eg 178 special - arves · 2017-08-23 · and world-renowned chess book collector jur-gen stigter....

No. 178 – Vol. XV – October 2009

John Roycroft Special

EG is produced by the Dutch-Flemish Association for Endgame Study (‘Alexander Rueb Vereniging voor schaakEindspelStudie’) ARVES

http://www.arves.org

Editor in chiefHarold van der Heijden

Michel de Klerkstraat 28, 7425 DG Deventer, The Netherlandse-mail : [email protected]

EditorsJohn Roycroft

17 New Way Road, London, England NW9 6PLe-mail : [email protected]

Spotlight : Jarl Henning UlrichsenSildråpeveien 6C, N-7048 Trondheim, Norway

e-mail : [email protected] : Ed van de Gevel

Binnen de Veste 36, 3811 PH Amersfoort, The Netherlandse-mail : [email protected]

Computer news : Emil Vlasáke-mail : [email protected]

Prize winners explained : Yochanan Afeke-mail : [email protected]

Themes and tasks : Oleg Pervakove-mail : [email protected]

Lay-out : Luc Palmanse-mail : [email protected]

printed (& distributed) by -be- à aix-la-chapellee-mail: [email protected]

– 307 –

PRELIMINARY

JOHN ROYCROFT

The invitation to celebrate my 80th birth-day with an ARVES event in Amsterdamcame out of the blue from ARVES Presidentand world-renowned chess book collector Jur-gen Stigter. Delighted, honoured, indeed over-whelmed, naturally I accepted. The technicaldate was 25th July 2009, but Jurgen told methat ‘everyone goes away in July’, so we set-tled on Saturday 13th June, in the Euwe Cen-tre. And that is where and when we cametogether.

Encouraged to invite specific close chessfriends, I did so with great selectivity, hopingnot to cause offence to anyone left out andchoosing colleagues ready to offer an originallecture. Paul Valois, John Beasley, BrianStephenson, Rainer Staudte and Harrie Grond-ijs accepted, to my great delight. I hope thatJurgen Stigter’s many reproductions of thecovers of rare books can be used as artisticpage fillers in EG.

It was good to see and lunch with MarcelVan Herck and Ed van de Gevel. The, to me,totally unexpected guest was the otb tourna-ment arbiter legend, éminence grise (OK, he’sa sizeable gentleman and was wearing a greysuit) Geurt Gijssen. Yochanan Afek arrivedhotfoot from playing in a tournament in Lux-embourg, but could not make the Saturday.

The three British papers are reproducedhere, with Rainer’s to come later and Harrie’srepresented by a review of his limited editionmonograph.

If, like me, you are used to living on one ortwo floors, it came as a mild surprise when en-joying Jurgen’s hospitality to find myself timeand again cautiously mounting and descend-ing three none-too-short flights of very steepstairs. Seemingly an architectural waste ofspace this design enables citizens of Amster-dam to escape the worst of a Netherlandsflood merely by going upstairs while still re-maining on their own property. Good think-ing!

On the Tuesday following the Saturday Itook advantage of Jurgen having secured cir-cle tickets for a fabulous production of Bizet’sCarmen by the prestigious Netherlands Operain their impressive theatre.

As the Eurostar express from Brussels ap-proached St Pancras International terminalright on time, the head of a family was over-heard saying briskly to his little group, “Comealong, now, get your things together. This isour stop.” “No”, said his six-year-old lad, “It’severyone’s stop.”

A weekend to remember, for ever.

– 308 –

ARVES DAYAT THE EUWE CENTRE, AMSTERDAM,

ON SATURDAY 13TH JUNE 2009

JOHN ROYCROFT

Presentations were made by:Harrie Grondijs, Rainer Staudte, Jurgen

Stigter, Paul Valois, and by John Beasley andBrian Stephenson in absentiâ.

Harrie is represented here by a review ofhis new monograph centred on the ‘Nalimov’tablebases. Rainer’s ground-breaking re-search into the life of Friedrich Amelung is‘work in progress’ which it is hoped will bepublished in due course. Jurgen’s chosen topicencompassed his book classification systemand collector comments, eg regarding prices.Paul Valois reminisced over EG’s early daysand the contribution made by ASSIAC’s col-umn in the New Statesman. John prepared his‘impresario’ paper ahead of time and providedmultiple print-outs. Brian’s paper dissectedthe dilemma of selecting studies for solvingcontests. Both promises made on page 7 ofVol.XI of EG have now been fulfilled.

John Beasley, composer, author, editor,founder of British Endgame Study News in1996 (often accompanied by a ‘special’, ofwhich no.60 is the most recent), experiencedorganiser of solving contests, columnist (dia-grammes, BCM), CESC stalwart, musician,mathematician, retailer of anecdotes, BritishChess Problem Society librarian, close friendand near-enough neighbour, link to the worldof problems.

Harrie Grondijs, maverick composer, au-thor of the unexpected and sometimes virtual-

ly incomprehensible (he is proud of it!),pundit, omnivore, joker, and other things sure-ly yet to emerge.

Rainer Staudte, composer, supremely con-scientious researcher, tireless correspondent,regular WCCC attender, host during my shortstay in Chemnitz (‘Karl Marx Stadt’) in 1988.

Brian Stephenson, inheritor of the RichardHarman card-index classification hoard, solv-ing contest organiser extraordinary, computerspecialist, facilitator of a number of CESCmeetings in Central London, columnist, con-vivial companion.

