The Chess Mind

A few days ago I presented the following studies by the outstanding Russian composer Vladimir Korolkov (all four are White to play and win):


Korolkov 1937


Korolkov 1938


Korolkov 1976


Korolkov & Mitrofanov 1983

I noted that each of the studies displays some humorous twist - that was a characteristic quality of the great composer's work. If you haven't solved them yet, give it another try (and look for a humorous element - it's a clue that you've found the right idea). If you have, or just want to see the solutions, direct your mouse to the end of this sentence and click.

In the wake of our discussion of the 2006 "Study of the Year", it's an auspicious time to see some great and (or?) entertaining studies of the past and present.

We start with some studies of the Russian great Vladimir Korolkov. I presented a number of his works two and a half years ago (post here, solutions here - they're very much worth (re-)visiting), and now I offer some more of his works. This is especially appropriate, as this month marks the 100th anniversary of his birth.

Korolkov's compositions displayed many virtues, but the one that strikes me most clearly is humor. Each of the following studies has some amusing aspect, as you'll see. It's White to move and win in every case.


Korolkov 1937


Korolkov 1938


Korolkov 1976


Korolkov & Mitrofanov (another legend!) 1983
[This study might not be completely sound, but the basic idea still represents best play for White and the humorous aspect may help you solve it.]

Solutions will be given in a few days. Enjoy!

As usual on Tuesday nights, I go to the Chess Cafe website to check out the week's offerings. Part of the tour includes a visit to the week's Endgame Study (#563, for those who end up looking for this in the CC archives), which on this occasion featured a 1935 offering by V. Kivi. Here's the position; it's White to move and draw:



After several minutes of staring at the monitor, I decided I had solved it, but after scrolling down it turned out that the "official" answer differed from my own. After thinking some more to figure out why my solution failed, and not coming up with a satisfactory answer, I checked my endgame study database (no help there) and then switched on Fritz...and it agreed with me. (Mine is more logical, but there's no artistry involved; the composer's is more attractive by a mile.)

So there are at least two solutions to this puzzle, and you can find them both here.

Once again, we start with this position:


Wotawa 1960; White to move and win

The first move, as we saw in the previous post, is 1.f8Q, and after 1...Rxf8 2.gxh5+ Kf7 3.Rh8!! leads to mate or a decisive material advantage. Unfortunately, Black has an alternative on move 1 that makes things messier: 1...Rf7+!



This is very annoying. I've looked at it some, and so has reader Steven Dowd (he's also an occasional study composer - readers with access to Chess Life might take a look at this month's "Benko's Bafflers" column). Our main line against this starts in the same way, and then diverges. Still, I think, but can't say with 100% certainty, that we've found wins for White. White's proximate goal is to reach an ending with two rooks against two knights (with no pawns); should he do so in a normal position (i.e. one where there's no fork regaining an exchange or miracle perpetual check, for example), the game will be over.

It's unfortunate that there's this somewhat ungainly sideline whose result is slightly unclear, so a reader with a taste and a talent for composing should try to create a better introduction to the punchline on move 3 (3.Rh8!!). Still, the study does appear to be sound, and readers interested in replaying the analysis of the previous post, as well as exploring my work (and Dowd's) on 1...Rf7+, should have a look here.

Let's start, as usual, by re-presenting our starting position:


Bazlov 2006; White to move and win

I'll have some comments, below, but first I present the solution and comments as distributed by the PCCC, with a doff of the hat to both Steven Dowd and Chess Today:



Study of the Year 2006

The Study of the Year award for 2006 has been granted by the PCCC (Permanent Commission of Fide for Chess Composition) to the following masterpiece from the special composing tourney held in memory of the British composer C.M.Bent. Yuri Bazlov (born 1947) has been a prominent Russian composer for the last four decades. It is for him the second time in a row to win this award. Please help us to promote it among chess enthusiasts in your own country by reprinting it in chess columns, magazines and websites. Thank you for your kind effort.

Yochanan Afek, spokesman of the studies sub-committee of the PCCC



1.Be4+ (1.Qe4+ Kc5 2.Bxc4 Bf4+ 3.Kg6 Rxc4 4.Qa8 Re7=) 1…Ke6 2.Qc5! (2.Qb3? Rf4 3.Qxa4 Rxe4 =) 2…Bf4+ (2…Rfa7 3.Bd5+ Kf5 4.Qf8+ Kg4 5.Qf3+ Kh4 6.Be6 mating) 3.Kg6 Ne5+ 4.Kh5 Rxe4 (4…Rd7 5.Bd5+ Rxd5 6.Nc7+ Kd7 (Kf5) 7.Nxd5 wins; 4…Rfa7 5.Bd5+ Kd7 6.Nf6+ Kd8 7.Be6 R4a5 8.Qb6+ Ke7 9.Ng8+ Kf8 10.Qd8+ Kg7 11.Qf6+ Kh7 12.Ne7 wins) 5.Qd6+ Kf5 6.Qf6+!! Rxf6 7. Ng7 mate!

