeR.Tavariahi

for instance, h2 2.gh+ Kf7 3.h8Q hgQ+4.Ka2. Or e3 2.gh+ Kxh7 3.Rxg2 hg4.Ka2 Kg6 5.Kxa3 Kf5 6.Kb3 Kf4 7.Kc2Kg3 8.Kd3 Kf2 3.Sh3+ draw." However,a booklet note gives l.Sgl? a2+ 2.Kxa2h2 3.gh Kxh7 4.Rxg2 hlQ winning forBl. DB adds a postscript: "I see it now. IfW delays gxh7 Bl can meet it with Kf7.A better line here would be l.Sgl a2+2.Kal h2 3.gh+ Kf7 4.h8Q hgQ+ 5.Kxa2Qa7+ 6.K- glQ.""A gripping example of the struggleagainst passed pawns."

No. 9152 7th PrizeM.Gogberashvili

l.Sf4+ Kg3 2.Bc4 Bxc4 3.c8Q Rc54.Qh3+ Kf2 5.Qh4+ Kxe3 6.Qh6 Kf37.Qf6 Kg3 8Qd6 Kg4 9.Qd4 Kg510.Qd2 Kf5 ll.Qf2 Ke5 12.Qh2 Ke413.Qh4 Ke3 14.Qh6 draw."Perpetual battery 'along many chan-nels'."This study was not among the '84 \

Rh8 2.Sgl h2 3.Rxg2 a2+ 4.KalhlQ 5.Rg8+ Kxh7 6.Rg3 e3 7.Rh3+Qxh3 8 Sxh3 e2 9.Sg5+ Kh6 lO.Sfidraw. ii) David Blundell: "Not understood.There seems to be no refutation of l.Sgl,

344

No. 9153 =Hon.MentionA.Belyavsky

l.Rg3+ Ke4 2.Be5 h2 3.Re3+ Kxe34.Bxh2 Bg6+ 5.Kg4, andBe8 6.Bf4+ Ke4 7.Kg3 Sh3+ 8.Kh2 Sgl

(Sxf4;b8Q) 9.Bg3 Sf3+ 10.Kg2 draws, orSf3 6.b8Q/i Be8+ 7.Kf5 Sd4+ 8.Kf6

Rg6+ 9.Ke7 Sc6+ 10.Kxe8 Sxb8 ll.Kf7Rb6 12.Bgl+ draw.i) 6.Bf4+? Ke4 8.b8Q Be8+ 9.Kh3 Bd7mate.

No. 9154 =Hon.MentionI.Bondar (Brest region)

l.Sxc6+/i be 2.Ra3+ Kb7 3.Ka4 dlQ+4.hRb3+ K-, stalemate! The only alter-native is Bb4 5.Kxb4 Qd4+ 6.Ka5+ Ka77.Rc3 d6 8.aRb3 dc 9.Rd3 drawn,i) l.Sb3? dlQ+ 2.Ka3 Bxg3 3.Rxg3 b6,is a Bl win.

No. 9155 :I.Bondar

=Hon.Mention

l.Qe8 Qxf2 2.Qe4+ b4 3.Qe8+ b5 4.KblelQ+ 5.Qxel Qxel+ 6.Ka2 b3+ 7.cb+Kb4, and White is stalemated, while after6...Qal+ 7.Kxal b3 8.c3 b4 9.c4, Blackis stalemated.

No. 9156 =Hon.MentionN.Ryabinin

I: Diagram, BTMII: Twin - remove wPe2, add wPh3,BTMI: l...Bc5+ 2.Kg3 Sf5+ 3.Kg4 Se3+4.Kf4/i Bxh5 5.Ra5 Sd5+ 6.Kg5 Bb67.e4 Bd8+ 8.Kh6 draws, but not 8.Kxh5?Sf6+..i) 4.Kg5? Be7+ 5.Kf4 Sd5+ 6.Kg4 Sf6+wins.n: l...Bc5+ 2.Kg3 Sf5+ 3.Kg4 Se3+4.Kf4 Bxh5 5.Ra5 Sd5+ 6.Kg5 Bb67.Rxd5 Be2 8.Rf5 Be3+ 9.Rf4 Ke5

345

10.Kh4 B(K)xf4 stalemate.

I 'No. 9157 =Hon.MentionL.Katsnelson (St Petersburg)

La7 bSd7+ 2.Ke7/i Rel+ 3.Kd8 Ka64.Bd2 Re5/ii 5.Bc3 Rg5 6.Bd2 Rg37.Bel Rg7 8.Bc3 Rg5 9.Bd2 Re5 10.Bc3Rg5 ll.B{d2,dnw.'i) 2.Kg7J? Se6+ 3.Kh6 Kb6 wins. Or2.Kf5? Kk6 3.Be3 Sb6 wins.ii) Ral 5|Bc3 Rcl 6.Bd2 draw.

No. 9158 =Hon.MentionL.Topko |(Krivoi Rog)

No. 9159 =CommendationB.Sidorov

l.Rf8+ Ke4 2.b4 Ra6+ 3.Rf6 R5c6 4.b5Rxf6+5.efRb6 6.Kg7draw.

No. 9160 =CommendationB.Sidorov

l.Qa7+ Kg6 2.h5+ Kh6 3Qa6+ Kxh54.Qxd3 Be2+ 5.Kxe2 clS+, draw.

l.Sc4+ Ka2 2.Sxb2 Kxb2/i 3.Sb3 Kxc24.Bf3 Rf8 5.Sd4+ Kd3 6.Se2 RxD 7.SglRfl stalemate,i) Re8 3.Sa4 and 4.Sc3 draw.

346

No. 9161 =CommendationRaimondas Senkus (Lithuania)

No. 9163 =Special PrizeG.Kasparian (Erevan) and N.Ryabinin

l.Sc5 Sxc5 2Bb4 Rc8 3.Kd4 Kd6 4.Sg3Sf6 5.Ba3 Rg8 6.Bxc5+ Kc6 7.Se2 Rg28.Sf4 Rg4 9.Ke5 Kxc5 10.Se6+ Kc4ll.Kxf6 draw. Is the 'composer' who hasbeen dubbed the 'master plagiarist' cleanthis time?"No he isn't. See the 2Pr of the WestGerman Centenary (1977) by Nestorescu:e4g4 0317.10 h6b5a3g5d8h4.h7 afterl.h8Q Rxh8"

I.h7 Kg7 2.Rf5 Ba5+ 3.Kb3 Rb4+ 4.Ka3Bb5 5.h6+ Kxh7 6.Rh5 Rbl 7.Ka2 Rb48.Ka3 Ra4+ 9.Kb3 Bc6 10.Rc5 Bd7ll.Rd5 Be8 12.Re5 Rb4+ 13.Ka3 Bb514.Rh5 Kg8 15.Rg5+(e5) Kh8 16.Rc5Rbl 17.Ka2 Rb4 18.Ka3 Ra4+ 19.Kb3Be8 2O.Re5 Bd7 21.Rd5 Rb4+ 22.Ka3Bb5 23.Rc5 Ra4+ 24.Kb3 Bd7 25.Rd5Bc6 26.Rc5 Rb4+ 27.Ka2 Bb5 28.Ka3Kh7 29.Rh5 drawn.

No. 9162 =CommendationRainer Staudte (Germany)

No. 9164 =Special PrizeAn.G.Kuznetsov and B.Gusev (Moscow)

Ke3 2.Rel+ Kd4 3.Rdl+ Kc54.Rcl+ Kb6 5.Rbl+ Kc7 6.Rcl+ Kd87.Rdl+ Ke8 8.Rel+ Kf8 9.Re8+ Kxe8stalemate.

l.Be7+ Ke8 2.Bh4 Bc4+ 3.Kh7 flQ4.Re7+ Kf8 5h6 Bb2 6.d4 Bxd4 7.Rd7Bg8+ 8.Kh8 Bf6 9.Bxf6 Qxf6 10.h7Bxh7 ll.Rf7+ Qxf7 12.gh, and stalemate.

347

No. 9165 = Special PrizeD.Gurgenidze

No. 9167 =Special PrizeYu.Roslov (St Petersburg)

Kxc8I.c7+ Kc8 2.Rxd4, with:Qxc3 ^.Rd8+ Kxc7 4.Rc8+

stalemate, orclS+ 3.Kbl Qxc3 4.Rd8+ Kxc7 5.Rc8+

Kxc8 stalemate.

No. 9166 =Special PrizeA.Machitjdze (Georgia)

l.Kd4 Se2+ 2.Ke5 Kc6 3.e7 Sc7 4.Bd5+Kd7 5.Be4 Ba2 6.Bf5+ Ke8 7Bg6+Kxe7 8.Bbl Bg8 9.Bh7 Ba2 lO.Bbldraw.

No. 9168 =Special PrizeV.Katsnelson and M.Pevsner (Haifa,Israel)

l.Qc8+, with:Kg7 2.Qxc3+ Kf8 3.Qxh8+ Bg8 4.Bxd2

Sf7+ 5.Rd7 Sxh8 6.Bxh6+ Kf7 7.g5, andBlack is stalemated, orBe8 2.(}xe8+ Kg7 3.Qe5+ Kg8 4.Qe8+

draw.

l.Kh7 SH 2.Kg8 Sd6 3.c7 Sc8 4.Bc5+Kg2 5Kf7 Bxc7 6.Ke6, and:Bb8 7.Kd7 Sa7 8.Bd6 draw, orSb6 7.Bd6 Bd8 8.Be7 draw, orBa5 7.Kd7 Sb6+ 8.Kc6 Sc4 9.Kb5 draw.

348

No. 9169 =Special Hon.MentionM.Hlinka (Czechoslovakia)

No. 9171 =SpeciaI Hon.MentionYu.Potapov (Altai province)

l.Rb4 Rxe5+ 2.Kd4 Re4+ 3.Kxe4 Bc6+4.Kd4 Rxb4+ 5.Kc5 Ra4 6.Re3 Be47.Kb5 Rd4 8.Kc5 e5 9.Kb6 Rc4 10.Ka5Rd4 ll.Kb6 Kc2 12.Kc5 Kdl 13.Kb6draw.

l.Kg2 Sf2 2.Kxf2 e3+ 3.Kxe3 Bh6+ 4.g5Bxg5+ 5.Kd4 Bxd2 6.Bf3 Kd6 7.Bxd5Bxd5 stalemate.

No. 9170 =Special Hon.MentionB.G.Olympiev (Ekaterinburg)

No. 9172 =Special Hon.MentionA.Manvelyan

l.Rc3+ Ke4 2.Rc8 Qa6 3.a4 Kd3 4.Rc3+Ke4 5.Rc8 Ke3 6.Rb8 Kd3 7Kdl Kc48.Kc2 Kb4 9.Kb2 Kxa4 10.Sc3+ Kb4ll.Rxb6+ draw.

I.c7 Qa8 2.Sf5+ KM 3.Se7 Bd7 4.c8QBxc8 5.Sd5+ Kxa5 6.Bb6+ Ka4 7.Bd8Qa7 8.Bb6 Qb8 9.Bc7 Qa7 IO.B06 Qa8ll.Bd8 Qb8 12.Bc7 Qa7 13.Bb6 Qa814.Bd8 drawn.

349

No. 9173ij=Special Hon.MentionA.Skripnik

No. 9175 =Special CommendationA.Bezgodkov and V.Samilo (Kharkov)

l.Rf3 Sh5+ 2.Kh6 Bc4 3.Rc3 Bf7 4.Rc7Bf8+ 5.Kg5 Be8 6.Rb7+ Kc2 7.Rh7 Sg38.Rh8 ^e7+ 9.Kg4 Se4 10.Kf5 Bc6ll.Ke6, >yith:Bb4 12.Rc8 Sc5+ 13.Kd6 Bg2 14.Rxc5+

Kd2 15.e^ draw, orBc5 12lRc8 Bb7 13.Rc7 Ba8 14.Rc8

draw.

No. 9174 =Special Hon.MentionV.PankoV

I.b4 Sc2 2.b5 Se3 3.Kh7 Sc4 4.Bd4 Kc25.Bal Kcl 6.Kh8 Kc2 7.Kh7 Kcl 8.Kh8Kbl 9.Bd4 Kc2 lO.Bal Kb3 ll.Kg7 Kb412.Kf6Kxb5 13.Kf5,with:Kb4 14Ke4 Ka3 15.Kd4 Kb4 16.Ke4

Ka3 17.Kd4 Kb3 18.Kd3 draw, orSa3 14.Ke4 Kc4 15.Bh8 Sb5 16.Bal Sa3

17.BH8 |Sc2 18.Bg7 Sel 19.Ke3 Sc2+2O.Ke4 Sel 21.Ke3 draw.

I...h3 2.Kd6, with:h2 3.Rh7 g3 4.a6 Kxa6 5.Kc6 Ka5

6Kc5 Ka4 7.Kc4 Ka3 8.Kc3 Ka4 9.Kc4Ka5 10.Kc5 Ka6 ll.Kc6 draw, org3 3.a6 Kxa6 4.Kc6 g2 5.Rdl Ka5

6.Kc5 Ka4 7.Kc4 Ka3 8.Kc3 Ka2 9.Rd2+Kbl 10.Rdl+ Ka2 ll.Rd2+ draw.

No. 9176 =Special CommendationA.Manvelyan

l.Kdl c5 2.e6 de 3.Se8 c4 4.Sd6 c35.Sc4 c2+ 6.Ke2 Kcl 7.Se5 Kbl 8.Sc4e5 9.Sd2+ Kcl 10.Sxb3+ Kbl ll.Sd2+draw.

350

No. 9177 =Special CommendationYu.Zemlyansky

No. 9179 =Special CommendationS.Radchenko (Rostov-on-Don)

l.g8Q+ Kxg8 2.Rgl+ Kh7 3.Kc3 Sal+4.Kb2 Sb3 5.h5 Kh6 6.Rhl Ral 7.RelRcl 8.Rhl Ral 9.Rel Kxh5 10.Re5+Kg4 ll.Rd5 Kf4 12.Rd3 Ra2+ 13.KMRd2 14.Rxd2 Sxd2+ 15.Kcl draw.