Jurgen Stigter, one of the world’s greatcollectors of chess books, generous providerof hospitality, President of ARVES, cyclist,connoisseur of music and opera, ever ap-proachable and open for advice given quietlybut firmly.

Paul Valois, co-founder of EG, Russianlanguage specialist (ie interpreter and transla-tor) relied on on many occasions, secretary toJohn Rice when PCCC President, indefatiga-ble worker behind the scenes at tasks othersshun, studies selector for The Problemist, re-searcher of newspaper chess columns (includ-ing Russian ones), regular WCCC attender,and the most reliable of acquaintances.

Presentations were pieces of original workby personal friends, to whom I express myprofound appreciation, respect and gratitude.

– 309 –

GREETINGS AND TRIBUTES

JOHN ROYCROFT

Greetings Harold van der Heijden and his wife sent

a nice card. There were mentions in The Prob-lemist and Die Schwalbe. E-mail greetingscame from: Gennady Chumakov, Hew Dun-das, David Gurgenidze, Sergei N.Tkachenko. And see review of Dvoretskybook for Yochanan Afek’s gift (which camewith a calorie-packed, exotic selection of Bel-gian chocolates...).

Tributes came fromUri Avner (Israel), composer, author,

judge, President of the FIDE PCCC, possiblyto be renamed International Chess Composi-

tion Union (ICCU), following a pronounce-ment by ‘big’ FIDE.

Amatzia Avni (Israel), composer, judge,author and journalist (Baron Munchausentales).

Gady Costeff (Israel/USA), composer,judge, contributor to EG Vol.XI, sometimeSpotlight editor, regular WCCC attender.

Rudolf Larin (Novosibirsk, Russia), con-veyer of formal congratulatory greetings fromthe regional chess composition body.

Karen Sumbatian (Russia, Armenia),composer, judge, versatile linguist, studies ac-tivist, friend-in-need-and-deed.

Tributes

From Uri Avner

Dear John Roycroft,May I congratulate you on your forthcom-

ing 80th birthday?In Hebrew they say “80th anniversary for

heroism,” and certainly you have proven itthrough your relentless fight to preserve theheritage of the composed chess study.

Your famous book Test Tube Chess clarifiesevery aspect of the field as well as contribut-ing to the philosophy of the chess study.

The world of chess composition owes you agreat debt for your long-lasting contribution!

Wishing you many years to come of fruitfulactivity in our field as well as in your privatelife,

Uri Avner

President of the world organization forchess composition

Ramat Gan, June 9th 2009

From Amatzia Avni

June 2009Dear John,I’ve known you for three decades, I think.

Although we met in person just a few times (Irecall twice in Israel, once in London’s “Chess& Bridge” and once in Wageningen congress),we exchanged many letters and emails, whichmakes me feel that I know you quite well.

I’m sure that people always think of you inconnection with EG. This is a problem for aperson who does something very significant –

John Roycroft : Greetings and tributes

– 310 –

people tend to ignore his other accomplish-ments.

So, realizing that you are bound to beplaced in history as the EG founder – it is in-deed difficult to imagine where were we (stud-ies-wise) without this groundbreakingmagazine – I’d like to raise a toast to yourprominent characteristics.

I think that you are very highly skilled withwords. Years of watching the late Raaphy Per-sitz taught me that this is not a trivial quality.Whenever you express yourself in writing,you are always direct, precise and to the point.One may disagree with you but one can neversay that your intentions are vague.

You are a superb journalist. Your essaysabout Porterfield Rynd, Bakaev (‘Believe it ornot’ in EG–Vol.XI, p. 149) and Bent’s6.Ka1!!!, to draw examples just from recentyears, are classics. A master story-teller, youcombine deep research with sharp and suc-cinct conclusions. If there is ever an anthologyof essays on composition, these are a must, inmy view.

You speak up your mind, whether peoplelike it or not, even if you have nothing to gainfrom it (and frequently something to lose). Ibet this had cost you some strained relation-ships over the years, but I reckon that it isworth it. You usually liked my books and arti-cles, but when you thought otherwise youdidn’t hesitate to say so; I appreciate it.

You are a model of persistency. Your maga-zine faced enormous obstacles: financial, lackof subscribers, print problems, difficulty ofobtaining Eastern awards and more; somehowyou overcame them all. You are also consist-ent and firm in your views regarding variousstudies-issues.

Finally, you are a good composer. You mayreasonably entertain the thought that a hun-dred years from now (if the world still exists),some boy from Japan or a girl from Greecewill look at, for example your Kg5/Kf2, 1957,or Kc5/Kb2, 1965 (hopefully intact undercomputer’s examination) and say “Gee, this iscute!”.

In short, it is a pleasure to know you and togreet you on your 80th anniversary. May youhave a long and healthy future!

Cheers,Amatzia

From Gady Costeff

Sometime in the 1980’s, I got word of EG. Isent in my dues and received my first issue. Ina flash I was introduced to the latest work bythe greatest Eastern European composers,translated classic articles and awards of tour-neys I did not know existed. I immediatelysent money for the first 80 or so issues so I’dhave a complete set.

This was a formative experience. A vastnumber of studies and opinions were nowavailable for me to learn from, an invaluableresource beyond my occasional meeting of afellow Israeli composer. Over the years I wasfortunate to meet many of the names abovethe diagrams in EG and experience theirfriendship.

John, many thanks for enriching my life somuch.