“An outstanding and aristocratic example of the familiar maximal selfblock mate, this study has an excellent quiet second move permitting black counterplay. All pieces move into their final position” (David Friedgood and Timothy Whitworth, Judges in the C.M. Bent MT 2006-07).

Midboard ideal mate with the last piece following four active self-blocks. All units move in the course of the main line of play and the only two captures are of white pieces (John Roycroft, chairman of the award committee).


FIDE announcement over; we now return to your regularly scheduled blogramming. So, dear reader, what do you think about this study? The final position is wonderful - no doubt about it.



But what about the improbable starting position (when was the last time you saw a game with nine units and no pawns?) and all the prosaic, unattractive sidelines? Where's the beautiful (or at least logical) try that just fails? I have to admit that this study has grown on me, and it's an admirable idea, but I find the Wotawa study (for example) far more interesting and beautiful. (No doubt it was also much easier to compose, as the realization of its main idea is much simpler. Does that make the study objectively inferior?)

Maybe the problem that my taste isn't sophisticated (or "aristocratic", whatever that means in this context) enough (this is possible), or is it that almost all the comparatively simple, elegant, game-like ideas already been exhausted?

Here's a second gripe. In the good old days, studies were such that OTB players had a pretty good chance of solving them, a chance more or less commensurate with their playing strength. Yes, the players of those times probably needed to be familiar with a few special themes, but not too many. Now, though, I look at many contemporary studies - some composed with the partial assistance of chess engines and tablebases - and I wonder if it's possible for a non-specialist of my ability to solve them.

But what do you think, readers? I'd especially like to hear from those who are actively engaged in composing and solving contemporary endgame studies. In fact, if a study specialist is interested in writing a guest post or two, with the aim of making contemporary studies more accessible to the rest of us, I'd be very happy to consider such an arrangement.

Meanwhile, you can replay the solution to Bazlov's study here.

It wasn't that long ago, but between the car search (satisfactorily completed, I hope) and the number of posts I've written in the past week, it feels like ancient history when I offered the following position for your solving pleasure:


Wotawa 1960; White to play and win

Because the threat of 1...Kxf7 is so strong, the first two moves are fairly obvious: 1.f8Q Rxf8 2.gxh5+ Kf7.




As 3.Rf1+?? allows 3...Kxg8, the obvious move is 3.Rxf8+, and after 3...Kxf8 4.Rf1+ Kg8 one senses that Black's king is in a mating net. The first try is 5.Ke7, threatening 6.Rf8#, but after 5...h6 White might have perpetual (e.g. 6.Rf8+ Kh7 7.Rf7 b2 8.Kf8 b1Q 9.Rxg7+ Kh8 10.Rg8+ etc.) but nothing more.

Here one might have a brainstorm. If Black is saved by playing 5...h6, maybe the solution is to prevent it by playing it first: 5.h6! 5...g6 is no answer - 6.Ke7 mates next move - and 5...b2 6.Ke7 gxh6 7.Rg1+ Kh8 8.Kf7 b1Q 9.Rg8# isn't any help either.

Problem solved? Not quite. Black can play 5...gxh6!, and after 6.Ke7 h5! 7.Rg1+ Kh8 8.Kf7 h6 White has no way to win. He's close, but the chief fly in the ointment is that a queen on b1 checks a king on g6. For example, if 9.Rg8+ Kh7 10.Rg7+ Kh8 11.Kg6 b2 and White doesn't have time for 12.Rc7? because 12...b1Q is check. Another try is 10.Rb8, winning the b-pawn, but Black draws after 10...Nc4 11.Rxb3 Ne5+ (11...Nd6+ and 11...h4 also draw).

Now it's time for the second brainstorm. Black almost ran out of space, but once his king got to the h-file he had just enough time to play ...h5 and ...h6. It was a close call, but it was enough. Let's come back to the position after Black's second move, and have another look here:



The solution is logical, in light of the above, but even so it's very hard to even consider the right move. If you haven't figured it out yet, here's another opportunity.

Ready?

3.Rh8!!

Great, isn't it? White threatens 4.Rf1, which happens to be mate. Even if it wasn't mate, however, it would still win the rook and the game, so the only move worth considering is 3...Rxh8. But now the ideas we had above work: 4.Rf1+ Kg8 5.h6! and it's mate in two. White continues 6.Ke7 and mates with either 7.Rf8 or 7.Rg1, depending on what Black does with his g-pawn.

So that's it...or is it? Stay tuned for the next post.

This won FIDE's Study of the Year award; the second straight such award won by its composer, Yuri Bazlov.



It's White to move and win; the solution will be given soon.

HT: Steven Dowd, Chess Today