No. 9178 =Special CommendationA.Klyabiev (Azerbaidzhan)

LKg4g2 2.Bd5+, with:Kd3 3.Bxg2 e2 4.Be4+ Ke3 5.Sa3 Kxe4

6.Sc2 Kd3 7.Sel+draw, orKxd5 3.Sc3+ Kd4 4.Se2+ Ke4 5.Sgl e2

6.Sxe2 Ke3 7.Sgl Kf2 8.Sh3+ draw.

l.Kd5, with:e4 2.Kc4 e3 3.Re7 Rel 4.Ra7 Ral 5.Re7

Rcl+ 6.Kb4 Rel 7.Ka3 (for Kb2/a2), ora3 2.Kc4 Kg8 3.Re7 Rel 4.Ra7 Ral

5.Re7 Rel 6.Ra7 Re3 7.Kd5 Kf8 8.Ke6draw.

No. 9180 =Special CommendationYu.Roslov

l.Sg6+ fg 2.RM+ Kg3 3.Rb3+ Kg24.Rb2+ Kgl 5.Ke2+ Kg2 6.Kel+ Kf37.Rb3+ draw.The following 17 studies participated inTSERETELI-150, and were widely cir-culated, but were in due courseeliminated. Perhaps they supply materialfor a productive, if necessarily la-bour-intensive, scrutiny with the aim ofcategorising composers' analytical over-sights.

351

No. 9181 D.Gurgenidze (Tbilisi)

l.hSg5 Sc3+/i 2.Kb7 Rbl+ 3.Kc6 Rb6+4.Kxb6 j cSxd5+ 5.Kc6 Se7+/ii 6.Kb7,with: ISxd7 7lSe6+ Kxe8 8.Sd6 mate, orSxe8 7iSf7+ Kxd7 8.Sc5 mate.

i) Sxd7 2.Rxd7+ Kxe8 3.Sf6+ Kf8 4.Smates. "David Blundell: l...Sc5+ 2.Kb6cSxd7+1 draws. Perhaps bSa2 (not bSa4)cures." !ii) Sxd7 6.Bxd7 Se7+ 7.Kd6 Sc8+ 8.Ke6."David jBlundell: 5...Sb4+ 6.Kb5 Sxd7,no win.1"The synthesis of two superb mates, eachwith twi) self-blocks. A first class piecebytheGM."

No. 9182 Yu.Bazlov and A.Skripnik(Vladivostok)

l.f8S+ Kg5 2.Rd5+/i Kf4 3.Sg6+ Kxe44.Sf5+ |Kd3 5.Se5+ Kd2 6.Se4+ Kdl7.Sc4 blS 8.Rxd4+ Sd2 9.Sxc3+ Bxc3

10.Rxd2+ Bxd2 11 .Sb2 mate,i) "David Blundell: Cooked. Bl's defenceis based on Rfl+;, followed by promotionwith check. But 2.Se6+ Kh5 3.Rh7+ Kg64.Rg7+ Kh5 5.Sf6+ Kh6 6.Sg4+ Kh57.Sf4+ Kh4 8.Sh2! Rfl+ 9.Sxfl, and Sel10Sg3 Sd3+ ll.Sxd3 blQ 12.Sf5+ Kh313.Sf4+ Kh2 14.Rh7 mate, or blQ10.Sg2+ Kh5 ll.Sg3+ Kh6 12.Sft+ Kh513.Sf4 mate, or Se3 10.Sh2 (also Sxe3)Sdl+ll.Kel(gl)."A most difficult ending with interestingplay."

No. 9183 A.Belyavsky (St Petersburg)

l.Rh8+ Kxh8 2.a8Q+ Bf8 3.Qxf8+ Kh74.Ra7/i Qg6 5.Qg8+ Rxg8 6.f8S+ Kh87.Be5+ Qg7 8.Rf7 d3 9.Bc3 d2 10.Ke2dlQ+ ll.Kxdl and 12.Rh7 mate,i) "DB: Dual by 4.Qh8+ Kxh8 5Ra8+Rg8 6.Rxg8+ Kh7 7.f8S+ wins."

352

No. 9184 N.Mansarliisky(Odessa region) andA.Shuryakov (Krivoi Rog)

I.g7 Bxe2 2.Bf5 Bh5+ 3.Ke6 Bdl4.Be4/i Bg4+ 5.Kd5 Bdl 6.Bd3 Bf3+7.Kc4 Bdl/ii 8.Kd4 Sb3+ 9.Ke3 Bc5+10.Kf4 Bd6+ ll.KgS Be7+ 12.Kg6 wins,i) David Blundell: "4.Kd7 Bb3 5.Be6,also wins."ii) "David Blundell: "and here Bl candraw with b5+ 8.Kd4 Sb3+ 9.Ke5 Bc3+.Is the diagram correct? bKa3 eliminatesthese flaws but allows Bcl+."

No. 9185 V.Razumenko (St Petersburg)

I.g7 Kf7 (d6+;Kd5) 2.Sg6 d2/i 3.Se7dlQ/ii 4.g8Q+ Kxe7 5.Qg7+ Kd86.Kd6/iii Kc8 7.Qxd7+/iv Kb8 8.Qb5+Kc8/v 9.Qb6 Qcl 10.Qa6+ Kb8 ll.Sc6+Qxc6+ 12.Qxc6 wins,i) Kxg7 3.Sh4 d2 4.hSf5+ Kf6 5.Se3. Ord6+ 3.Kd5, but not 3.Kc4? d2 4.Se7

d5+(dlQ) 5.Kc3 dlQ 6.g8Q+ Kxe7, andthere is no mate, while, in this, 3.Kc6 d24.Se7 Kxg7 5.Sf5+ Kf6 6.Se3 Ke5 7.dS-(Sf3+,Ke4(f4);) d5 and 8...d4., drawn.ii) An important line: Kxg7 4.Sf5+ Kf65.Se3 d5 (Ke5;Sc4+) 6.KM Ke5 7.Kc3Ke4 8.Sdl, zugzwang, Ke5 9.Kd3 and10.Kxd2.iii) 6.Qf8? Kc7 7.Sb5+ Kb7 8Sd6+ Ka79.Qf2 Qh5+ 10.KM+ Ka6 and Bl is OK.iv) 7.Qg8+, only wastes time as W musteventually play Qxd7+.v) Ka8 9.Qd5+ K- 10.Sc6+ and ll.Qxdl.Or Ka7 9.Kc7 Qcl+ 10.Sc6+ Qxc6+ll.Kxc6.

No. 9186 B.Sidorov (Apsheronsk)

l.Qal b2 2.Qxa2 bcS 3.Qal Sb3+4.Kxb6+ Sxal 5.e7 Sc2 6.e8S Sb4 7.Sc7mate.

No. 9187 A.Kotov and L.Mitrofanov(St Petersburg)

353

l.Kc8 b2 2.b5 Ral 3.b6 blQ 4.Rdl e35.Rfl wins.

No. 9188 L.Tamkov (Gomel)

No. 9190 M.Gogberashvili

[Diag had wKcl, when l.Qg6+ is mate in2. Correction suggested by David Blun-deU 25193]l.Qb7+ Kh8 2.Qa8+ Kxh7 3.Qe4+ Kh84.Qe8+ Bf8 5.Qxf8+ Kh7 6.Qf7+ Kh87.Qf6+ Kg8 8.Qg6+ Kh8 9.Qh6+ Kg810.Bf7+ Kxf7 ll.Qxh3 wins.

No. 9189 A.Frolovsky and V.Cherkasov(Tula region)

l.Se4/i Rxe4+ 2.Kf5 Re2 3.Rglf Kf74.e6+ Rxe6 5.Rd4 Bc8/ii 6.Rd7+ Bxd7(Re7;Rg7+) 7.Rg7+ Kf8 8.Rg8+ Ke79.Rg7+ Kd6 10.Rd7+ Kxd7 stalemate.i) David Blundell: "I find no win afterl.Kf5, for example Bc8+ 2.Kf4 Rxc3+3.Ke4 Bb7+ 4.Kd4 Bxhl 5.Rxhl Kg66.Rdl Rc2 7.Kd3 draw.ii) Rf6+ 6.Ke5 Bc3 7.Rg7+ Kxg7stalemate."Masterly plait of three pure stalemates."

No. 9191 V.Tarasiuk (Kharkov region)

Kc5 2.Qb5+ Kd6 3.Qb4+ Kc74.Qa5+Kd6 (Kb8;Qb6+) 5.Qa3+Ke56.Qc3+ [d4 7.Qc5+ Bd5 8.Sd3+ Ke49.Qe7+ Qxe7 lO.Bg6 mate.

l.Bc5+ Kb2 2.Bxd4 flQ 3.Se4-h Ka34.Bc5+ Kb2 5.Bd4+ Kcl 6.Be3i- Kdl7.Bg4+ Se2 8Sf2+ Kel 9.Bh3 Be4+10.Kb6 Bg2 ll.Bc8 Sc3 12.Ba6 Se213.Bc8 Bd5 14.Bh3 Bg2 15.Bc8 draw.

354

No. 9192 N.Aslanov (Bulgaria) No. 9194 V.Romasko (Kharkov region)

l.Bh2+, with:Ke3 2.Be4 Kxe4 3.Sd2+ K- 4.Sxfl draw,

orKf5 2.Be4+ Kxe4 3.Sd2+ K- 4.Sxfl

Bxfl draw, orKg4 2.Sd2 Rf2 3.BO+ Rxf3 4.Sxf3

Kxf3 draw, orKg5 2.Sd2 Ral+ 3.Kb5 Bfl+ 4.Kb6 Ra2

5.Se4+ Kg6 6.Bf4 Ra6+ 7.Kc7 Rxc6+8.Kxc6 draw.

No. 9193province)

V.Dolgov (Krasnodarsk

l.Bd5 Se3 2.Bc6 Kb6 3.Ba8 Sb5 4.Kg5Sc2 5.Kf4 Bhl 6.Kg3 Sb4 7.Kf2 Sd48.Ke3 Sf5+ 9.Kf2 Sh4 10.Kg3 Sf5+ll.KO Sd4 12.Ke3 dSc2+ 13.Kf2 Ka714.Bd5 Sxd5 15.Sg3 draw.

l.Sd7+ Ke8 2.Rg8+ Kxd7 3.Rd8+ Kc64.Rc8+ Kb5 5.Rb8+ Ka4 6.Ra8+ Kb37.Ra3+ Kc2 8.Ra2+ Kcl 9.Ral+ Kd210.Rdl+ Ke2 ll.Rd2+ Kfl 12.Rf2+ Kgl13.Rfl+ Kh2 14.Rhl+ Kg3 15.Rh3+ Kg416.Rg3+ Kh5 17.Rg5+ Kxg5 stalemate.

No. 9195 G.Amiryan (Erevan)

LbRe4+ Re3 2.Rgl+ Ke2 3.Sd4+ Kd24.Rg2+ Kdl 5.Rgl+ Kd2 6.Rg2+ Kcl7.Sxb3+ Qxb3 8.Rgl+ Kd2 9.Rg2+, andKdl 10.Rgl+ Ke2 ll.Rg2+ Kf312.Rxe3+ Qxe3 13.Rg3+ Kxg3 stalemate,or Kcl 10.Rgl+ Kb2 ll.Rg2+ Ka312.Rxe3 Qxe3 13.Rg3 Qxg3 stalemate.

355

No.) 111 (Vol. VII) supplement

May 1994

FORMAL INTERNATIONAL TOURNEYS FOR ORIGINAL ENDGAME STUDIESThe concluding session of the last PCCC meeting considered this item:"Thfc following text is the recommendation of the underlisted members of the PCCC Sub-Committee for Studies to the full PCCC at Bratislava, September 1993. It is hoped that allPCCC members and others not members will reproduce the Guidelines in full, and whereappropriate in careful translation.Signed:

|| John Roycroft (Speaker, Great Britain);| Jan Rusinek (Poland); David Gurgenidze (Georgia)

Virgil Nestorescu (Romania)Rainer Staudte (Germany)Oleg Pervakov (Russia)

Date: 1st September 1993"The PCCC deferred final consideration, but the guidelines are reproduced below asrecommendations of the subrcommittee. Useful input had been received from Argentina, aswejl as from several PCCC members.STUDY TOURNEY GUIDELINESThe purpose of the Guidelines is to assist intending organisers ('directors') of formalinternational tourneys for original endgame studies. Such tourneys are prestigious andshould be conducted to a high standard. Guidelines are never obligatory, but since theseare based on a large corpus of experience, a tourney organiser departing from them needsgood reasons for so doing. The Guidelines will also be of value to organisers of tourneysof more restricted scope and prestige than formal international tourneys. The Guidelinesaddress the activities and responsibilities of the competing composer and the tourney judgeonly insofar as they affect the organiser.The ten major activities/events are listed in chronological orderI Summary:1.^-ANNOUNCEMENT2.ANN0UNCEMENT: "A-day"3.PUBLICITY

5.CL0SING DATE ("C-day") and acknowledgements: "C-day = A-day + 18 months"6.JUDGING7.IJROVISIONAL AWARD ("PA"), return of unsuccessful entries:

4t|, "PA-day = C-day + 6 months (maximum)"8.GONFIRMATION PERIOD9.I?EFINrnVE AWARD ("DA"):

fDA-day = PA-day + 5 months (maximum)"10;DISTRIBUTION OF PRIZES, and notifications.