No 16982 Gady Costeff“Dedicated to John Roycroft”XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-mK09+P+PzP-+p09-+-+-+-mk09+-+-+-+P09-+-zp-+-+09+-+p+p+p09-+-zP-zPpzP09+-+-+-+-0

h8h6 0000.76 BTM, Win

No 16982 1...g1Q! 2.e8S! Qg5 3.b8B!/i Qf5/ii4.Bd6/iii Qf7/iv 5.d8R! wins/v, not 5.d8Q?Qg7+ 6.Sxg7 stalemate.

i) 3.b8Q? Qe5+ 4.Qxe5 stalemate.ii) Qe7 4.Bf4+ Kxh5 5.Bd6 Qg5 6.Bc7.


– 311 –

iii) 4.Kg8? Qd5+ 5.Kf8 Qf5+ 6.Ke7 Qe4+7.Kd8 Qa8 8.Kc8 Qa6+ 9.Kc7 Qa5+.

iv) Qg5 5.Bf8+ Kxh5 6.Sg7+ Kg6 7.Se6Qf6+ 8.Bg7 Qxe6 9.d8Q wins.

v) for example Kxh5 6.Sg7+ Kg6 7.Be5Qb3 8.Rd6+ Kf7 9.Kxh7.

The first single variation Allumwandlungin a pawn study.

Gady[AJR has taken the liberty of EGifying the

presentation of Gady’s dedication study. Gady hasnever come to terms with either ‘S’ for knight orthe /i i) system! Am I pardoned, Gady?]

from Karen Sumbatian

Dear John,My heart-felt congratulations on your jubi-

lee and my best wishes for good health andlong years of serving our endgame studymuse!

When it comes to your credits in this fieldyou know about them not less than myself,and in case you’ve forgotten something, I’msure colleagues there in Holland will remindyou of them many times over.

I’d like just to share with you a small detailthat has had an All-Union importance to usSoviet endgame composers.

Not one and not two leading Soviet figurestold me confidentially that after your payingthem visits at the editorial office or theirhomes, ‘people’ dropped in on them who werecurious to know what had been the topics ofyour discussions. Those leading figures hadno dealings with computer technology, so onemay draw the conclusion that the object of thestate security interest was – just those end-games. So it’s a shame that your visits to uswere so few and far between, for the result hasbeen a lessening in the perception of the end-game here ...

Well, on the other hand, what else can Rus-sia be so proud of?

Rockets we build and the Enisei river wedam

While in ballet we lead, leaving behind Un-cle Sam

[AJR paraphrases Vladimir Vysotsky.]Anatoly Kuznetsov always – and with good

reason – substituted ‘endgames’ for ‘rockets’.Today they build dams across rivers widerthan the Siberian Enisei, and as for rockets –well, Iran has learned how to make them, andas to ballet, Russia is no longer in the van-guard. Now I’ll try and explain why Russianstudies stay ahead of all the others.

Can you imagine, dear John, that a congrat-ulatory letter arrives from Buckingham Palaceto a WW2 veteran on the occasion of the anni-versary of Victory Day in the anti-fascist war– but six months after he has passed away?Just such a letter came on May 9th from Presi-dent Medvedev’s administration (completewith his signature) addressed to my fatherwho passed away on 1st December last. And ifsuch paradoxical anomalies can occur amongthe élite of Russian society can you imaginewhat takes place in the lower echelons? End-games are based on paradoxical anomaliestoo, so that might well be the reason why Rus-sia is the best nutrient for endgames...

We are looking forward to a new “Russia -the Rest of the World” match! This time thefight will be tougher, as you will have on yourside Ukraine and Georgia. However, I know aRussian (“Rossiianin”) who can, if properlyworked on and prodded, make short work ofthe Rest of the World, and Russia into the bar-gain. OK, I can foresee your reply – the workon the results of the first match took half alifetime. However, if not you, who will be thefirst one to give the stone a push?

Yours sincerely,Karen Sumbatian[Assistance with translation from Russian

acknowledged to Efim Maidanik.]


– 312 –

(For more information: see page 320)

– 313 –

ON BEING A CHESSENDGAME IMPRESARIO

JOHN BEASLEY

In Test Tube Chess, John Roycroft identi-fied the impresario as one of the twelve princi-pal denizens of the study world, and althoughhe has composed many original studies overthe years I am sure this is the role in which heprimarily sees himself. I too would say exactlythe same. This little paper will therefore talkabout some aspects of the impresario’s task asI see them, and (to reward those who havestayed awake) will then present a few of thestudies which I have had the pleasure of pub-lishing as originals.

This will be largely a collection of isolatedtopics, so let us start with the most fundamen-tal question of all: what are you trying to do?

I think the answer is simple: your primaryobjective should be to entertain people whohave paid good money to receive the publica-tion for which you are writing. You are notthere to provide a vanity platform for compos-ers (unless you are editing originals in a com-position magazine); you are there to entertainthe paying customer.

As to how you judge what will entertainthem, I suggest that the answer is again verysimple: print what you yourself enjoy. If yourreaders turn out not to like something and sayso, you can always explain why you like ityourself, and perhaps they will then see vir-tues in it that they have overlooked. If you saythat you didn’t like it but you thought theywould, they will look at you as if you weremad. There are of course circumstances inwhich this rule cannot be followed (the feature“Recently published British originals” in mymagazine British Endgame Study News has aduty to be eclectic, and very occasionally I re-print something which I might not have ac-

cepted as an editor of originals myself), but ingeneral you should allow yourself to be guid-ed by your own personal tastes. If your tastesare significantly different from those of yourreaders, the column should be in other hands.

