Logical context: "White tries (1. Bxg5?) to destroy the main defender (g5 pawn) of the black king, but it ends in a surprising draw. So the white bishop unpins the black pawn (the key) and forces its move, and then mates with the return move (switchback)."
In the original, Jan Rusinek added the introduction 1. h3+ ? Kh4, which is so obvious that it is trivial.
Draw in the try is surprising but not so obvious without EGTB. That's why Timman made his version without this try, and I made mine where the white bishop really pins the Pg5 in a stalemate position.
Serhiy, your version actually seems better, and it's surprising why it wasn't included in the book ("In Search of Beauty"). Your version also provides the necessary logical context.
Probably, no one expected a KQPP/KQ endgame to be so drawn. The Black king's achievement of a safe position before the pawns is an ideal motif for a study.
I now understand why this version was chosen: because of its revealing nature. 🙂
Marcin Kania
1 месяц назад
It is Jan Rusinek's tragicomic work. The version is complete (masterpiece of puzzles!), but that doesn't mean it complies with the principles, and this term (complete) shouldn't be used by craftsmen.
A logical context motivates the content and elevates the ending.
Constantly writing about computers, EGTB, AI, etc. in a chess composition is destructive to it.
Many of you are addicted to it, and therefore this, along with ostracism and sarcasm, is a terrible choice.
Logical context: "White tries (1. Bxg5?) to destroy the main defender (g5 pawn) of the black king, but it ends in a surprising draw. So the white bishop unpins the black pawn (the key) and forces its move, and then mates with the return move (switchback)."
In the original, Jan Rusinek added the introduction 1. h3+ ? Kh4, which is so obvious that it is trivial.
Draw in the try is surprising but not so obvious without EGTB. That's why Timman made his version without this try, and I made mine where the white bishop really pins the Pg5 in a stalemate position.
Serhiy, your version actually seems better, and it's surprising why it wasn't included in the book ("In Search of Beauty"). Your version also provides the necessary logical context.
Probably, no one expected a KQPP/KQ endgame to be so drawn. The Black king's achievement of a safe position before the pawns is an ideal motif for a study.
I now understand why this version was chosen: because of its revealing nature. 🙂
It is Jan Rusinek's tragicomic work. The version is complete (masterpiece of puzzles!), but that doesn't mean it complies with the principles, and this term (complete) shouldn't be used by craftsmen.
A logical context motivates the content and elevates the ending.
Constantly writing about computers, EGTB, AI, etc. in a chess composition is destructive to it.
Many of you are addicted to it, and therefore this, along with ostracism and sarcasm, is a terrible choice.