"**}<' . • 3 5 6 '

II Detail:1 .PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT:1.1 Selection of:1.1.1 Publication (j°umal» magazine,newspaper column)1.1.2 The name by which the tourneywill be known1.1.3 Tourney director (administrator,address of entries, estimate of expenses)1.1.4 Neutraliser (may also be the direc-tor)1.1.5 Judge(s):1.1.5.1 One judge is normal. At least onejudge shall hold the FIDE title of Inter-national Judge (for studies). The FIDEjudge should be active and should comefrom outside the organising country1.1.5.2 The FIDE judge should be askedto clarify whether he will assume respon-sibility for the analytical testing of allentries, or only of honoured entries, or ofno entries1.1.5.3 The FIDE judge should be askedto provide a written undertaking to keepto a provisional time scale in accordancewith these guidelines.1.1.6 Analytical tester (a very strongplayer or analyst) to assist the judge(s), ifappropriate1.1.7 Anticipations identificationprocedure or system. Examples: the Har-man system, ChessBase, or 'respo-nsibility of the judge(s)'1.1.8 Sponsor (if any, to lend name andto provide prizes and funds).1.2 Funding to cover:1.2.1 Remunerations (if any), of judge,tester, anticipations consultant, director,translator, neutraliser. (If possible,remuneration should be clear to all par-ties prior to A-day)1.2.2 Printing (especially of thepreliminary and final award, including, ifappropriate, separate brochure(s))1.2.3 Postage and telephone usage(publicity, acknowledgements, returns,awards distribution, incidental correspon-dence)

1.2.4 Prizes. Prizes for a major tourneyshould not be trivial, but HonourableMentions and Commendations do notrequire prizes.1.3 Determination of time scale, that is,approximate dates of announcement,closing date, and publication ofpreliminary and definitive awards.1.4 Conditions, etc. If a prospective com-petitor wishes to learn the full set ofconditions before entering, or if the direc-tor feels it is desirable, the text of theconditions (based on these guidelines)should be prepared in a form to be distri-buted on request.[Note. Translation and wide publicationought in due course to enable referenceto be made simply to 'the FIDEguidelines'.]

2.THE ANNOUNCEMENT shouldinclude:2.1 Type of tourney: international, for-mal.2.2 Genre: original (unpublished)endgame studies to win or to draw.2.3 Language limitations (if any, butpreferably none).2.4 The composer to supply:2.4.1 Name, nationality and address2.4.2 Number of copies of diagram andfull solution required2.4.3 Text of the solution and notesshould preferably be typed or printed bycomputer, but no decipherable entry willbe rejected2.4.5 The diagram position should beaccompanied by a control in notation2.4.6 The name of the event (name oftourney) should appear above thediagram.2.5 The complete postal address forentries.2.6 The closing date (post mark). Toensure the widest participation theclosing date for a formal internationaltourney should be estimated at ninemonths after the geographically remotest

357

receipt of the announcement by surfacemail distribution (see Summary - 5).2.7JThe name and nationality of theFIDE judge or judges.2.8 Details of prizes:2.8.1 The number and value of the prizes,number of honourable mentions andnumber of commendations2.8.2 The division of honours into thethree categories of Prizes, HonourableMentions and Commendations is conven-tional and recommended.2.91| Anticipated date and place ofpublication of the provisional award.2.10 Other details:2.10.1 Limit of number of entries by onecomposer (whether individually or inconjunction with one or more other com-posers). Typical restrictions: one, two orthree2.10.2 Whether twins are allowed or not.Twins are difficult to compare withnon-twins. The judge(s) should be con-sulted2.10.3 Whether a special section awardmight be made for reasons other thanstript judging criteria. (Sample reasonsfor a special section: miniatures; newsettings of known ideas; bizarrepositions; importance for endgametheory. See also 2.10.4)2.10.4 Set theme. In general, a formalinternational tourney should be 'freetheme', that is, without a set theme. Setthemes may be appropriate to a tourneyhonouring a composer, a style, or anevent, but they do constitute a constrainton creativity2.10.5 Unless otherwise explicitly statedin the announcement, ownership of anentry remains with the composer, withonly the right to first publication ofhonoured entries transferred to the direc-tor/sponsor.

3.^UBLICITY:3.1 The announcement (which can clearlybe || abbreviated) should be sent to as

many national and international chessmagazines as possible, and as soon aspossible, since the indirect reproductionand distribution may take three or fourmonths.3.2 Other outlets to be considered:3.2.1 Magazines and newspapers withchess columns3.2.2 National chess federations3.2.3 Radio3.2.4 Television3.2.5 Teletext3.2.6 Electronic mail.3.3 Where appropriate the announcementdetails should be translated.

4.ENTRIES:4.1 Every composition entered should beon a separate stamped diagram with theseindications:4.1.1 Complete name and address of theauthor4.1.2 Name of the tourney4.1.3 Indication that it is an unpublishedoriginal4.1.4 The stipulation4.1.5 Notation control of the position4.1.6 The complete solution (includingset plays (if any), refutations of tries,demonstration of claimed reciprocalzugzwang, etc.) written on ooe side of asheet or sheets of paper, which should beneither too small nor too large. DIN A5or DIN A4 or foolscap are satisfactorypaper sizes4.1.7 Dedication, if any.4.2 Other requirements:4.2.1 The following, though oftendesirable, must be considered optional.They could be included as a check-listwith any communication sent to actual orprospective competitors, for instance,even on an 'application form' suppliedby the organiser4.2.2 Theme(s) or idea(s) expressed, i.e.,the composer's artistic intention4.2.3 References to endgame theory (ievolume number and page of 'Averbakh'

358

or 'Che*ron' or Tine' etc.)4.2.4 Partial anticipation(s) known to thecomposer. The diagram, composer,source and main line solution should beprovided. Alternatively, the signedstatement 'no anticipation known to thecomposer' should be made4.2.5 Testing. The composers) aloneis/are personally responsible for thesoundness of an entry. However,analytical assistance from an Elo-ratedplayer or other competent analyst is oftenhelpful. If such analytical help has beengiven, a statement to this effect mayaccompany the entry.

5 . C L O S I N G D A T E and ack-nowledgements:5.1 The post mark is definitive forclosing date. (But post marks are notalways decipherable. The director'sjudgement and discretion are final.)5.2 The director has discretion to acceptlate entries and pronounces on genrevalidity.5.3 The director is responsible for ack-nowledging receipt of entries.5.4 The neutraliser:5.4.1 The neutraliser prepares all validentries, including the diagrams, in auniform manner for presentation to thejudge, who refers to studies only by aserial number. The recommended systemof solution presentation is that in generaluse in the quarterly internationalmagazine EG, where minimal use ismade of parentheses and supporting linesare laid out sequentially.5.4.2 The neutraliser should also ensurethat all moves are legal and unam-biguous.5.5 It is in principle desirable that a copyof all entries be checked for anticipations.If the number of entries is large thisprocess may be deferred until later andrestricted to candidates for the award.The same considerations apply to testing.

6.JUDGING:6.1 After C-day the judge may query acomposer's analysis by asking the direc-tor to write to the composer. The com-poser replies to the director, who informsthe judge.6.2 Allowable corrections:6.2.1 At most one correction per entry,with supporting analysis, is allowedduring the judging period. With thislimitation, any correction is acceptable,and for any reason.6.2.2 A correction must relate to an entryproperly received before C-day, and maybe rejected by the director if the judge isready with his award.6.3 A composer may withdraw his entryor entries by writing to the director atany time before the judge's award isready. The composer should give hisreason(s), such as unsoundness, ap-pearance in print elsewhere, decision notto enter. The request to withdraw a jointentry should be signed by all the entry'scomposers.6.4 Prior to drawing up the provisionalaward, which is primarily the respon-sibility of the judge, all candidate entriesfor inclusion in the award must be testedas thoroughly as possible for anticipationand soundness.6.5 By agreement of the judge(s) anddirector the award may depart from theannounced numbers of prizes, honourablementions and commendations.6.6 If a judge cannot complete ajudgement the director must find areplacement. The award should state thecircumstances and name the replacement.In such circumstances the director shouldendeavour to follow these guidelines asclosely as possible.

7.PROVISIONAL AWARD and return ofunsuccessful entries:7.1 The printed award should carry theclear identification PROVISIONALAWARD.

359

7.2 The provisional award is the jointwork of judge(s) and director, whosenames must be appended, together withplace (town) and date.7.3 The judge provides the ranking listand division of prizes, honourable men-tions and commendations, but if hewishes he may consult the director. Thismay bcj desirable if the number of prizesis to be changed from what was announ-ced. |

7.4 The director adds names, numbersand nationalities.7.5 Either before or when the provisionalaward is published, and distributed to allcontestants, unsuccessful entries are to bephysically returned to their composerswith at least a standard explanatorycovering note saying that the unsuc-cessful entry or entries is/are at thedisposal of the composer.7.6 The provisional award should be ascompact as possible, should be publishedin me same publication as the initialannouncement, and should not be spreadover more than two successive issues (orcolumns) of the publication.7.7 If the honoured studies are offered tosolvers for solution, then confirmationtime starts at the date of publication ofthe solution to the last study in theaward.7.8 The solutions should be as full andcommented as possible:7.8.1 If there is insufficient space topublish the full solutions to all honouredstudies; in the publication (magazine,newspaper) a separate brochure, forwhich | a charge may be made, should bepublished promptly. (It is suggested thata brochure for the provisional award s-hould be produced cheaply, but for thedefinitive award the quality should besuperior.)7.8.2 Any such brochure should be sentto each competitor free of charge.7.9 All comments on the award should beaddressed in writing to the tourney direc-

tor.

8.C0NFIRMATI0N PERIOD:8.1 It is within the tourney director'sdiscretion, acting in consultation with thejudge(s), to allow one minor correctionby the composer.8.2 A permissible correction includes:8.2.1 The displacement of a singlechessman8.2.2 The elimination of a first move8.2.3 The addition/removal of a singlepawn.8.2.4 Board rotation and/or reflection in aposition without pawns.8.3 Other changes, such as a combinationof the above, or shifting all men in onedirection, are not minor. Such changesmay be made if composer, judge anddirector all agree. The guideline is toexercise extreme caution in such casesbecause of the danger of inadequatetesting of an altered position.8.4 A change proposed by someone otherthan the composer requires the com-poser's explicit agreement.

9.DEFINITIVE AWARD:9.1 The printed award should carry theclear identification DEFINITIVEAWARD and the full name of the tour-ney, including, if appropriate, the genreand associated year. As with theprovisional award, the names of thejudge(s) and director must be appended,with a date.9.2 If a separate brochure is published itshould contain the complete solutions andshould be a quality product.9.3 The definitive award should bedistributed to all contestants as soon aspossible.9.4 The accomplished fact (of thedistribution) should be immediatelyrecorded in the publication.10.PRIZES, and notifications:10.1 Prizes in accordance with the an-nouncement are to be distributed simul-

360

taneously with the publication of the finalaward.10.2 Any publication which publicisesthe tourney announcement should be senta copy of the final award with a requestfor further publicity, for instance byreproducing the winners.10.3 For purposes of determining priorityof idea the relevant date for an honouredstudy is the closing date for entries. Thisdate should accompany the diagram inthe reproduction.

Filipp Semyonovich BONDARENKO -21x05-8ii93

We do not know if Bondarenko evertravelled outside the USSR or even, inh i s l a t t e r y e a r s , far f r o mDniepropetrovsk, but we do know fromcorrespondence with him in Russian overa 25 year period that he craved inter-national recognition, (in 1966 he wasawarded the composition title of FIDEjudge, in 1979 that of InternationalMaster) for his herculean efforts. Manyof the Soviet Union*s lesser tourneyawards recorded in EG's pages in the1960's and 1970's were due to Bon-darenko's meticulous hand-writtentranscriptions. He was proud of the 1983collaboration with Spinhoven to producea hard cover book in Dutch on the strug-gle between bishop and rook - but thebook was expensive and the venture acommercial failure. That he was able,exclusively by correspondence, to com-pile material, including photographs,from all over the world, first for his Gal-lery (1968), and then for his remarkablefour-part history of the endgame study(the first was published in 1980, the lastin 1987) is witness to remarkable persis-tence, but he could not have achieved thequantity of Ukrainian publication he didwithout the tacit consent of the'authorities', anonymous as always. Hewas not made to suffer from active, if

postal, contact with foreigners. With hismilitary (or police, ie KGB, - his rank ofcolonel was consistent with either) ex-perience he understood very well exactlyhow far he could go. In the early days ofglasnost (it may have been 1985, whenalready no topic was taboo) I tried todraw him out to tell me what he mightknow about the death of Somov-Nasimovich or the massacre followingfood riots in Novocherkassk in 1962.Playing safe, he was not to be drawn. Butwhen I asked whether his views hadchanged as a result of the floods of freshrevelations about the soviet past, he didhave an answer. He said they had not -he still believed in internationalfriendship. On another occasion hereplied to a query with a party-linequotation from the Bolshaya sovetskayaentsiklopedia, to which I reacted with'Long live the BSE!'. All our chess cor-respondence was friendly in tone andmutually advantageous. He was alwaysseeking new outlets and wrote manyarticles in non-soviet magazines such asPROBLEM. His other book, The study inthe pawn ending (1973), has, like theGallery, stood the test of time. He was afluent composer, especially in col-laboration with Aleksandr Kuznetsov orA.Kakovin, and could be a good one,though in later years the quality didrather fall away. Nikolai Griva reportsthat following his death only part ofBondarenko's collection of 30,000 studieshas been located. (AJR)

Michael R.B.CLARKEHead of the Computer ScienceDepartment at Queen Mary and WestfieldCollege, London University. Author ofseveral papers on computer chess andeditor of several Advances in ComputerChess volumes, he organised the ACC3Conference held at Imperial College,London in 1981. He was both program-