A consequence is that you should not blind-ly reproduce tournament prizewinners. If youhappen to like the leading studies in a particu-lar tourney, splendid, but in general modernstudy tournaments seem to encourage the pro-duction of lengthy and complicated heavy-weights, where the artificiality of the meansfar outweighs any pleasure given by theachievement. I am afraid that very little ofwhat appears in the tourney awards so scrupu-lously reproduced by EG finds its way into mycolumn in the British Chess Magazine; quitesimply, I don’t think it is of a nature that willentertain the mainstream chess enthusiastswho are my paying customers.

How far can an editor legitimately alter orexpand the composer’s presentation?

An editor in any walk of life must be asfaithful as possible to the original source, andif he thinks it necessary to deviate from it(other than by making routine changes to con-form to his own publication’s house style) hemust say so. However, the true “originalsource” is the composer’s manuscript, and on-ly rarely do we have this; the best we usuallyhave is the original printed source, and thismay have been savagely truncated for reasonsof space. As a composer, I have suffered fromthe editorial omission of sidelines which Iconsidered important; as an editor, I have nodoubt perpetrated similar injustices. Further-more, apart from the space and layout con-straints within which an editor must work,

John Beasley : On being a chess endgame impresario

– 314 –

there are two very genuine problems: (a) asanyone who has edited originals knows, theamount of supporting analysis submitted bycomposers varies wildly, and (b) a level oftreatment which is appropriate to readers atone level of expertise may be quite inappro-priate to readers at another. Some composersanalyse every sideline to a depth well beyondthe point at which the game has become aclear book win or draw, and even if there werespace to print it all (which usually there isn’t)respect for one’s readers would preclude do-ing so; others give just a bare main line, withno analysis at all. In each case, the editor hasto take a view, and to try to print such analysisas in his opinion will clarify the study withoutboring his readers with minutiae; and some-times he gets it wrong.

And what about errors in secondary sourc-es? A few years ago, I devoted a specialnumber of British Endgame Study News toBritish work of the later nineteenth century,and I included what I thought was Crosskill’sanalysis of K + R + B v K + R. I took thisfrom the Oxford Companion to Chess, which Inaturally assumed authoritative. However,Timothy Whitworth, who checks everything(when we were writing Endgame Magic, hewent several times to the library in Den Haagto ensure that what we printed was verifiedfrom original sources wherever possible)found the magazine containing Crosskill’soriginal analysis in the University Library inCambridge, and pointed out that at one place,where I had indicated that Crosskill’s movewas slightly inferior to the move now shownby the computer to be optimal, Crosskill hadin fact given the computer’s optimal move; thetranscription in the Oxford Companion was in-correct. It turned out that Berger had repro-duced Crosskill’s analysis with what hethought was an improvement but wasn’t, thatChéron had improved on Berger but remainedinferior to Crosskill’s original, and that theCompanion had understandably treatedChéron’s as the last word on the subject. I putthis particular record straight in a subsequentspecial number of BESN, giving transcriptions

of the analyses of both Zytogorski and Cross-kill from the original printed sources, but nodoubt other such distortions still lurk in the lit-erature.

The best possible source is of course thecomposer’s own definitive collection of hiswork, refined and polished at leisure, but eventhis may sometimes be defective. Those whohave Depth and Beauty, my translation intoEnglish of Artur Mandler’s book Studie, willnotice an attractive line which I note editorial-ly at the end of study 3.47. I cannot believethat Mandler did not work out this line him-self, but it is neither in Studie nor in his earlierbook on rook and pawn studies. I can only as-sume that he overlooked it when writing outthe rook and pawn book, and failed to noticethe omission when copying the study acrossinto Studie.

One editorial change which I always makeis to replace in-line treatment of repetitions bytrees with blind alleys. Suppose that in a drawstudy, Black has two moves, A and B, and theanswer to move A is to manoeuvre back to thesame position. The solution to such a study isoften presented as a single main line withoutvariations, Black playing move A, White get-ting back to the same position, Black thenplaying move B, and so on, and sometimesthere isn’t even a note to move A saying thatthe position after move B will occur later inthe main line. As a reader, I heartily dislikethis, particularly when there isn’t a note, be-cause I automatically assume that the answersto moves other than A must be straightforwardand then spend a lot of time trying to find theanswer to B, not realising that it will be givenlater on. I always present such a study withjust move B in the main line, move A beingdealt with by a note indicating the repetition,and if it is argued that this is artificially short-ening the main line, I would reply that the in-line treatment artificially lengthens it.

When I first became an editor of originalcompositions, I made three rules: composi-tions in honour of or dedicated to political fig-ures would not be accepted, compositionsdedicated to myself would not be accepted,


– 315 –

and names would appear without academic orother titles however honorific and well-de-served these might be. On this last point, Ithought it appropriate to write to my threemost eminent titled contributors to say what Iwas doing, and two of them immediatelywrote back to say “Quite right”. In chess as inother walks of life, the man who really de-serves a title never needs to use it, because hisname carries sufficient lustre on its own.

Do you present a study as something to besolved, or do you explain it as you go?

When presenting a study to a live audience,I normally set it up on a board and invite theaudience to find the answer. In print, it de-pends. With a live audience, you can headthem off before they waste too much time go-ing down a wrong track. In print, you cannotdo this, and I quickly decided that a studycould fairly be set for solution only if Black’smoves in the main line were fairly obvious.When I was presenting original studies in thecomposition magazine Diagrammes, I wasfortunate in that I also had a column for quota-tions and commentary, so I could choose; if astudy seemed suitable for solving, I presentedit thus, and if not I gave it with commentary.In the British Chess Magazine, I normally ex-pound with commentary, but I routinely endthe page with at least one study saying “An-swer next time” and recapitulate it next issuewith a fresh diagram.

