Absolutely brilliant, a wonderful masterpiece. The play from 6. Lg5! onwards is one of the best finals in the history of studies, and also the introduction is great. This is a textbook example of economy of means, richness of themes and buildup of tension. 5 points!!!
marek kwiatkowski
1 год назад
An alternative version that makes the introduction compact and relative to the final. Now both thematic queens are attacked with forks, what is a development of this beautiful idea.
Thank you for this version. It really improves the original. The initial position is more attractive and Rh5!! is great.
marek kwiatkowski
1 год назад
Whether this version improves the original is debatable and therefore you are asked to remove this unnecessary and unwanted version from your database: https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/bazlovy-3131-30c7g4-v/
There are some interesting versions (even as fun fact only) in «Chess study art» to post here as comments , but there is a permanent problem with opening «chess study art» (403 forbidden).
You have often been caught lying and giving incompetent opinions on chess studies that’s why I thought your views damage chess composition and you’ve been banned from the Chess Study Art website.
marek kwiatkowski
1 год назад
Both positions, Bazlov’s and the above one, differ so much. So what is right: Bazlov (version Kwiatkowski) or Kwiatkowski (based on Bazlov) ?
In Bazlov’s version, the main content starts with 6. Bg5! and White sacrifices both queens, which leads to a common final 8. Ha5+. In Kwiatkowski’s work the main contenet starts with 2.Rg5! and both queens are attacked with forks. Both works have the same final combination but it is only a part of main play. You see it as an improvement. This seems debatable (6 x 4.0 votes for Bazlov’s work). Kwiatkowski’s version is also no anticipation (rather, another development of the final idea).
For this, it seems a much better solution (for both authors) to leave this version as «fun fact» only in comments and remove this new separate item from database.
I added this as Bazlov (version Kwiatkowski). What’s the problem? It is not an original study. Is it not a version either? What is fun fact?
marek kwiatkowski
1 год назад
«Fun fact» means that author is far to recognize this work in a typical for other studies way. It is only an amusing curiosity. Comments is a good place for such a work, it is welcome exactly here.
Wonderful study. The position after 7…Qc6 is one of the most pleasing in history.
Absolutely brilliant, a wonderful masterpiece. The play from 6. Lg5! onwards is one of the best finals in the history of studies, and also the introduction is great. This is a textbook example of economy of means, richness of themes and buildup of tension. 5 points!!!
An alternative version that makes the introduction compact and relative to the final. Now both thematic queens are attacked with forks, what is a development of this beautiful idea.
Thank you for this version. It really improves the original. The initial position is more attractive and Rh5!! is great.
Whether this version improves the original is debatable and therefore you are asked to remove this unnecessary and unwanted version from your database: https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/bazlovy-3131-30c7g4-v/
There are some interesting versions (even as fun fact only) in «Chess study art» to post here as comments , but there is a permanent problem with opening «chess study art» (403 forbidden).
You have often been caught lying and giving incompetent opinions on chess studies that’s why I thought your views damage chess composition and you’ve been banned from the Chess Study Art website.
Both positions, Bazlov’s and the above one, differ so much. So what is right: Bazlov (version Kwiatkowski) or Kwiatkowski (based on Bazlov) ?
Your version of Bazlov has a different introduction. The main content is the same.
A study by Neidze differ from the Bazlov by another model mate but stalemate is not there.
A study by Richter has stalemate in the try and mate in the finale, but it’s a different and not model mate.
In Bazlov’s version, the main content starts with 6. Bg5! and White sacrifices both queens, which leads to a common final 8. Ha5+. In Kwiatkowski’s work the main contenet starts with 2.Rg5! and both queens are attacked with forks. Both works have the same final combination but it is only a part of main play. You see it as an improvement. This seems debatable (6 x 4.0 votes for Bazlov’s work). Kwiatkowski’s version is also no anticipation (rather, another development of the final idea).
You actually add it to the database as a Bazlov study (https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/bazlovy-3131-30c7g4-v/). This is difficult to understand and difficult to accept.
For this, it seems a much better solution (for both authors) to leave this version as «fun fact» only in comments and remove this new separate item from database.
I added this as Bazlov (version Kwiatkowski). What’s the problem? It is not an original study. Is it not a version either? What is fun fact?
«Fun fact» means that author is far to recognize this work in a typical for other studies way. It is only an amusing curiosity. Comments is a good place for such a work, it is welcome exactly here.