The best of the best. On the line with Reti, Saavedra, Sarychev.
Jan Sprenger
16 дней назад
I fail to understand the enthusiasm for this work. The white manoeuvring is completely straightforward (the king moves toward the pawn) and the sacrifices are trivial. For this reason, I find the repetition of the manoeuvre boring: it does not leave the impression of an original and surprising systematic movement (as in Troitzky's famous study https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/troitzkya-0301-10f6b6/ and many other works). The only interesting move is 1. g7.
Speaking about Troitzky, It is hard to understand why Jan left out Troitzky's wonderful Bohemia 1911 study (link above) and included instead the cheerful, but rather trivial d5/f8 study from Novoye Vremya 1895.
Good. So according to objective standards, this is a masterpiece, four points. How many points do you give to Troitzky's study with five pieces then? Six, seven, eight?
In the nice try 1. Kb3? Rh5! the possibility 1... Rh6 is only a waste of time.
Timman (commentary) overlooked a logical try — crucial to this systematic maneuver— 2. Rf7? Rg8!, thus the white rook permanently sacrifices and forces the black rook to go to the g8 square skipping by the inaccessible f8 square and hence the f7 square remains for the white king.
Art is compression. 🙂
The best of the best. On the line with Reti, Saavedra, Sarychev.
I fail to understand the enthusiasm for this work. The white manoeuvring is completely straightforward (the king moves toward the pawn) and the sacrifices are trivial. For this reason, I find the repetition of the manoeuvre boring: it does not leave the impression of an original and surprising systematic movement (as in Troitzky's famous study https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/troitzkya-0301-10f6b6/ and many other works). The only interesting move is 1. g7.
Speaking about Troitzky, It is hard to understand why Jan left out Troitzky's wonderful Bohemia 1911 study (link above) and included instead the cheerful, but rather trivial d5/f8 study from Novoye Vremya 1895.
Один Ян любит систематическое движение, другой Ян не любит.
Но если не опираться на несовершенные вкусы, а мыслить по-композиторски, то выводы такие:
Так что хотя у каждого Абрама своя программа (и мы все знаем этого Абрама), есть достаточно оснований полагать, что этюд Гургенидзе - шедевр.
Good. So according to objective standards, this is a masterpiece, four points. How many points do you give to Troitzky's study with five pieces then? Six, seven, eight?
It is worth mentioning that the idea from the Troitzky study appeared a year earlier in Lazard's work, a version of which can be found here.
У Троицкого дуэль двух фигур (не систематическое движение четырех), с постоянными шахами, без предвидения. Два балла.
The concept of a systematic movement is wide enough to comprise both studies.
Certainly I prefer duels to mechanisms. People who like mechanisms should compose selfmates.
Твои вкусы, твои проблемы. Так и живи с ними.
In the nice try 1. Kb3? Rh5! the possibility 1... Rh6 is only a waste of time.
Timman (commentary) overlooked a logical try — crucial to this systematic maneuver— 2. Rf7? Rg8!, thus the white rook permanently sacrifices and forces the black rook to go to the g8 square skipping by the inaccessible f8 square and hence the f7 square remains for the white king.
Art is compression. 🙂