To what extent should an editor print hisown work?

I think it depends. When we were writingEndgame Magic, Timothy Whitworth and Idecided that we would normally choose theBritish example if there was one among sever-al roughly equal candidates, but that we wouldnot include anything by ourselves. As an edi-tor of originals, I will use my own work to fillgaps, but not when I am already receivinggood material of the same kind from contribu-tors and am having to turn some of it down ortell it to wait. When I was editing originals forDiagrammes, I also had an unofficial rule thatmy own compositions did not take part in thebiennial tourneys (except in the case of joint

compositions where my contribution was sec-ondary). I am far from alone in doing this -Ronald Turnbull had a similar rule when hewas editing the problem column in VariantChess, and I have no doubt that there havebeen many others - and I am sure it is a goodrule. It never looks good to see an editor pick-ing up prizes in his own column.

As an editor of originals, I make a point oftelling a composer within at most a month (itis usually much less) whether his compositionhas been accepted, and for which issue of themagazine it is scheduled. If this is more thansix months away, I consider that he is entitledto withdraw it from me and to seek quickerpublication elsewhere. Composers spend timeand effort on their work, and they are entitledto be told its fate without unreasonable delay. Iam not doing them a favour by printing theirwork, they are doing me a favour by offeringit.

As a matter of principle, I try to avoid jar-gon. When presenting a couple of pages ofcrossing-point sacrifice studies in British End-game Study News, I called them just that:“Rook and bishop crossing-point sacrifices”.Why use the problemists’ jargon term “Novot-ny interference”? Even if I can remember thejargon myself (which in most cases I can’t),not all my readers will know it, so I shall haveto explain it, and this will take up far morespace than would be saved by its use.

Have I ever had to deal with a deliberateplagiarist? There is a law of libel and deliber-ate plagiarism can never be proved unlesssomebody actually sees the copying inprogress, so I must answer somewhat circum-spectly.

I have had suspicions on three occasions.The first occurred when I was editing theBCM problem column. I received two offer-ings from a gentleman who was widely re-garded as a plagiarist, so I contactedsomebody who knew that particular branch ofthe problem literature better than I did, andback came the answer: one of them was iden-tical to a former prizewinner, give or take theminor cosmetic changes which plagiarists


– 316 –

nearly always make. So I put both his offer-ings in the bin, and didn’t even bother to writeback to him.

The second case, also when I was editingthe BCM problem column, concerned a gen-tleman then still unknown. He had alreadysent me a contribution which, after some sug-gested improvements to the construction, Ihad accepted, and then for some reason hesent me a couple of endgame studies. Theseimmediately rang bells, and I soon trackedthem down. What he had apparently done wasto take existing compositions and put a moveor two on the front, and since the additionswere fairly crude the whole gave the impres-sion of being the work of a promising begin-ner, in need of a little advice but well worthencouraging. I then looked back at the prob-lem I had accepted, and realised that exactlythe same thing seemed to have happenedthere; my suggested improvements had in factmerely removed his accretions, and recoveredthe position from which he had started. Itherefore wrote to him to say that so-and-sowas rather like such-and-such, that so-and-sowas rather like such-and-such, that work sosimilar to existing compositions could not bepublished in the BCM, and please would henot send me further contributions. He didn’t.

The third case, when I was the study col-umnist of Diagrammes, ended rather differ-ently. I received two contributions from agentleman who had been accused of plagia-rism in print, and although they weren’t great Ithought that one of them was publishable.Knowing of the previous accusation, Ichecked in Harold van der Heijden’s “End-game study database 2000”, failed to find any-thing close, and published. Some years later,he was accused of a second plagiarism similarto the first, so for my own satisfaction Ichecked again, this time using the sophisticat-ed program CQL to search Harold’s “End-game study database III”, and still I did notfind. The two accusations, taken together, donot make good reading, but what he sent to meseems to have been genuine.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly orall, what about printing the work of new com-posers? To what extent, if any, should an edi-tor relax his normal criteria when offered thework of a newcomer?

Editors differ widely in their answer to this.Some print almost anything, others insist ontheir normal standards. I am perhaps closer tothe latter. Soundness, yes. Point and shape,certainly (and this is almost more importantthan soundness, because an unsound study canperhaps be rescued, whereas if a study has nei-ther shape nor point there is no reason towaste time on it). But originality? A problemcolumnist has to be prepared to print totallyanticipated two-movers by beginners, other-wise they will never get into print at all. In thestudy field, I think we can still insist on atleast some small element of originality, even ifonly in a minor respect (there will be an exam-ple later on). But in the last resort, it all comesdown to the basic question: even though this isa first study by a hitherto unknown composer,will it entertain the paying customer? If it will,in it goes, and another chess player has thepleasure of seeing his name in print abovesomething which he can show to his friends.

Enough of the waffle. Let’s have a look atsome studies.

David Blundell’s 1 (1 Pr Diagrammes1995) is perhaps the finest original study that Ihave had the pleasure of publishing as an edi-tor. People have been known to take one lookat it and to say that the first move must be Sa1,else the position would not have been set. Canthey possibly be right?