361

mer and operator in 1978 when DonaldMichie and Donald Michie's wife werethe only others present during my verysuccessful contest with the GBR class0103 database at Queen Mary College.Michael Clarke's death early in 1994 ofcancer of the stomach is a tragedy for hiswife, family, colleagues and manyfriends. Although he had reportedsymptoms, the disease was not diagnosedin time.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =ReviewsENCYCLOPEDIA OF CHESSENDINGS, Vol.5 (1993) -Bishops and KnightsThat tliis final volume (564 pages, 2017diagrams) in the series had to overcomemany difficulties is shown by ChessInformant Limited's new address inNicosia (no longer Belgrade), the volumebeing jj printed in Romania, and theprevious volume having appeared as longago as 1986. Collaborators and compilersinclude IGMs Nunn and Speelman, andKen Thompson's BELLE. Figurines andSlavic spelling of names are as usual. Thevolume contains many studies (includingNo.287, a Lommer that was new to me),but that may not be enough to attractstudies enthusiasts, because the classifi-cation system is both tiresome to learnand pawn-structure (ie, player-) orienta-ted. The 50 symbols used are a help ifone is familiar with them, but otherwise(ie, for the occasional user) a hindrance -a circle with centre dot means zugzwang,for instance. A first impression on usingthe volume as if it were any other en-cyclopedia is of having to search for, andthen decipher, visual gobbledygook.I decided to hunt for bishop and pawnagainst knight and two pawns. With theGBR code one would flip to the force0013.12 (and maybe its 'converse'0031.21) and scan that solid block ofdiagrams for positions of interest. Notwith ECE. Starting with p. 11 (sy-

mbol-ridden, so refer to previous pages)one tentatively identifies '5' and '306'(which turns out to be a page number)for the section containing bishop andpawns against knight and pawns, withtwo symbols deciphered as 'without anadvantage in pawns' (what we want is adisadvantage). On p306 (page numbersare located in the fold of the page) wefind a family tree with more symbols,leading to indicators like '5/d' for 'with apassed pawn' and '5/e' for 'without apassed pawn'. Indicators of this type arerepeated on the corners of each page, sowe flip on. We fail to find any examplesof what we are looking for. Subsequentlywe discover via a page (p545) of laconic'additional examples' that it's classificati-on '4', not '5', that holds what we need.In other words, the 'without an advantagein pawns' really means 'equal numbersof pawns', ie with no bias towards whiteor black.

There is an index of study composersseparate from the index to players, andthere is even a list of 72 'educativeexamples'. No.259: h3e2 0004.10b8d4.b7 is attributed (with neither datenor source) to 'Roycroft' - this is realnews to me! For a more friendly reviewof the ECE system EG readers can referto Paul Lamford's article in EG90.

PRACTICAL KNIGHT ENDE^GS, byGM Edmar Mednis (105 examples on188 pages, 1993, Chess Enterprises,USA). In reviewing practical books forEG we shall restrict ourselves generallyto what is different or new. Extensivetextual commentary distinguishes thisuseful work (bishops are excluded) fromthe ECE minor pieces volume, which hasnone. Knight variations are tough tocalculate and can be lengthy, so the Med-nis volume offers rich opportunities forworthy and energetic mental exercise. Wewould have thought that all GM writers

362

today would be using some chess editingprogram, so we were surprised to findeVen a few moves wrongly described.And, do we have to live with theuglyisms 'Kingside' and 'Queenside', aswe must live, it seems, with 'drinkdriving'?

SECRETS OF PAWNLESS ENDINGS,by John Nunn (320 pages, 458 diagrams,Batsford, 1993).As your reviewer has reason to know,Batsford editor Peter Keminis Betty hasup to now shown small enthusiasm forbooks on studies, yet over 250 of thediagrams in this excellent and industriousbook are - studies! Admirers of Dobres-cu, Vandiest and Rinck will be especiallygratified, though the reception by prac-tical players remains to be seen - theauthor felt it necessary to explain theterms 'cook', 'try' and 'tourney' in hisintroduction.

This is not the last of IGM Nunn's ac-counts of his explorations of the KenThompson computer-generated and com-mercially available databases of 5-manendings, as GBR classes 0014 and 0023have been reserved for a third volume,scheduled for 1995. Again, one wonderswhat welcome practical players will givethat volume. While on the subject of'secrets', by that time we shall have hadthe chance to learn exactly what hap-pened in John Nunn's confrontation withthe 0023 database at the Turing Institutesome five years ago, as a paper bymachine intelligence guru Donald Michieis due for publication by then.The technical content is unexceptionable.4-man endings take us up to p67, andGBR classes 4001, 4010, 0401, 0410,1330, 1303, 1033, 1060, and 1006 takeus up to pp.120, 152, 170, 232, 263, 281,287, 297,and 308 respectively. Abbre-viated sources are given, and are general-ly accurate, with the spectacular excep-tion of 193 which we pray no one will

propagate. We also wish that some satis-factory alternative to the misleading useof 'original' had been found: pending arecommendation of the PCCC studiessub-committee, one prefers either theneutral 'first publication' or the franker'computer-assisted*. (See EG108 for areview of the GBR class 0400.10 earliervolume.)KING & PAWN, by Julian Hodgson,1993, third in the 'Tournament Chess'series MODERN PRACTICAL EN-DINGS.This chatty book of a mere 46 pagestakes the reader from zero knowledge toinclude whole GM games with P-endingfinales. The technique of selecting com-mon salient features of practical P-endingplay (such as the opposition, file-sepa-ration of passed pawns, exhausting tempomoves with pawns, exchanging into aP-ending, the distant passed pawn,sacrificing) and giving a couple of il-lustrations, often including one thatshows a glaring mistake by a well-knownplayer (which the student will be morelikely to remember than a lengthydefinition or convoluted rule) - works!

363

No. 9196 V.Dolgov and L.Mitrofanov

I.f7 Rf4 2.Kg6 Sh4+ 3.Kg7 Sf5+ 4.Kf6Sd4 5.Ke5 Se2 6.Ke6 Rfl 7.Ke7 Sf48.Kf6, ahd Sh3+ 9.Ke7 Sf4 10.Kf6 Sh3+ll.Kc7,!or Se2+ 9.Ke7 Sf4 10.Kf6 Sg2+ll.Kg7 JSf4 12.Kf6 Se2+ 13.Ke7 draw.

No. 9197 A.Pankratev (Karaganda)

1x7+ Kb7 2.c6+ Rxc6 3.bc+ Qxc64.Rb2+ Kxa8 5.Rb8+ Rxb8 6.Bf3 Qxf37.cbQ+ |Kxb8 8.e6+ K- stalemate.

THE FIFTH WORLD CHESS COM-POSITION TOURNEY OF FIDE(5.WCCT)This is a team event for national teams(one team per country). There are sevensections. Section D is for studies. The setthem is (for once!) rather simple: a winstudy where an away-from-the-edgestalemate of bK is avoided. Judge: P.Joita(Romania).

The thematic example:No. 9198 V.Nestorescu and R.Voia=1/2 Prize, Revista de San, 1953

l.Kd5 Kd3 2.g4 Ke3 3.g5 Kf4 4.g6 Sd65.Kxd6 Kg5 6.g7 Kf6 7.Sf5 wins,avoiding the stalemate of the immediatepromotion to Q or R.Organising country: Slovakia. Closingdate for receipt of team entries: Iiii95.According to the Problemist the closingdate for applications to compete was

In Sakkelet 1-2/94 Attila Koranyi offersnine more examples, from which onemay draw the conclusion that to aim fororiginality a stalemating promotion tryshould be eschewed.No. 9199 Rusinek (1987)

I.d6 Be6 2.Sc5 Bc8 3.d7 Bxd7 4.Sxd7Kc3 5.Sc5 Se3+ 6.Ke2 Sf5 7.Kel wins,not 7.Kdl? b4 8Kcl Sd4 9.Bg7stalemate.

364

No. 9200 M.Lewitt (1917)

l.Be8 a3 2.Bxg6 hg (Kb2;Bf7) 3.h7 a24.h8B wins, not 4.h8Q? alQ 5.Qxalstalemate.No. 9201 Rinck (1920)

l.Re4+ Kc3 2.Rd4 Kxd4 3.d7 Ke3 4.d8R(d8Q? dlQ;) Ke2 5.Kh3 dlQ 6.Rxdlwins.No. 9202 Troitzky (1924)

l.Qbl+, with: Ka4 2.Qxb6 Qxb6+3.Kxb6 a2 4.f8R (f8Q? alQ;) alQ5.Ra8+ wins, or Kc3 2.Qxb6 Qxb6+3.Kxb6 a2 4.f8B (f8Q? alQ;) Kb25.Bg7+ Kbl 6.Bh7+.No. 9203 Dehler (1908)

l.Sc6+ Kf5 2.Qf2+ Ke4 3.Qe3+ (Qxf7??)Kd5 4.Qb3+ Ke4 5.Qd3+ Kf4 6.Qe3+Kf5 7.QO+, and 8.S+ wins.No. 9204 Prokop (1928)

l.Qc6+ (Qb3+? Kf5;) Ke7 2.Qc7+ Ke63.Qc4+ Kf5 4.Qe4+ Kg4 5.f5+ Kg36.Qf3+ Kh2 7.Qh5+ Kg2 8.Qg6+ wins.

365

No. 9205 Prokop (1928)

l.Qb6+ (Qa3+? Ke5;) Kd7 2.Qb7+ Kd63.C|b4+ Ke5 4.Qd4+ Kf4 5.Qf2+ (e5+?Kg5;) Ke5 6.Qh2+ Qf4 7.Qh8+ Qf68.Qb8 mate.NoJ 9206 R6ti (version by Rinck) (1928)

l.Bf5+ (Bc6+? Kd6;) Kd6 2.Rd4+Ke73.Re4+ Kd8 4.Bd7 (Rxe3? elQ;) elQ5.Bb5 wins.No. 9207 Koranyi (1984)

l.Bc8+ Ke4 2.Ke2 Be5 3.Rh5 Kd5 4.Bf4Ke4 5.Bxe5 Rd5 6.Be6 (Bb7??) Rc57.Rg5 wins.

REFINEMENT TO A KUBBELCLASSICIs there anything more we can say aboutthe classics? It is even harder to addanything to them. Before we look atLeonid Kubbel's Gl let us spare amoment to consider Alexei Troitzky'swords. "If anyone were to ask me whatprecisely Leonid Ivanovich's service tothe endgame was, I would answer likethis: It was not that he epitomised thebest achievements in form up to his time,but rather the opposite, namely that hesupplied the impetus to further develop-ments in form that would bridge the gapbetween the study and the practicalgame" and "would be combination'sshining expression" in the study.QJ ********************************

No. 9208 L.LKubbel1st Prize, Siberian Chess Section,1928-29

Gl: I.d4+ Ke6 2.d5+ Ke5 3.b6 Sxe4+4.Kh4! Sd6 5.Bxd6+ Kxd6 6.Kg5! Se77.b7 Kc7 8.d6+! wins.The practical player's powers of cal-culation are tuned to such a pitch thatwithout conscious effort or strain he cancarry out the work of a researcher. Whilelooking at Gl I saw that not only6.Kh4-g5! was possible, but also the

366

paradoxical 6.Kg6-g5!! It was a newpoint to a study of world renown. Thepuzzle remained: had Kubbel seen it?The functional G2 leaves much to bedesired, however.Q2********************************

No. 9209 D.R.GodesCommendation, 'Aiastan*Club of Erevan, 1991

G2: l.Kg5! Kf3 2.Kxg6 Kxg4 3.b4! Kf44.b5 Kxe5 5.b6 Kxd6 6.Kg5! and so on,but not 6.Kf7? Sh6+ 7.Ke8 Sf5 8.Kd8Sd4! 9.b7 Kxd5! 10.b8Q Sc6+.The pawns on the d-file are mere wood,contributing nothing to the struggle. Thesketchy play is dry with analytical bag-gage. No, we must go back to Kubbel'smechanism (with wB and bSS).Q^********************************No. 9210 L.I.Kubbel,Version by D.Godes, 1993first publication

G3: I.d4+ Ke6 2.d5+ Ke5 3.b6 Sxe4+4.Kxg6 Sd6 5.Bxd6+ Kxd6 6.Kg5!! Se77.b7 Kc7 8.d6+ wins.True, bPg6 infringes the canon ofeconomy. But at the cost of this materialwe buy a sharp aesthetic impact. W'sfirst five moves were attacking moves,but at the decisive moment, if he is towin, W has to ... retreat. The practicalgame corroborates this logic, but in thestudy we must act with elegance. It isvery proper that the developments ino-t-b chess should lead to new disco-veries in a classic study. On the brink ofthe 21st century, a century of creativity,the pearls of chess art will shine brighterthan ever, to live for evermore.D.R.Godes, Grandmaster of Correspon-dence ChessRyazan23v93

name of tourney: Amirov MTclosing date/ year(s): 1985judge(s): D.Gurgenidze

Number of composers, countries, entries:49 entries

provisional award published in(mag/date): Magadansky Komsomolets26xii85

No. 9211 lstPrJan Marwitz (Netherlands)

367

l.Bd4 Kf5 2.Sxb6 Ke4 3.Bxe3 a3 4.Sxc4a2 5.Sd2+ Kxe3 6.Sb3 drawn."Introduction, inventive play and finaleform a purposeful whole."

No. 9212 2ndPrYu.Bazlov and V.Kovalenko (Far East)

No. 9214 SpecialPrJulien Vandiest (Belgium)

I.a8p Bc6+ 2.Kc6 Qhl+ 3.Kc7 Qxa84.Bd7+ Ke7 5.Bc5+ Kf6 6.Bd4+ Kg67.Bc£ Qg8 (Qf8; Be4+) 8.Be4+ Kh69.Be3+, perpetual check.

i!

No. 9213 SpecialPrB.Liirye and L.Mitrofanov ('Leningrad*)

l.b8S+ Ka7 2.Kxc2 Sxd4+ 3.Kc3 Sb5+4.Kc4 Sd6+ 5.Kc5 Sxe4+ 6.Kd4 Rg47.c7 Rh4 8.Sc6+ Kb6 (Kb7;c8Q+) 9.c8S+Kxc6 10.Se7+ drawn. David Blundelloffers the continuation Kb8 ll.Sf5 (Sg6?Rh<5;) 12.Se3 Rf4 13.Ke5 Rh4 14.Sf5.

