Эту оригинальную версию раньше считали некорректной из-за варинта 2.Bxg5? Он заканчивается ферзевым окончанием с двумя лишними пешками белых h4 и g2. Базы подтвердили, что это ничья, побочного решения нет. До их вердикта этюд публиковали с неходячим черным Nh2.
В 2022 году я сделал другую версию, которую Ян Русинек поместил в сборнике своих избранных этюдов: "Обе версии имеют свои плюсы и каждый может решить, что ему нравится больше: максимально богатое содержание или экономичность и отсутствие технических пешек". ("Wybrane studia" 2022)
This study by Rusinek was widely admired, as was Van Breukelen's brilliant puzzle (https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/van-breukeleng-0047-24d6h7/). And much has been done to ridicule both works. The suspicion (whose?) that the try 2. Bxg5 was a secondary solution here was based on the falsely won KQPP/KQ endgame, which no one verified.
I have a better solution to this boring version and changed it. I hope it's now clear enough in its beauty.
See above!
Sometimes a logical try is a logical choice or context, but that's just a detail.
The "cook" was reported by Boris Sidorov in the Shakhmatnoye Obozrenye in 1980. At the time everybody was sure that a queen with two pawns always wins vs a queen.
You're right, it's better to leave the negative issues to the comments on Chess Study Art. 🙂
Here, it's better to focus on showing what's beautiful. But unfortunately, sometimes someone is forced to cross over to the other side.
There's another move, 2... Bh6+, that's also of interest. 🙂
These three introductions have one thing in common: they can be abandoned without any loss, and since they raise doubts, there's already a significant gain in eliminating them.
Everything else represents a very high level of creative achievement!
Sometimes an obvious key (Rusinek's 1. h3+ or Minski's 1. f4) may not be ugly if it is followed up by a paradoxical reversal of its ugliness.
The brilliant move 3. b4!! reverses the idea of the key (White defends the b2 pawn and threatens mate on a3) and makes this wonderful work (work of art!) free of foreplay.
Эту оригинальную версию раньше считали некорректной из-за варинта 2.Bxg5? Он заканчивается ферзевым окончанием с двумя лишними пешками белых h4 и g2. Базы подтвердили, что это ничья, побочного решения нет. До их вердикта этюд публиковали с неходячим черным Nh2.
В 2022 году я сделал другую версию, которую Ян Русинек поместил в сборнике своих избранных этюдов: "Обе версии имеют свои плюсы и каждый может решить, что ему нравится больше: максимально богатое содержание или экономичность и отсутствие технических пешек". ("Wybrane studia" 2022)
This study by Rusinek was widely admired, as was Van Breukelen's brilliant puzzle (https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/van-breukeleng-0047-24d6h7/). And much has been done to ridicule both works. The suspicion (whose?) that the try 2. Bxg5 was a secondary solution here was based on the falsely won KQPP/KQ endgame, which no one verified.
Example - my first study (hope nice!):
Instructive but boring.
Only 9 (5/4) subtle moves and you're bored?
BTW. I recommend Sokoban and the brilliant artistic collection: Zone 26!
I have a better solution to this boring version and changed it. I hope it's now clear enough in its beauty.
See above!
Sometimes a logical try is a logical choice or context, but that's just a detail.
The "cook" was reported by Boris Sidorov in the Shakhmatnoye Obozrenye in 1980. At the time everybody was sure that a queen with two pawns always wins vs a queen.
Maybe for chess players and constructors! 🙂
This terrible (ugly and unacceptable) introduction play (1.h3+ Kh4) is in line with other similar mistakes made by outstanding creators: (https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/pervakovo-3544-10h8c6/) and (https://eg.org.ua/chessgame/minskim-0041-11c8g4/).
That is a rather broad definition of ugly.
You're right, it's better to leave the negative issues to the comments on Chess Study Art. 🙂
Here, it's better to focus on showing what's beautiful. But unfortunately, sometimes someone is forced to cross over to the other side.
I would like to hear what makes 1. f4 and 1.h3+ ugly/unacceptable?
There's another move, 2... Bh6+, that's also of interest. 🙂
These three introductions have one thing in common: they can be abandoned without any loss, and since they raise doubts, there's already a significant gain in eliminating them.
Everything else represents a very high level of creative achievement!
Sometimes an obvious key (Rusinek's 1. h3+ or Minski's 1. f4) may not be ugly if it is followed up by a paradoxical reversal of its ugliness.
The brilliant move 3. b4!! reverses the idea of the key (White defends the b2 pawn and threatens mate on a3) and makes this wonderful work (work of art!) free of foreplay.