In the composer’s own words, slightly edit-ed: “The only satisfactory plan is to manoeu-vre the knight to d2. The route via a3 and c4fails: 1.Sa3? f3 2.Sc4 Kg5! (but not 2...Kg4?3.Kc2z Kg3 4.Kc3z Kg4 5.Sxe5+ Kf4 6.Kd4f2 7.Sd3+ and wins) 3.Kc2 (if 3.Sd2 then3...Kf4 4.Kc2 Ke3 draws easily) Kg4z (see1a) 4.Kc3 (or 4.Sd2 Kf4 5.Kd3 f2z) Kg3/Kg5z with a draw: Sd2 still fails, and on c4 theknight prevents the further advance of its king.There is a set of corresponding squares, c3-g3/g5, c2-g4, b2-h4, and ‘z’ indicates reciprocal


– 317 –

zugzwang. Other plans fail, e.g. 1.Kc1? f32.Kd2 f2 3.Ke2 Kg4 4.Se3+ Kf4 5.Kd3 Kg3!6.Sf1+ Kf3z 7.Sd2+ Kf4z 8.Ke2 f1Q+!9.Kxf1 Ke3.” Hence the answer is indeed1.Sa1!! followed for example by 1...f3 2.Sb3Kg4 3.Kc2 Kg3 4.Kc3 Kg4 5.Kc4 (see 1b)Kg3 6.Kd5 Kf4 7.Sd2 f2 8.Sf1.

A study like this could now be found bytelling a computer to search the relevant data-base for positions in which the only winningmove is a non-capturing knight move into acorner, but in the 1990s it represented the cul-mination of a great deal of meticulous analy-sis.

Paul Michelet’s 2 (3 HM Diagrammes2001) illustrates an aspect of composition thatis becoming increasingly important: that oftaking an already fine study and making iteven better. 1.b7 forces 1...Sb4/Se5 ready tomeet 2.b8Q by a fork on c6, but 1...Sb4 can bemet by 2.Sd4 whereas 1...Se5 threatens2...Sd7 shutting in the White king (see 2a). Sothe king must set out on his travels: 2.Kb8! (if2.Kb6 then 2...Sd7+ 3.Kc7 Sc5 4.b8Q Sa6+)Sc6+ (now 2...Sd7+ can be met by 3.Kc8Sb6+ 4.Kd8/Kc7) 3.Kc7 (if 3.Kc8 then 3...h3etc) Sb4 (aiming for a6 instead) 4.Kb6 Sd5+

5.Ka7!! (5.Ka6 Sb4+ 6.Ka7 Sc6+) and he hasgone right round his pawn and is back wherehe started (see 2b). But his round trip has de-coyed the Black knight from e5 to d5, leavingonly 5...Sb4/Se7 by which to threaten anotherfork on c6, and in each case 6.Sd4 clinchesmatters. In 1938, Vitaly Halberstadt, using aWhite pawn and a Black knight, made theking go round from a7 via b8 to b6. Paul, add-ing no more than a White knight and a Blackpawn, made him complete the circuit.

3, by Gordon Davies, may serve to illus-trate the always pleasant task of presenting a

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-zp-+k09-+-+Pzp-+09+-+-+-+-09-+N+-+-+09+K+-+-+-0

1 - win

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-zp-+-09-+N+P+k+09+-+-+p+-09-+K+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

1a - 1.Sa3, 3...Kg4

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-zp-+-09-+K+P+k+09+N+-+p+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

1b - main line, 5.Kc4

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09mK-+-+-+-09-zP-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09k+-+-+-zp09+-+n+-+-09-+-+N+-+09+-+-+-+-0

2 - win

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09mKP+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-sn-+-09k+-+-+-zp09+-+-+-+-09-+-+N+-+09+-+-+-+-0

2a - after 1...Se5

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09mKP+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+n+-+-09k+-+-+-zp09+-+-+-+-09-+-+N+-+09+-+-+-+-0

2b - after 5.Ka7


– 318 –

composer’s first published study. 1-3.h8Q e1Qis only a draw, but 1.Sd5 stops the e-pawn;which of the others should Black run? If heplays 1...Kc2 to run the b-pawn, White has2.h6 b3 3.h7 (or 3.Sc3 at once) b2 4.Sc3!Kxc3 5.h8Q+ and a standard win. And if heruns the a-pawn, 1...a4, White’s 2-4.h8Q willcover a1. But if he interpolates 1...e3! 2.Sxe3and then runs the a-pawn, 2...a4 3.h6 a3 4.h7a2, we have 3a, and 5.h8Q a1Q 6.Qxa1 willbe stalemate; White must take a bishop,5.h8B!

Yes, of course this finish has been seen be-fore, but in most existing examples (I think Ifound eight in “Endgame study database III”)the knight is in position at the outset. Gordon,although a newcomer, got a little more workout of it than any of his predecessors haddone, and this seemed to me to be a sufficientjustification for publication. The study has justappeared as the “Answer next time” item inthe March 2009 issue of the British ChessMagazine, and I am sure my readers will en-joy it.

My next example is a position rather than astudy. Back in 2001, I noticed that the winningmaneouvres with K + Q against a widely sepa-rated K + R appeared to be somewhat unsys-tematic, and I speculated that perhaps theending might not be “always won” on boardsbeyond a certain size. In 2004, Marc Bourzut-schky, having adapted a computer program byEugene Nalimov, gave us the answer: it isn’t.On boards up to 15x15, the queen wins unlessBlack can force an immediate mate, stalemate,

capture, or perpetual check. On a 16x16board, the defenders may be able to hold outby continually running away, and the same ispresumably true of all larger boards althoughonly one or two cases were explicitly verified.