I: diagramII: remove bPh3, add bPe3I: l.Qb5+ Kf8 2.Qf5+ Ke8 3.Qd7+ Kf84.Qd8+ Kf7 5.Qg8+ Ke7 6.Qe6+ Kf87.Qxh6+ Ke8 8.Qc6+ Ke7 9.Qe6+ Kf810.Qf6+ Ke8 ll.Kg6 Qe7 12.Qh8+ Qf813.Qe5+ Qe7 14.Be6 f2 15.Qh8+ Qf816.Qd4 Qe7 17.Bb3 Qh7+ 18.Kxh7 flQ19.Kg7 Qg2+ 2O.Kf6 Qc6+ 21.Be6 Qb722.Qd6 Qb2+ 23.Kg6 Qb7 24.Bd5 Qbl +25.Kh6 wins.II: l.Qb5+ Kf8 2.Qf5+ (as I) ... 24.Bd5Qbl+ 25.Kf6 Qb2+ 26.Ke6 v ins, DavidBlundell pointing out that with bPe3 thereply 26...Qe2, is not check. If, in themiddle of this, Bl plays 14...e2!, then15.Qh8 Qf8 16.Qd4! Qe7 17.Bb3 wins.

No. 9215 SpecialPrV.Kozhakin (Magadan)

368

l.Ke8, with:Bd2 2.M Bxe3 3.Kd7 Bd2 4.Kc6 BxM

5.Kxb5 Bd2 6.Kc4 e3 7.Kd3 Kg7 8.b4,or Bel 2.M Bxh4 3.Kd7 Bel 4.Kc6 Kg75.Kxb5 Kf6 6.Kc4 Ke5 7.b5 Bf2 8.b6Bxe3 9.b7 Ba7 10.e3 Bb8 l l .M Ba712.b5 Bb8 13.b6 Ke614.Kd4 Kf5 15.Kd5 Be5 16.Kc6 Bb817.Kd5, positional draw.

No. 9216 1HMS.Osintsev (Sverdlovsk-that-was)

No. 9218 3HMA.Hildebrand (Sweden)

l.Bf6 Ke2 2.Sb2 Sd8 3.Bxd8 Bxb4 4.Ba5Bxa5 5.Kd4 Bc3 6.Kxc3 dlQ 7.Sxdl h28.h8R wins.

No. 9217 2HMV.Dolgov and L.A.Mitrofanov

l.Rh4+ Kg8 2.R5h5 Rg6 3.Rh8+ Kg74.Ke7 Rg5 5.R4h7+wins.

l.Kf7 Rg7+ 2.Kxe8 Bxc5 3.Rh5+ Kg84.Rxc5 Sd6+ 5.Kd8 Sb7+/i 6.Ke8 Sxc57.Sxe6 Sxe6 stalemate,i) David Blundell: "5...e5, and Bl wins."No positions for commendations awardedto "I.Krikheli, A.Maksimovskikh,V.Shupletsov and others" (3 positions, ormore?) were published. Oh, for publishedguidelines that tourney organisers willfollow! In fact the PCCC Sub-Committeeis working on just such guidelines, as fastas AJR can make it move. After Bratis-lava (September 1993) they will bepublished in EG, whether final or not.

FORMAL TOURNEYfull name of tourney:Alexander Hildebrand jubilee tourneymagazine: Springaren (Sweden)judge: Alexander Hildebrand (Sweden)(PROVISIONAL) AWARDreceived by AJR: from Lars Falk, 1993,after seeing references to the studies inassorted magazinespublished in: Springaren 39, xii89award signed by: A.Hildebrandnumber of entries received, composers,countries: 48 from 34 composers in IScountriesnumber published: 9number in provisional award: 9confirmation period: to liii90

369

No. 9219David Gurgenidze (USSR/Georgia)1st Prize

l.Re7+/i Kh8 2.Re8+ Kxh7 3.Rxe3 Bg4+4.hg Rdl+/ii 5.Ke7 Rxcl 6.Rf3 Rel+7.107 Rhl 8.Ke7 Rel 9.Kf7 draw. "Anoriginal positional draw mechanism en-gineered by threats of perpetual checkand; mate."i) l.Re8? Rxh3 wins. Or l.h8Q+? Kxh82.Rke3 Bg4+ 3.hg Rdl+ 4.Ke7 Rxcl5.RB Rel+ 6.Kf7 Rhl 7.Ke7 Rh7+ wins,ii) Rxcl; leads to perpetual check -which is also the threat of 5.Rf3 in (i).

No; 9220Alexei Sochniev(Leningrad/St.Petersburg)2nd Prize

9.b8S+ wins, orbe 6b5/iv Kd3/v 7.BM c3 8.Bxc3 Kc4

9.b6 Kb5 10.b7 Ka6 ll.b8R wins."A most natural position ... no fewer than3 minor promotions ..."i) 3.e8Q? Bf5+ 4.e4 Bxe4 5.Qxe4stalemate.ii) Bf5+ 4.e4 Bg4 5x4 Be2 6.Rd8 Bxc47.Rd4 Bf7 8.Rd3 Bg6 9.Re3 and 10.Bd4wins.iii) 4.Rf8+? Kel 5.Rd8 Bc4 6.Rd4 Bg87.Rh4 Bf7 8x4 Kf3 drawn. Or 4.Rd8?Bc4 5.Rd4 Bg8 6.Rh4 Ke2 7x4 Bf78.Rg4 Kf3 draw.iv) 6.Bd4? Kd3 7.Bh8 Ke4 drawn,v) c3 7.Kc2 blQ+ (Kf3;Ba3) 8.Kxbl c2+9.Kxc2 Be5 10.b6 Kf3 ll.Kd3 wins.

No. 9221Emilian Dobrescu (Romania)3rd Prize

l.Bc5+ Kfl 2.e7 Bxg4 3.e8R/i Bxe2/ii4.1fre2/iii Kxe2 5.c4, with:Kd3 6.cb Kc4 7.b6 Kb5 8.b7 Ka6

l.Qb2+/i Kh7 2.Qb7+/ii Kh8 3.Qe7/iiiRd3+ 4.Kh4/iv Rd5 5.Qf8/v Kh7 6.Qf6,when Bl is in zugzwang, with:Ra5 7.Qe7+ Kh8 8.Qd6 Rf5 (Ra4+;Kg5)

9.Qd4+ Kh7 10.Qe4 wins, orRb5 7Qe7+ Kh8 8.Qd6 BH/vi 9.Qf8+

Bg8 10.Qh6+ Bh7 ll.Qf6+ Kg8 12.Qd8+wins.i) l.Qc6? Rd3+ 2.Kg4 Bf7 3.Kf5 Rg3draw. Or l.Kh4? Rd7 2.Qb2+ Kh7 3.Qf6Rg7 draw.ii) It's a draw after 2.Qc2+? or 2.Qf6?iii) 3.Qb6? Re8, and 4.Qf6+ Kh7, or4.Qh6+ Bh7.

370

iv) 4.Kg4? Rdl 5.Qe5+ Kh7 6.Qc7+ Kh67.Qc6+ Kg7 8.Qc3+ Kh6 9.Qh8+ Bh710.Qf8+ Kg6 draw.v) 5.Qf6+? Kh7 and W is in zugzwang:6.Kg3 Rh5, or 6.Kg4 Rdl 7.QO Rd58.Qf6Rdl 9.Qf3 Rd5 draw.vi) If Rb7 9.Qe5+ Rg7 10.Kh5 Kh7ll.Qf5+ Kh8 12.Qf6 wins. Or if B-9.Qd8+ Bg8 10.Qd4+ wins.

No. 9222 A.Sochniev1st Hon.Mention

l.Qg8 Qf8 2.Qxf8+ Kg6+ 3.Kg8 Rh8+4.Kxh8 Rhl+ 5.Qh6+ (Kg8? Rh8+;)with:Kxh6 6.Kg8 (Bxe6? Rel;) Kg6/i 7.Bxe6

fe 8.f7 Rh4 9.g3 Rh7 (Rhl;f8R) 10.f8S+wins, orRxh6+ 6.Kg8 Rh7 7.Bb3(Bc4) (Bbl+?

Kh6;) Kh6 8.Ba4(Bb5) Kg6 9.Be8 Kh610.Kf8 Kg6 ll.Ke7 and wins byzugzwang.i) Rel 7.Kxf7 Rxe5 8.Kg8 wins. Or Ral7.Bxe6 Rel 8.Kxf7 Rxe5 9.Ke7 wins.The judge enjoyed this despite his notbeing impressed by the underpromotions.

No. 9223 Velimir(USSR/Georgia)2nd Hon.Mention

Kalandadze

I.g7 Ra3+ 2.Kf2/i e3+ 3.Ke2 Ra2+4.Kf3/ii Rf2+ 5.Kg3 Rfl 6.Kg2 e2 7.g8QelQ 8.Qa2+/iii Kb6 9.Qb3+ Kc510.Qa3+, with perpetual check,i) 2.Kf4? Rf3+ 3.Kg4 Rfl wins,ii) 4.Kfl? e2+ 5.Kel Ral+ wins,iii) 8,Qh7+? Kb6 9.Qg6+ Ka5 10.Qg5+Ka4 ll.Qg4+ Ka3 12.Qh3+ Ka2 wins."This superminiature has charm."

No. 9224Gamlet Amiryan (USSR/Armenia)3rd Hon.Mention

l.Rd4/i Sc3+/ii 2.Kal h3 3.Se5/iii h24.Rxg4+ Kh3 5.Sf3 hlQ+/iv 6.Sgl+/vKh2 7.Rh4+ Kgl/vi 8.Rxhl Kxhlstalemate.i) l.Rc4? h3, and 2.Kxa2 h2 3.Kxa3 hlQ4.Sc5 Qd5 5.Kb4 Kh3 6.Se4 g3 7.Sxg3

371

Kxg3, or 2.Se5 h2 3.Rxg4+ Kh3 4.Kxa2hlQ wins.ii) h3 2.Kxa2 h2 3.Rdl Kh3 4.Se5 g35.Sf3 draw.iii) [3.Rd3+? Kf2, and if 4.Rxc3 h2 5.Ra3hlQ, or 4.Rd2+ Kel 5.Rh2 Bd6 6.Rhl+Kf2 7.Sf6 g3 wins.iv) |Kxg4 6.Sxh2+ Kg3 7Sf l+ Kf2 8.Sd2dra|v.v) 6.Rgl? Bb2+ 7.Kxb2 Qxf3 wins,vi) !JKg2 8.Rxhl Kxhl 9.Sf3 Kg2 10.Sd2Kf2 l l .Sbl draws.

- - i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Noj9227 Christer Jonsson (Sweden)Special Hon.Mention

No 9228 D.GurgenidzeCommendation

Awarded for the optimal setting (German'Letztform?) of a classic study by Seles-niev (Deutsche Schachzeitung, 1920).I.c4 Sd6 2.c5 Sb7/i 3.c6 Sxd8 4x7 Sb7S.cSR wins.i) Se4 3.c6, with Sc5+ 4.Ka3 Se4 5.Kb4Sd6 6.Se6 wins, or Sc3+ 4.Kb4 Sd5+5.Kc5 Sc7 6.Sb7 Sb5 7.Kd5 Sc7 8.Kd6

I.g7 Rg8 2.Rxg8 Rfl+ 3Kh2 (Kg2?Rxf5;) Rf2+ 4.Kh3 Rxf5/i 5.Rb8/ii Rg56.Rb5 (g8Q? Rxg8;) Rxb5 7.g8Q.i) Rf3+ 5.Sg3 Kg6 6.Rf8 wins.ii) 5.Ra8? Rg5 6.Ra5 Rxa5 7.g8Q Ra3+8.Kh2 Rh3+ 9.Kg2 Rg3+ 10.Qxg3stalemate.

No 9229 D.GurgenidzeCommendation

l.S7e6 Rfl+ 2.Kg4 Rgl+ 3.Kh5 Rxg5+4.Sxg5 elQ 5.Kh6, with:Qe8/i 6.Rh7+ Kg8 7.Rg7+ Kf8 8.Sh7

mate, orQhl 6.Rc7 Qd5 7.Rc8+/ii Qg8 8.Sf7

mate.i) Qh4+ 6.Kg6 Qc4 7.Sf7+ wins,ii) 7.Rh7+? Kg8 8.Rg7+ Kf8 9.Sh7+ Ke810.Sf6+ Kf8 ll.Sxd5 h2 draw.

372

name of tourney : MATjudge: Milos Tomasevic (Belgrade)INFORMAL year(s): 1988

No. 9226 1st Hon.MentionD.Gurgenidze (Georgia)

(PROVISIONAL) AWARDPublished in : MAT, date unknownaward signed by: the judgenumber in provisional award: 7

No. 9225 PrizeF.Vrabec (Bosnia, now Sweden)

I.c6 Kd3/i 2.Kg2 Kxd2 3.Kf3/ii Kc24.Kf4/iii Kxb3 5.Kg5 Kc4 6.Kh6/iv a47.Kg7 Kb4 8.Kg8 Kc4 9.Kg7 drawn.i) Kc5 2.Kg2 Kxc6 3.Kf3 Kc5 4.Ke4Kb4 5.Kd5 Kxb3 6.Kc6 Kxb2 7.Kb5 Kc28.Kxa5 Kxd2 9.Kb5 drawn,ii) 3.Kg3? Ke3 4.Kg2 h6 5.Kg3 Ke46.Kf2 Kd5 wins.iii) 4.Ke4? Kxb3 5.Kf5 Kc4 6.Kg5 a4wins.iv) 6.Kf6? Kc5 7.Kg7 Kxc6 8.Kxh7 Kd69.Kh6 Ke5 10.Kxh5 Kf5 wins.David Blundell: "The notes fail to dojustice to this difficult study. W's defen-sive idea is seen if Bl plays 5...Kxb2.Now 6.Kf6 a4 7.Ke7 a3 8.Kd7 a2 9.Kc7alQ 10.Kb8, when Bl cannot prevent11.c7, a standard draw. With this in mindwe see why 6.Kxh5? fails: W does nothave the stalemating possibility if bPh5 isoff the board."

