Arpad: I have composed on the same theme myself (still unpublished) and so I have checked all anticipations. First, this study is not original, there is Nadareishvili 1976. =0141.02e7h8. Second, the numerous technical shortcomings weigh more if the theme is not original. (Hello Sergiy!) Third, I find Kozirev’s realization of the same theme as a draw study with two echo lines and superior economy uncomparably better than this version. =0170.22a2e8. Fourth, the final is weak. (Yes, I know, logic, but still.) As a study, this is terrible, and it’s main value is in preparing the above realization as a draw study. 2 points.
Arpad Rusz
5 лет назад
Yes, I knew of that Nadareshvili study. The study is still original: it features echo stalemates! That would be a huge achievement even with a simple stalemate picture. And here we have a complex one. That draw version of the study is nice, economical, conventional, boring, and cut into half to me. I prefer to have the extra logical layer too.The final is okay, pity that the white pawn is on the board.
Nadareishvili 1976 is a poor study — one forced stalemate — so, not an anticipation.
Another study by Kozirev is indeed the same study. I vaguely remember the story about these studies from the EG magazine, I think. The draw version was published in the 64. But then the Russian team turned it into the win version with the WCCT5 theme. The study from 64 was cancelled to stop any claims of non-originality of the WCCT entry. I don’t think the logical layer makes the idea better because it is added to the wrong side. The logical try and the solution should be swapped by dropping the pawn instead of refusing from it. Because without final it’s not magic, just a clumsy trick.
One of my favourite studies. It is not perfect (QxN) but this time I couldn’t give less than 4 points.
Arpad: I have composed on the same theme myself (still unpublished) and so I have checked all anticipations. First, this study is not original, there is Nadareishvili 1976. =0141.02e7h8. Second, the numerous technical shortcomings weigh more if the theme is not original. (Hello Sergiy!) Third, I find Kozirev’s realization of the same theme as a draw study with two echo lines and superior economy uncomparably better than this version. =0170.22a2e8. Fourth, the final is weak. (Yes, I know, logic, but still.) As a study, this is terrible, and it’s main value is in preparing the above realization as a draw study. 2 points.
Yes, I knew of that Nadareshvili study. The study is still original: it features echo stalemates! That would be a huge achievement even with a simple stalemate picture. And here we have a complex one. That draw version of the study is nice, economical, conventional, boring, and cut into half to me. I prefer to have the extra logical layer too.The final is okay, pity that the white pawn is on the board.
Nadareishvili 1976 is a poor study — one forced stalemate — so, not an anticipation.
Another study by Kozirev is indeed the same study. I vaguely remember the story about these studies from the EG magazine, I think. The draw version was published in the 64. But then the Russian team turned it into the win version with the WCCT5 theme. The study from 64 was cancelled to stop any claims of non-originality of the WCCT entry. I don’t think the logical layer makes the idea better because it is added to the wrong side. The logical try and the solution should be swapped by dropping the pawn instead of refusing from it. Because without final it’s not magic, just a clumsy trick.