There are in fact 21 positions of reciprocalzugzwang on a 16x16 board (Black to moveloses, White to move cannot win). They werepresented in an article I wrote for VariantChess (issue 44, May 2004), the most remark-able being 4 above. Clearly, if a position asopen and unconstrained as this turns out to bereciprocal zugzwang, playing the ending willnot be easy. Using a powerful enquiry pro-gram supplied by Marc, I subsequently identi-fied various classes of drawn position with thedefenders on adjacent squares (side by side or

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-sNK+-+-+09zp-+-+-+P09-zp-+p+-+09+k+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

3 - win

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+P09-+K+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-zp-+-+-+09+k+-sN-+-09p+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

3a - after 4...a2


– 319 –

cornerwise): (a) both men within the central10x10 square d4-m13; (b) king on d3-m3,rook on rank 4; (c) king on f2-k2, rook on rank3. If Black can reach such a position, he drawsunless White can take the rook for nothingwithin three moves. However, it is one thingto classify certain positions as drawn, it isquite another to hold the draw in practice. Allthese positions are won for White on a 15x15board, and if White plays a line which wins onthe 15x15 Black will need to use one of theextra squares in order to survive.

It may be added that a very small boardcramps the queen, and again the ending maynot be “always won”. There are nine positionsof reciprocal zugzwang on a 4x4 board (Brit-ish Endgame Study News, September 2004),and there is one on a 3x3. As far as squareboards are concerned, this “always won” end-ing is in truth a general win only on boardsfrom 5x5 to 15x15 inclusive.

From the very large to the very small. Lastyear, some studies by Artur Mandler causedNoam Elkies to reflect that if we reduced theboard to 5x6, there appeared to be a uniqueposition of reciprocal zugzwang in the nor-

mally drawn ending of K + R v K + R. Hesubsequently exploited it in the elegant little 5.White cannot usefully hold on to his pawn(1.Kd3 Rd1+ 2.Kc2 Kxe3 3.Kxd1 is onlydrawn, just as it would be on the 8x8), but af-ter say 1.Ra3 Black must take the pawn atonce else 2 e3 will win. So try 1.Ra3, going allthe way: no, 1...Kxe2 2.Ra2+ Kd1, and wehave 5a with White to move. Try 1.Rb3: yes,1...Kxe2 2.Rb2+ Kd1 (2...Ke1 3.Ke3) 3.Ra2,and this time it is Black to move. So why not1.Rc3, intending 1...Kxe2 2.Rc2+ Kd1 3.Ra2and the same? Because now Black can play2...Ke1, since after 3.Ke3 Kd1 White has nocheck on the bottom rank. These appeared inthe March 2009 issue of British EndgameStudy News.

For my final example, let us return to the8x8 board and to Diagrammes. I was lucky inreceiving a steady stream of contributionsfrom Mike Bent, who was archetypally acomposer of studies which were good tosolve, and when reprinting 6 (1 HM Dia-grammes 2000) in British Endgame StudyNews I put it on the front page as a “try this

before looking inside” item. If White rescueshis knight he will leave his bishop undefend-ed, but this is the only way to save the gameand 1.Sd2 is the move to choose. Black dulyplays 1...Se6+, but White carefully replies2.Kh4! and after 2...Sxc5 he continues with3.Se4! (see 6a). Now either capture will givestalemate, and everything else loses material.

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-sn-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-vL-+-mK-09k+-+-+-+09zPNsn-+-+P09-+-+-+-+09+-+l+-+-0

6 - draw

XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-sn-+-+-09k+-+N+-mK09zP-sn-+-+P09-+-+-+-+09+-+l+-+-0

6a - after 3...Se4


– 320 –

“Voici une position typiquement bentienne”was a solver’s comment.

A later judge in Diagrammes awarded a“Special Prize” to the totality of Mike’s stud-ies in the two relevant years, on the groundsthat although none of them was individuallyoutstanding, as a set they represented an

achievement which deserved recognition. Al-though it was an unusual award for a judge tomake, I was wholeheartedly in favour. Theyhad entertained people who had paid goodmoney to receive the magazine, and this iswhat chess composition is all about.

From left to right: Geurt Gijsen, Rainer Staudte,John Roycroft (with sk80board),

Harrie Grondijs, Jurgen Stigter and Ed van de Gevel.

(See page 312)

The elaborate greeting is sent to me by Rudolf Larin from Novosibirsk (Siberia) on behalf of‘friends of the late Konstantin Konstantinovich Sukharev’ and is in typical effusive traditional-of-ficial Russian style that is strange to us Westerners, but so familiar to Russians, and is totally un-translatable (even if the words can be translated literally, the style and effect cannot, evocative asthey are of the whole Russian/Soviet past). EG’s readers should be given the chance to experiencesuch a style, whether or not they can fully appreciate it – it will be at the very least a topic of din-ner-table or pub talk! And EG’s Russian (plus other ‘over there’) readers will have their own (var-ying) reactions.

The visual at the foot says “International Day of Chess” and is part and parcel of the whole. Theitalics paragraph preceding the visual records the ‘unanimous approval’ (of the congratulatorygreeting) by the participants of a festival of Siberian Chess at its opening on 18th July 2009. [Ofcourse no one would vote ‘against’!] It is, in other words, unique!