I.b7 blR 2.b8Q+ Qxb8 3.Sxb8 Rxb84.Kxg7 Ke7 5.Kh7 Kf6 6.f8Q+ Rxf8 7.g7Rf7 8.Kh8 Rxg7 stalemate.

No. 9227 2nd Hon.MentionD.Gurgenidze

lg8Q Qxg4+ 2.Ke8 Kc6 3.Kf7/i Se5+4.Kf8 Qf5+ 5.Kg7 Qg6+ 6.Kf8/ii Sd7+7.Ke7 Qd6+ 8.Kf7 Se5+ 9.Kg7 Qg6+10.Kf8 Sd7+ ll.Ke7 drawn.i) 3.Qg7? Qe6+ 4.Kd8 Qd6+ 5.Ke8 Qb8+6.K17 Sh8+ 7.Ke6 Qb3+ 8.Kf5 Qf3+9.Kg5 Qg3+ 10Kh6 Qh4 mate.ii) 6.Kh8? Qh6+ 7.Qh7 Sg6+ 8.Kg8 Qf8mate.

373

No. 9228 3rd Hon.MentionD.Daja

No. 9230 2nd CommendationD.Daja

LQc8+ Kb6 2.Qb8+ Kc5 3.Sb3+, with:Qxb3 4.Qc7+ Kd4 5.Qd7+ Kc5

(Kxc4;Qe6+) 6.Qd5+ Kb6 7x5+ wins, orKxc4 4.Qg8+ Kb5 5.Qe8+ wins.

No. 9229 1st CommendationA.Maksimovskikh (Russia) andP.Pprkonoja (Finland)

l.BeoVi Bxe6 2.fe Rxa3 3.e7/ii Re3 4x7Rxe7 5.b5+ Kb6 6x8S+ wins.i) l.cb? Kxb7 2.Sb5 Ra6 3.Bd5+ Kb84.Be4 Rf6 5.Sd4 Kc7 6.Kd5 Rb6 7.Kc5Bd7 8.b5 Rf6 9.Bc2 Bc8 10.Bd3 Bd7HlBe4 Bc8 12.Kd5 Kb6 13.Ke5 Bxf5141Bxf5 Rf7 15.Be6 Rc7 16.Kd6 Rc517Bd7 Rh5 draw.i) David BlundeU: "3x7? b5+ 4.Kd4 Kb75.e7 Ra8 draw."

I.b7 Rh8+ 2.Ke7 Rh7+ 3.Kd6 Rxb74.Rcl+ Kb6 5.Rbl+ Ka7 6.Ral+ Kb87.Bg2 Rb6+ 8.Bc6 Rxc6+ 9.Kxc6 wins.

No. 9231 3rd CommendationD.Biscan

l.Be7/i b3 2.Bd8 Sb6 3.Bxb6 Kxb64.Kg3 Kc5 5.Kf2 Kd4 6.Kel Kd3 7.KdlBe2+ 8.Kcl Bf3 9.Kbl Kd2 lO.Kal Kc2draw.i) l.Bd2? b3 2.Ba5 Ka6 3.Bd8 Kb54.Kg3 Kc4 5.Kf2 Kd3 6.Kxfl Kc2 wins.

The "OCTOBER-60" event was a Soviettourney to mark the 60th anniversary ofthe socialist October revolution. It wasorganized by the sports club "Gantiadi"in Tbilisi. Award publication date:31xii77. Judge V.Kalandadze (Tbilisi). -

374

No. 9232 1st PrizeL.Mitrofanov (St.Petersburg)

l.Qc3 Qh7 2.Qc8+ Qg8 3.Qh3+ Qh74.d7 glQ 5.d8Q+ Qg8 6.Qxg8+ Kxg87.Qc8 mate.

No. 9233 2nd PrizeN.Kralin (Moscow)

l.Ra8+ Kb4 2.Ra3 Sd6+ 3.Kg6 Sxb54.Rxb3+ Ka4 5.Rxb5 alQ 6.Be8 Qbl+7.Kf6 wins.

No. 9234 3rd PrizeO.Averkin (Moscow) and V.Bron(Sverdlovsk, now Ekaterinburg)

l.Bb6+ Ke7 2.Bxc5+ Kd8 3.Bb6+ Ke74.Sxh4 Bxh3 5.Sg6+ Kf6 6.Be8 Bf5+7.Ke3 Bxg6 8.Bd4+ Kf5 9.Bd7 mate.

No. 9235 4th PrizeV.Kazantsev (Moscow)

l.Ra7+ Kbl 2.Rxal+ Kxal 3.e5 Rd54.Kh2 Rxe5 5.Kg3 Rf5 6.Kxg4 Rxf67.Kh5 Kb2 8.g4 Kc3 9.g5 Rfl 10.g6 Kd4Il.g7 Rgl 12.Kh6 Ke5 13.Kh7 Kf614.g8S+ draw.

375

No. 9236 5th Pr.D.Gurgenidze (Tbilisi)

l.Bd3 Ka5 2.Rcl Kb4 3.Ral Kb3 4.Bblfl$* 5.Kh3 Kb2 6.Rxa2+ Kxbl 7.Re2Kcl 8.Rel+ wins.It is not known if there were anyhonourable mentions or commendations.

"RySTAVI-86w. Rustavi is town to theeast of Tbilisi. As seen from hills to thesouth Rustavi clusters round one enor-mously tall factory chimney The tour-ney was organized in 1986 by the local'trade union* to mark the 68th anniver-sary of you-know-what. There were 22eniries from the USSR. Judges:T.Giorgadze and D.Gurgenidze (Tbilisi).

No. 9237 1st PrizeS.Kolikhmatov (Moscow)

draw, orQc3 4.Qd7 Bf7 5.Qg4 Bg6 6.Qd7 Bf7

draw.

No. 9238 2nd PrizeA.Shioshvili (Sagaredzho, Georgia)

l.Sd6+/i Ka2+ 2.Kc2 Qcl+ 3.Kxcl glQ+4.Kc2 Qg2+ 5.Kcl Qxg7 6.Rb2+ Ka37.Sc4+ Ka4 8.Sb6+ Ka5 9.Sc4+ Ka610.Ra2+ Kb7 ll.Sd6+ Kb6 12.Sc4+ Kb513.Sd6+ Kb4 14.Rb2+ Kc3 15.Rc2+Kd3 16.Rd2+ Kc3 17.Rc2+ Kb3 18.Rb2+draw,i) l.g8Q? glQ+ 2.Qxgl Kb2+ wins.

No. 9239 3rd Prize S.Kolikhmatov andE.Pogosyants (Moscow)

I.b7 e2 2b8Q elQ 3.Qxb5 with:Qal 4.Qb7 Bf7 5.Qg2 Bg6 6.Qb7 Bf7

l.Rc5+ Ka6 2.Ra5+ Kxa5 (Kb7;Sc5+)3.Bd8+/i Ka6(Kb5) 4.Sc5+(Sc3) wins,i) 3.Bd2+? Kb5 4.Sc3+ Kc4 5.Sxe4 Kd3draw.

376

No. 9240 1st HonMentionI.Malikh (Cherkassk Region, Russia)

No. 9242 1st CommendationA.Kirichenko (Krasnodar Region, Russia)

l.Sc5+ Kb5 2.Qb7+ Ka5 3.Qa6+ KM4.Qb6+ Ka3 5.Qa5+ Kb2 6.Sa4+ Kb37.Qb5+ Kc2 8.Qc4+ Kd2 9.Qc3+ Ke210.Qf3+ Kd2 ll.Qe3+ Kc2 12.Qc3+ Kdl13.Sb2+ Ke2 14.QO+ Kd2 15.Sc4+Kel(Kc2) 16.Qhl(Sa3)+ +-.

No. 9241 2nd HonMentionI.Shigapov (Kazan, Russia)

l.Rb5+ Kc4 2.Rxb3 d3 3.Rxd3 Kxd34.Sd4+ Kxe3 5.Bf5 (Sxe6?) wins.

l.Sc7+ Kf8 2.Se6+ Ke8 3.Sc7+ Kd84.Se6+ Kc8 5.Rc7+Kb8 6.Rb7+ Kxb7(Ka8;Ra7+) 7.Sc5+ Bxc5 stalemate.

No. 9243 2nd CommendationI.Raiko (Bolinsk Region, Ukraina)

Kc4 2.Rxe4 dxc2 3.Se3+ Kb3/i4.Rxd4 clQ 5.Rb4+ Ka2 6.Ra4+ draw,i) Kc5 4.Rxd4 clQ 5.Rc4+ draw.

"SAGAREDZHO-78"Organized jointly by the small town ofSagaredzho's chess club and agricultiral'trade union' this tourney was theforerunner of a 1984 event (seeEG84.6009). Given the large entry(reported as 123 from the USSR) theaward, published 10viii78 in the Tbilisinewspaper "Soplis Tskhovreba", ismeagre.

377

Judge: G.Nadareishvili (Georgia).

No. 9244 1st Prize D.Gurgenidze(Tbilisi) and E.Pogosyants (Moscow)

No. 9246 1st Hon.MentionA.Maksimovskikh (Kurgan Region,Russia) and Yu.Makletsov (Yakutsk,Russia)

l.Kcl Bd3 2.Be4 Rxc2+ 3.Kbl cRa2+4.Kcl Rc2+ 5.Kbl Rxb3+ 6Kal Rcl+7.Ka2 Bc4 8.Bf5+ Kh4 9.Be6 Rc2+lOiKal Ra3+ ll.Kbl Bd3 12.Bf5 draw.

No. 9245 2nd PrizeR.Tavariani (Tbilisi)

1x7 Qxa3+ 2.Ke4 d5+ 3.Kf4 hxg5+4kg4 f5+ 5.Kh5 Qxf3+ 6.Kg6 wins.

l.Se6+ Ke3 2.g7 a2 3.Sd4 Bxd3 4.g8QalQ 5.Qg3+ Ke4 6.Qg4+ Kd5 7.Qe6+Kc5 8.Sb3+ wins.

No. 9247 2nd Hon.MentionM.Grushko (Zhitomir, Ukrama)

l.Qd5 Qal+ 2.Ba3 blQ 3.Qa5+ Kb74.Qb6+ Qxb6 stalemate.

378

No. 9248 3rd Hon.MentionD.Makhatadze (Zestafoni, Georgia)

I.c6 Bg4+ 2.Kxg4 e2 3.Be3 elQ 4.Bg5+Qe7 5.Kf3 d4 6.Bh4 Qxh4 stalemate.

No. 9249 4th Hon.MentionB.Olimpiev (Sverdlovsk, Russia)

l.Sg6 Qg8 2.Sd6+ Kd8 3.Sf7+ Ke8 4.Sg5Kd8 5.Kb7 Ke8 6.Kc6 Kd8 7.Sf7+ Ke88.Sd6+ Kd8 9.e7 mate.

No. 9250 CommendationE.Asaba (Moscow) and A.Sarychev(Baku, Azerbaidzhan)

I.f7+ Bxe5 2.fxg8Q+ Kxg8 3.Se7+ Kf84.Sxf5 Rxd5 5.Se6+ Ke8 6.Be4 Rxf57.Ke2draw.

No. 9251 CommendationV.Evreinov (Saratov, Russia)

l.Sh5 Rg8 2.Sf7+ Kh7 3.Qf5+ g6 4.Qf6Rd6 5.Qe7 Rd7/i 6.Sxg5+ Rh8 7.Qf6+dRg7 8.Sf7+ Kh7 9.Qxg7+ Rxg7 10.Sf6mate.i) gxh5 6.Sxg5+ Kg6 7.Qf7+ Kxg58.Qf5+ Kh4 9,Qxh5 mate.

379

No. 9252 CommendationA.Sedletsky (Minsk, Belorus)

l.Se7 Bc4 2.a7 Kb7 3.Sc8 Be2 4.c6+Ka8 5.Ke7 Bf3 6.c7 Bb7 7.Kd7 Ba68.Sb6+ Kxa7 9.Sa4 Bb7 10.Sc5 wins.

No. 9253 Commendation(SiPetersburg)

A.Sochnev

]Sb3 dlQ 2.Ral c2 3.Rcl Kxe2 4.Rxc2+5.Rc3+ Ke4 6.Rc4+ draw.

SpPLIS TSKHOVREBA-77This tourney was organized in 1977 bythe Georgian newspaper "Soph's Tskhov-reba" (*Village life') for composers livingin rural areas (of the USSR). Judge:LKrikheli (Gori, Georgia)Unless otherwise stated the honouredcomposers are Georgian. The followingthree studies have appeared already inEG and are therefore not reproduced here:1st Prize (Gurgenidze) EG74.5003.

3rd Prize (Kozirev) EG74.501L2nd Hon.Mention (A.Aleksandrov), butEG74.5010 attributes to Kozirev.

No. 9254 2nd PrizeD.Makhatadze (Zestafoni)

l.Qxd3 b5+ 2.Ke8 Qxa6 3.Qc3+ Kbl4.Qb3+ Kal 5.Qc3+ Kbl 6Qb3+ Kcl7.Qc3+ Kdl 8.Qd3+ Kel 9.Qe3+ Kfl10Qf3+ Kgl ll.Qg3+ Khl 12.QO+ Kh213.Qf2+ Kxh3 14.QO+ KM 15.Qf4+Kh5 16.Qf5+with:

g5 17.Qh3+ Kg6 18Qd3+ Kg719.Qd7+ Kh6 2O.Qh3+ draw, or

Kh6 17.Qf4+ g5 18.Qh2+ Kg7 19.Qc7+Kh8 2O.Qe5+ Kg8 21.Qd5+ Kg722Qd7+Kg623.Qd6+ Qxd6 stalemate.

No. 9255 1st Hon. MentionA.Aleksandrov (Krasnodar Region,Russia)

380

l.Rd2 Kal 2.Rxb2 Rbl 3.Ka3 Rdl4.Ra2+ Kbl 5.Rb2+ Kcl 6.Rxg2 Rd3+7.Ka2 Rd2+ 8.Kal Rd4 9.Ka2 Rxa4+10.Kb3 Rb4+ ll.Ka3 Rb6 12.Ka4 draw.

No. 9258 Special Pr.D.Gurgenidze (Sagaredjo Region)

No. 9256 3rd Hon. Mention(Leningrad Region, Russia)

A.Kotov

l.Sc6 Rgl+ 2.Kh5 Rhl+ 3.Kg6 Rh6+4.Kxg5 Rh5+ 5.Kg4 Rh4+ 6.Kg3 Rh3+7.Kg2 Rh2+ 8.Kxh2 Rhl+ 9.Kxhl alQ+lO.Qgl Qxgl+ ll.Kxgl be 12.de wins.

No. 9257 CommendationV.Dolgov (Krasnodar Region, Russia)

l.Qa8+ Rc8 2.Qal cRc7 3.Qa5 f4 4.Qa8+Rc8 5.Qal cRc7 6.Qa5 f3 7.Qa8+ Rc88.Qxf3 cRc7 9.Qa8+ Rc8 lO.Qal cRc7ll.Qa5 Rg7 12.Qa8+ Rc8 13.Qhl wins.

LRc8 with:Kg8 2.Rxc3 Bg7 3.Ra3 Rb5+ 4.Ka2

Rb2+ 5.Kal (zugzvang) Bf6 6.Rg3+ Kf77.Rg7+ Ke6 8.Re7+ Kf5 9.Re5+ Bxe5stalemate, orKh7 2.Rxc3 Bg7 3.Rcl Re2+ 4.Kbl

Rb2+ 5.Kal Bf6 6.Rc7+ Kg6 7.Rg7+Kf5 8.Rg5+ Ke6 9.Re5+ Bxe5 stalemate.GBR class 1300.01This sequence is taken from a van denHerik article in Schakend Nederland(pl6, 7/93).No. 9259

Equioptimals are parenthesised. 'Cap-ture-conversion' logic. The next stage inpersuading the database to teach ussomething is to have it tell us what whitemoves do not win at all. This infor-mation will have to be presented in themost 'convenient' form - and we do not

381

yet know that that form is: too much andwill overwhelm, too little and it will beof top little use.l...Kb6 2.Qd8+ Ka7 3.Qa5+ Kb8 4.Qe5+Ka8|5.Qe8+ Ka7 6.Qe3+ Ka8 7.Qa3+Kb8i8.Qf8+ Ka7 9.Qf2+ Kb8 10.Qh2+Ka7(Ka8) ll.Qa2+ Kb8 12.Qe6 Rg213.Kdl Ka7 14.Qe3+ Ka8 15.Qa3+ Kb816XJd6+(Qf8) Ka7(Ka8).The! Ken Thompson CD-ROM fileexample pursues 16...Ka8. 17.Qc5+ Ka818CJa5+ Kb8 19Qd5 Rg4 2O.Qe6 Rg221.Kel Ka7 22.Qe3+ Ka8 23Qa3+ Kb824.Qd6+ (Qf8+) Ka7(Ka8) 25.Qc5+ Ka826.Qa5+ Kb8 27.Qd5 Rg4 28Qe6 Rg229.Kfl Rc2 3O.Qe5+ Ka7 31.Qd4+ Kb832.Qf4+ Rc7 33.Qd6 Kc8 34.Qf8+ Kd735.Qb8 Kc6 36Ke2 Rd7 37.Qc8+ Rc738.Qe8+ Rd7 39.Kf3 Kc7 4O.Qe4.Rd641.Qe7+ Kc6 42.Ke4 Rd7 43.Qf8 Kc744.Kf5 Rd6 45.Qe7+ Rd7 46.Qc5+ Kb847.Qe5+ Ka7 48.Qe3+ b6 49.Qe5(Qa3+)Kb7 5O.Qe4+ Kc7 51.Qa8 Rd8 52.Qa7+Kc6 53.Ke5 Rh8 54.Qa4+ Kc7 55.Qc2+Kb7 56.Qg2+ Ka6 57.Qg4 Rd8 58.Qe6Kb5 59.Qe7 Rd3 6O.Qg5 (Qh4 Qf7) Ka6(Rh&) 61.Qg2 Rc3 62.Qa8+ Kb5 63Kd6Rc4 (Rc2 Rcl) 64.Qd5+ (Qg2 Qa2 Qal)Rc5 65.Qa2 Kb4 66.Qb2+ Ka5 67Qa3+Kb5 68.Kd7 Rc4 69.Qb3+ Rb4 7O.Qd5+Kai 71.Qa2+ Kb5 72.Kc7 Kc5 (Rc4+)73.Kb7 (Qc2+) Kd4 (Kb5 Rb5) 74.Qc2Rb5 75.Ka7 Rb4 (Kd5) 76.Ka6 b5 (Kd5)77.Kb6 (Ka5) Rc4 (Ke5 Ke3 Kd5)78.Qdl+ (Qb2+ Qd2+ Qf2+) Ke3 (Ke4)79.Kxb5.Nojv 'mate' logic climaxes on move 107.We' have to wonder, first at the prolongedrepetitive manoeuvre to release wK fromthe back rank, second at the apparentlylimitless ability of W to prevent bRtaking up a square protected by bP, andthu-d, at what exactly it is that forces Blto advance his P when he does (moves48and 76).[AJR 16ix93]

name of tourney for original studies:SCHACH, 1991-1992judge: John RoycroftAWARD

Judge: "A tourney that was a delight tojudge: although the range in quality ofthe 43 published entries was wide, thenumber of candidates for honours waslarger than anticipated, so much so that Ihave prepared, and recommend forpromulgation, an extended prize list. Anunusual feature was the high proportionof composers each represented by severalcompositions. This offered the judge, andoffers solvers and others, a rare and fineopportunity to compare contemporarycomposing styles and techniques. It was aparticular pleasure to experience thefluency of the Viennese composer Hel-muth Steniczka, who suffered the han-dicap of competing strongly zigainst him-self, especially when Prigunov's am-bitious and impressive systematicmovement (No. 12811, g8f2) fell by thewayside: l.Bc6, (for instance) will surelywin - Black has few threats, White many.Shortly after completing his pleasurablework the judge experienced combinedshock and sadness to read (in AlexanderHildebrand's well-informed column inthe Swedish magazine Tidskrift forSchack) of Steniczka's death in Decem-ber 1992. Such a late flowering of talentis rare and precious enough - in thissituation thoughts and feelings servebetter than the written word ..."To return to the award, in no fewer thansix cases of 5-man pawnless orsingle-pawn endings (occurring inNos.12465, 12546, 12618, 12776, 12829and 12830) authors' lines could be testedagainst databases. This was done, but theresults did not affect the award. Myappreciation, and warm wishes for con-tinued good hunting, to the keen-eyedand knowledgable SCHACH solvers.Claims of unsoundness or serious an-

382

ticipation should reach the judge beforethe end of the second month followingmonth of publication.John RoycroftLondon, 24iv93 and 10v93"

No. 9260 FIRST PRIZE[No. 12793 Dx92 Sii93]

Helmuth Steniczka (Vienna)

No. 9261 SECOND PRIZE[No.12448 Dii91 Svii91]Ladislav Salai, jr. (Martin, Slovakia)

I.f7/i Bxf7 2Bd5 Ra6/ii 3.Bxf7 (Kb5?Ra7;) c6 4.Bc4 Ra7 (Kxc4;Ra8) 5.Ba6Bb6 6.Rd3+ Kc2 7.Rc3+ Kxc3 stalemate,or K- 8.Rxc6 draw.i) l.Bd5? Ra6 2.f7 Bb4+ 3.Kb5 Bd3+mates, or 2.Kb5 Bd3+ 3.Kc5 Rxf6."Point and counterpoint are as hard tofollow as Fred Astaire's tap-dancingshoes."ii) Unfortunately the study is unsound. Alevel-headed solver in Friedrich Chlub-na's column in Schach-Aktiv thought oftrying 2...Rf6, and there seems to be norefutation. The judge tried to invokehighly thematic stalemates: I.f7 Bxf72.Bd5 Rf6! 3.Kxa5 Rf5 4.Ka4! Rxd5(Bxd5;Rxd5) 5.Rc8 c6 (c5;Rxc5+, orRd4+;Kb5, or Rd7;Kb5) 6.Rxc6! Be8 pinstalemete!! Alas for wishful thinking (aViennese weakness, as Sigmund Freudwell knew), Bl has yet another possibilityon his fifth move, namely 5...Rd4+!6Kb5 Kd5 7.a4 c6+ 8.Ka5, and as aPcannot advance W has no threats. Blwins. (AJR)

LgRd5 glQ 2.Rxd6+ Qg6/i 3.bRb6Kh5/ii 4.Rd5+ Qg5 5.bRb5 h6 6.Ka6/iiiKh4/iv 7.Rd4+ Qg4 8.bRb4 h5 9.Ka5/vKg5 10.Rd5+ Qf5 H.bRb5 Qxd512Rxd5+ K- 13.Rxd3 wins.i) Kg7 3.Rb7+ Kh8 4.Rd8+ Qg8 5.bRb8.ii) Kg7 4.Rd7+ Qf7 5.bRb7.iii) 6.Kb6? Kg6 7.Rd6+ Qf6.iv) Kg6 7.Rd6+ Qf6 8.bRb6. Or Kg47.Rd4+ Qf4 8.bRb4.v) 9.Rxd3? Qxb4 lO.ab b2."A successful presentation of the difficultsystematic pin/unpin 4.WCCT theme.Assorted tactical motifs ensure that theeffect is not mechanical. The 11 pawnsare a crying shame."

No. 9262 THIRD PRIZE[No. 12776 Dix92 Si93]Genrikh Kasparyan (Armenia)

383

I.a7/i Kel 2.Be4/ii Sf2+ (Rd8;Kxg4)3.Kg2 Rd8 4.a8Q/iii Rxa8 5.Bxa8 Ke26.BB+ Ke3/iv 7.d4/v ed/vi 8.Sc4+ Kd39.Sd6 Ke3 10.Kg3 Sd3 l l .Sc4 mate.i) l.Be4? Sf6 2.a7 Rd8 3.a8Q Rxa84.Bxa8 Ke3 5.Kh4 Sd7 6.Be4 (or Kg5)Sc5 7.Bg6 e4 draw.ii) 2.a8Q? Sf2-f 3.Kg3 Rg4+ 4.KD Rf4+5.Kg2 Rg4+ 6.Kh2 Rh4+ 7.Kgl Rg4+8.Qg2 Sh3+ 9.Kh2 Rxg2+ 10.Kxg2 Sf4+dra^v.iii) 4.Bd5? Ke2 5.Bf3+ Ke3 6.Sc4+ Kxd37.Sxe5+ Ke3 8.Sd7 Se4 9.Bxe4 Kxe410 |b8 Rd2+ ll.Kg3 Ra2 draw.iv)]Kel 7.Kg3 Kfl 8.Kh2 Kel 9.Kg2wins.v) 7.Sc4+? Kxd3 8.Sxe5+ Ke3 draw.vi) e4 8.Bh5. Or Se4 8.de Sg5 9.Bd5Kd4 10.e6 wins."The master is enjoying a second youth -or is it a third?! The introduction jars, ifever so little, with the superb main linecontinuation."

No. 9263 FOURTH PRIZE[1^617 Dxii91 Siv92]

! Helmuth Steniczka (Vienna)

No. 9264 5th PRIZE[No. 12794 Dx92 Sii93]

Helmuth Steniczka (Vienna)

l.Kf6 Rb7/i 2.Rxb7 h6 3.Rd3/ii dlQ4.Rbl, with Qxd3 5.g4+ hg 6.Rxhl mate,or! Qxbl 5.Rd5+, or Qxf3+ 5.gf Rxbl6.Rd5 mate.i)Kh6 2.cRc7. Or h6 2.Rc5+.ii)| 3.Re7? Rel 4.Rd3 dlQ."Pervasive grace with the heavy pieces."

I.h7+/i Kxh7 2.Kfl Sc4 3.Bf5+, with:Kg8 4.Rxa7 Sxd2+ 5.Kxf2 Rxa7 6.Ke2

Sfl 7.Be6+ (Kxfl? Rf7;) draws, as bS islost, orKg7 4.Bc3+ Kh6 5.Rxa7 Rxa7 6.Bd4

Rf7 7.Bd3 Sd2+ 8.Kg2 flQ+ 9.Bxfl Sxfl10.Bf2, with a similar outcome(Sxh2;Be3+).i) l.Kfl? Sbl 2.h7+ Kh8."Colourful tactics in two not dissimilarlines."

No. 9266 1st HON.MENTION[No.12618 Dxu91 Siv92]

Helmuth Steniczka (Vienna)

l.Sf4+/i gf+ 2.Kxf4/ii Sd6 (e6;Rxe6)3.Bxd6 e6 4.Kg3 f4+ 5.Bxf4 Bh2+ 6.Kh3Bxf4 7.Rc5+ e5 8.Rxe5+ Bxe5 9f4 Bxf410.Rd5+ Be5 ll.Re2, presenting Bl with

384

the alternatives of stalemate or a drawnGBR class 0410 endgame.i) Bl threatened Bh2+ 2.Kh3 g4+ 3.fg+fg mate. If I.f4? g4. Or l.Kh3? g4+2.fg+ fg+. Or l.Se5 f4+. Or l.Rc4?Bh2+."Plenty of attractive action."

No. 9267 2nd HON.MENTION[No. 12546 Dviii91 Sxii91]Vyacheslav I.Prigunov (Kazan)

No. 9268 3rd HON.MENTION[No.12446 Dii91 Svii91]

Helmuth Steniczka (Vienna)

l.Bd4+/i Kbl 2.Bb3/ii alQ/iii 3.Bc2+/ivKxc2 (Ka2;Bb3+) 4.Bxal Kxd3 5.Bf6/vKe3 6.Kg5 Be8 7.Kg4 Bc6 8.Kg5, with apositional draw. For example, Be8 9.Kg4Ke4 10.Bc3 Kd5 (Bd7;Kg5) ll.Bf6 Kd612.Kg5 Kd7 13.Kg4 Bf7 14.Kg5 Ke815.Kh6 Sxf5+ 16.Kh7 Bg8+ 17.Kxh8Kf7 18.Bg5 Sd4 19.Bf4 Sf3 (Sc6/e6;Bd6)2O.Bg3 draw.i) I.f6? Kbl 2.Bd4 Se8 3i7 Bxd4 4.f8QalQ. Orl.Bb3?Se8.ii) 2Be5? Bd5 3.Ba4 Bf7.iii) alS 3.Bf7 Sc2 4.Bf6 Se3+ 5.Kg5eSxf5 6.Kg6. Or Bd7 3.Bxa2+ Kxa24.Kg5 Bxf5 5.Kh6 draw.iv) 3.Bxal? Kxal 4.f6 Se8 5.f7 Sf6+6.Kf5 Sh7 wins.v) 5.Be5? Be4 6.Kg5 Se6+."The g7-h8 configuration is not ashelpless as it looks: in the positionaldraw bK's march to e8 forces wK to riskchecks from bS."

l.Bf7 (for Bxa2+) Bxf7 2.gf Sg3 3.Kf4Sh5+ 4.Kg5 Sg7 5.Ba3 Bxa3 6.f8S Bxf87.Kg6 draws, as Bl must lose a piece."If only the high level of composingtechnique shown here could be taught!"

No. 9269 4th HON.MENTION[No. 12527 Dvii91 Sxi91]Emilian Dobrescu (Bucharest)

l.Kf5/i e2/ii 2.Ba7+ Kg2/iii 3.Rg4+/ivKf3/v 4.Rf4+ Kg3 5.Re4/vi Kf3 6.Bgl/viiKg2 7.Rxe2+ (Kf4/g4? Kfl;) Kxgl8.Kf4(g4) wins, h2 9.Kg3 hlS+ 10.Kf3.i) l.Rxh3? e2 2.Ba7+ Kg2 3.Re3 Kfl4.Rf3+ Kg2 5.Rf2+ Khl 6.Rxe2stalemate.Or l.Ke4? e2 2.Ba7+ Kh2 3.Bf2 Kg2.Or l.Kd4? e2 2.Re4 Kfl 3.Bg3 h2.ii) Kg2 2.Re4 Kf2 3.Kg4 e2 4.Ba7+ Kfl

385

5.Rf4+ Kg2 6.Rf2+.iii) Khl 3.Re4 h2 4.Bb8.iv) 3.Re4? h2 4.Rxe2+ Kh3 5.Re3+ Kg26.Re2+ Kh3 draw.v) Khl 4.Re4. Or Kh2 4.Bb8+.vi) 5.Bb8? Kg2 6.Re4 Kfl 7.Bg3 h28.RM elQ 9.Bxel Kg2 draw.vii) S 6.Re3+? Kf2 7.Rxh3+ Kg2 8.Re3Kfl draws. Or 6.Bb8? Kf2 7.Kg4 Kfl8.B^3 h2 9.Rf4+ Kg2 10.Rf2+ Kgl draw."This is hard enough to pucker theeyebrows of almost any o-t-b IGM."

No. 9270 5th HON.MENTION[Noil 12775 Dix92 Si93]Genrikh Kasparyan (Armenia)

l.Rxd3/i Bh4+ 2.Kg4/ii Bxe7 3.Re3Rh4+ 4.Kg3 Kfl 5.Rel+ Kxel stalemate,i) l.e8Q? Sf2, and 2.Rdl+ Sxdl 3.Qxe4Rh3+ 4.Kxh3 Sf2+ 5.Kg3 Sxe4, or 2.Qe6Rh4 3.Rdl+ Sxdl 4.Qb6+ Be3.ii) 2.Kf4? Bg6, and 3.Re3 Be8, or 3.Rd6Bh5, though here Bf7? 4.Rd8 Bxe75.Rd7 Rh4+ 6.Kg3 leads only to a draw."A great stalemate, but a capture key andonly 5 moves."

No. 9271 6th HON.MENTION[12743 Dvii92 Sxi92]Leopold A.Mitrofanov (St Petersburg)

LQd5+ Kc7 2.Qc5+ Kd8 3.Qd6+ Ke84.Bd7+ Rxd7 5.a8Q+ Qxa8 6.Qe5+ Re77.Qxh8+ Kd7 8.Qxa8 wins."The late St Petersburg master knew howto make checks interesting."

No. 9272 1st COMMENDATION[No. 12653 Dii92 Svi92]Y.Khaschansky (Dzerzhinsk, Russia)

l.Sd4 clQ 2.Sf3+ Kdl/i 3.Ba4+ Qc2+4.Bxc2+ Kxc2 5.Sxg3/ii Kdl 6.Kfl g57.Sxg5 Kd2/iii 8.Se2 Kdl 9.Sf4 Kd2/iv10.Sf3+ wins, for example Kdl ll.Sg6e2+ 12.Kf2, or Kcl(c2) ll.Sg6 Kdl12.Kg2 Ke2 (Kc2;Sgl) 13.Sgl+ Kd214.Kf3 Kd3 15.Se2 Kd2 16.eSf4.i) Ke2 3.Sf4+ Kdl 4.Ba4+ Qc2+ 5.Bxc2+Kxc2 6.Sxg6 wins.ii) 5.Sf4? Kdl 6.Kfl g5 7.Sxg5 g6, and

386

Troitzky comes in with a draw.iii) g6 8.Se2 Kd2 9.Sgl Kdl 10.Slf3 e2+ll.Kf2wins.iv) g6 10.Se2 Kd2 ll.Sgl Kdl 12.S1Owins."A technical study."

No. 9273 2nd COMMENDATION[No. 12599 Dxi91 Siii92]Helmuth Steniczka (Vienna)

No. 9274 3rd COMMENDATION[No. 12563 Dix91 Si92]Yuri Randviir (Tallinn, Estonia)

I.e4/i (for f7) Bxe4 2Sf2+ Kc2 3.Sxe4b4/ii 4.f7 b3+ 5.Ka3 b2 6.Sd2/iii f2/iv7.f8R wins, but not 7.f8Q? blQ 8.SxblflQ 9.Qxfl stalemate.i) l.Sf2+? Ke2 2.e4 Kxf2 3.f7 Ke2 4.f8Qf2 draw.ii) f2 4.Sxf2 b4 5.Sd3.iii) 6.f8Q? blQ 7.Qc5+ Kd3.iv) blQ 7.Sxbl f2 8.f8R, is a tad moreobvious, so we can allow the composerhis main line!"Painted with a light touch."

l.Rd3+/i Ke2/ii 2.Rxf3 Sxf3 3.Sxc2 Sg5+4.Kg4 Se6 5.Sd4+ Kd3/iii 6.Sxe6 Be37.Kf5 Kc4 8.Sc7/iv wins, for example:Bb6 9.Kf6 Kc5 10.Kg7 Kd6 Il.a7, orBd4 9.Ke6 Kb4 10.Ke7 Ka5 ll.Se6,gaining a vital tempo to allow wK subse-quently to capture bSh8 and then blockthe al-h8 diagonal with bSg7.i) LKg3?Bf4+2.Kf2Bg3+.ii) Bd2 2.Sb3 Kel 3.Rxd2 clQ 4.SxclKxd2 5.Kg3 Ke3 6.Sd3 Kxd3 7.Kf2,seems to win all right (AJR).iii) Sxd4 6.a7 Sc6 7.a8Q Se5+ 8.Kf5.iv) 8.Kf6? Kd5. Or 8.Ke5? Bb6. Drawnin either case."The Estonian master continues to findlongrange strategic wins that withstandanalytical assault in positions whichothers would deem sterile."

387

No. 9275 4th COMMENDATION[No. 12812 Dxi92 Siii93]Emilian Dobrescu (Bucharest)

No. 9276 5th COMMENDATION[No.12528 Dvii91 Sxi91]Julien Vandiest (Borgerhout, Belgium)

f3 2.Qxf3+ (c8Q? Bd3+;) Sg43.Qh3+/i Kg6 4.c8Q Qf4+ 5.Ke2 Qf2+6.Kd3 Se5+ (Kg7+;Kc4) 7.Ke4 Kf6+8.Kd5 Qd2+ 9.Kc5 Qf2+ 10.Kd6 Qb6+ll:Kd5 Bg8+/ii 12.Ke4 Qb4+ 13.Ke3Qb£+ 14.Kd2/iii Qd4+ 15.Kc2 Bb3+16.Kb2, and now at last the aestheticpoint, either:Sd3+ 17.Kal Qgl+ 18Sbl Qd4+

19|Qc3 wins, orSc4+ 17.Kal Qgl+ 18.Sbl Qd4+ 19.Qc3

wins, the difference, scarcely apparentfrom abbreviated move notation, beingthat it is a different wQ that interposesoh move 19, according to Bl's 16thmove.i) 3.c8Q+? Qcl+ 4.Ke2 Qc2+ 5.KelQcl+, and 6.Ke2 Qc2+ 7.Kfl Qcl+8.Kg2 Qc2+ 9.Kgl Qcl+ lO.Qfl Qe3+li.Khl Be4+ 12.Sxe4 Qxe4+ 13.KglQd4+ 14.KM Qe4+ 15.Qg2 Qel+ draws,or 6.Qdl Qe3+ 7.Qe2 Qcl+ 8.Qdl Qe3+9 Se2 Qf2+ 10.Kd2 Qe3+ draws.u | Qb3+ 12.Kc5 Qc4+ 13.Kb6 Qd4+14.Kb7 Be4+ 15.Sxe4 Qxe4+ 16.Kb8Qb4+ 17.Qb7+ wins,iii) 14.Ke4? Qb4+. Or 14.Kf4? Qf2+."The challenging, if fleeting, sym-metry-based conception - echoed inter-position by wQQ (see moves 19) - madethis puzzling to rank, given theover-analytical substructure."

l.Bf3+/i Kb8 2.Qf8+ Kc7 3.Qe7+ Kc84.Bb7+ Kb8 5.Bd5, with two lines:Qc7 6.Qe8+ Qc8 7.Qb5+ Kc7 8.Qc6+

Kd8 9.Qf6+ Kc7 10.Kc5 Kb8+ ll .Bc6Ka7 12.Qf4 a3 13.Qf7+ Ka6 14.QO Ka715.Qxa3+ Qa6 16.Qb4 Qc8 17.Qb6 mate(Qa5+ also), orQf4+ 6.Kb5 Qc7 7.Qf8+ Qc8 8.Qb4

Qd7+ 9.Kb6 Kc8 10.Qc5+ Kd8 ll.Qf8+Qe8 12.Qd6+ Qd7 13.Qb8+ Qc8 14.Qe5Qd7 15.Be6 Qd3 16.Qf6+ Ke8 17.Qf7+(Bf7+ also) Kd8 18.Qf8 mate,i) l.Qc8+? Ka7 2.Qd7+ Kb8."The interest seems to lie in the twoquite different wins, depending onwhether wK is on b4 or (after 5...Qf4+;)on b5."

388

No. 9277 6th COMMENDATION[No. 12483 Div91 Six91]Aleksandr P.Manyakhin (Lipetsk, Russia)

I.e7 Ra8+ 2.e8Q Rxe8+ 3.Kxe8 blS4.cSe3+, and:Kgl 5x4 Sd2 6x5 Sb3 7x6 Sd4 8x7

Sb5 9x8S wins, orKe2 5x4 Sd2 6x5 Sb3 7x6 Sd4 8x7

Sb5 9.Sc3+ wins, orKel 5x4 Sd2 6x5 Sb3 7x6 Sd4 8.Sc2+

wins."Not new, apart from the charmingbalance of the three variations."

No. 9278 7th COMMENDATION[No. 12484 Div91 Six91]A.P. and S.A.Manyakhin(Lipetsk, Russia)

I.d7 Rxc6+ 2.Kb5 (Ka5? Sd6;) Rc83dcS Kf4 4.Kc4/i Kg4 5.Sg2 Kf3 6.Sel+Ke2 7.Sd3 Kf3 8.hSf2 and W wins,i) To cover (for move 7) the d3 square.Not 4.Sg6(Sg2)+? Kf3 5.Sh4+ Kg4 6.Sg2Kf3 7.Sel+ Ke2 8.Sc2 Kf3 9.Sel+ Ke210.Sg2 Kf3 ll.Sh4+, and this positionaldraw was familiar to Tigran Gorgiev."Attractive."

EG Subscription

EG is produced by the Dutch Association for Endgame Study (*Alexander RuebVereniging voor SchaakEindspelstudie') ARVES. Subscription to EG is not tied tomembership of ARVES.The annual subscription of EG is NLG 35 (Dutch guilders), free of bank charges, oralternatively NLG 50.Bank account: Postbank 54095, Laren (NH), The Netherlands.Payment by Eurocheque is preferable, but please fill in your number and mention EG!The intention is to produce 4 issues per year. If organizational problems make theproduction of 4 issues in one year impossible, the subscription fees are considered aspayment for 4 issues.

389