– 321 –

SELECTING AND MARKINGSTUDIES FOR SOLVING

BRIAN STEPHENSON

This paper scratches the surface of a subjectof some controversy. There are several othermatters that need to be sorted out apart fromthose described here, but I have decided in thispaper to concentrate on those I consider to bethe most important.

The paper is in four sections. Section 1 dis-cusses the current WCSC rules regarding theselection of endgame studies. Section 2 con-tains advice and guidance in following thoserules. Section 3 discusses the WCSC rule forthe marking of studies and how it should beinterpreted in practice. Finally, section 4 con-tains recommendations to amend and add tothe WCSC rules.

Section 1A solving director, when setting out to se-

lect studies for a solving tourney (and this pa-per will concentrate on the WCSC), willprobably start by looking at the WCSC rulesfor guidance. He will find there three rules anda recommendation appropriate to studies toassist him. Those rules are:

6.1 The problems to be solved should beoriginals, or, alternatively, little known pub-lished problems.

6.2 The selected problems should show aclear theme and a good level of quality anddifficulty. It is recommended that in everyround, the three problems should representdifferent styles.

6.3 ... retro problems are not allowed. Thepositions should be legal. All problems shouldhave only one solution ... The problems shouldbe computer tested as far as possible.

Recommendation: Studies with just one lineand a clear conclusion are preferable.

Rules 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 apply to problems aswell as studies and so the comments aboutthem in this and the following section are notdirected only at studies. The difficulty withthese rules and recommendations, except 6.3,is that they involve matters of opinion. Whatmay be a little-known study to the directormay perhaps be well-known to several of thesolvers, and therefore easy points. Somethemes (formal ones for instance, like pat-terns) may not be at all clear to some. Qualityis notoriously subjective. Difficulty dependson the strength and experience of the solver.What may be a clear conclusion to a strongplayer or solver can be a mystery to a weakerplayer or solver.

A director would be pleased with his selec-tion if he has succeeded in persuading a ma-jority of the solvers that he has adhered to therules and recommendations referred to in theprevious paragraph: if he has also managed toselect three studies with three different stylesthen, apart from any issues mentioned later insections 3 and 4, he has made a decent start.

Section 2Of course, originals, as long as they accord

with the other rules, are better than non-origi-nals: unless there has been a breach of confi-dentiality, none of the solvers should knowthem, and so all should have a fair chance.However, suitable originals can be difficult toobtain, so a director may be forced to selectpreviously published material. To ensure thatmaterial selected is little known, I would ad-vise that prize-winners are not used, and nei-ther should compositions that have beenquoted in well-known anthologies, especially

Brian Stephenson : Selecting and marking studies for solving

– 322 –

FIDE Albums. Unfortunately, material that islittle known is frequently little-tested and so ismore prone to unsoundness, so a directorshould expect to reject plenty of material be-fore he/she finds something sound and other-wise suitable. I find it normal to spend moretime on the study round of a WCSC than allthe other rounds put together.

Computer testing is mandatory. Not evenstrong solvers/players (if you can find onewho isn’t taking part in the tourney) can beexpected to find all flaws. A modern compu-ter, with up-to-date software, used intelligent-ly, and with attention paid to endgame table-bases, can normally be trusted, though thetester needs to be aware of any areas whichthe software is not able to assess correctly.

The recommendation about studies withjust one line is fine as far as it goes, but thatline must also be recognisable by the majorityof the solvers as the main line. As far as possi-ble refutations of non-mainline black movesshould be short (even if hard to see) and themain line should follow Black’s best play,though it is admitted that the term ‘best play’can be difficult to define.

A director may be forgiven for concluding,after he has rejected studies that are too well-known, prize-winning, unsound or unclear,that there are not too many left to choosefrom.

Selection 3Rule 8(d) of the WCSC rules, which de-

scribes what is required of the solver, says “Inendgames: all moves up to an obvious win ordraw.” This is the only rule that the directorand the solvers have to guide them and, giventhat an obvious win or draw can be unobviousfor some solvers and directors, it is absolutelyno help whatsoever!

Different directors have approached thislack of guidance in their own ways. What fol-lows is merely my way of doing things anddoesn’t carry any official weight.

Composers spend little time ensuring thatsupporting variations are dual-free. To save

the director much time in testing them forsoundness, to forestall protests about duals inthem and to avoid having to list all the duals inthe model solution, I always announce that Ishall be giving points for the composer’s in-tended main line only. This was not my origi-nal idea – I borrowed it from John Beasley,director of the WCSC in 1994. For severalyears now I have printed the following guid-ance on the study round sheets at the WintonCapital British Chess Solving Championship:

“Points will only be given for the compos-er’s intended main line, which may split, frommove 2 onwards, into more than a single line,depending on Black’s replies. This intentioncomprises the only line(s) that the composerhas ensured will be sound (i.e. dual free) andit is possible that it does not follow Black’sstrongest move(s). Give all moves in that lineleading to a win (draw) while White’s winning(drawing) move is unique, even down to amate (stalemate) where it is the only way towin (draw). This may involve moves that somemay consider trivially easy, but just pretendyou are facing an opponent who has to beshown! If you are not sure what the compos-er’s intention is, then give all lines that yousee. Assuming that the study is sound, if aBlack defence allows White more than onemove that wins (draws) then it is either not thecomposer’s intention or you have come to theend of the intention. None of the above shouldbe taken as implying that lines that are not thecomposer’s intention will contain duals!”

A mouthful, of course, but I have had fewprotests in the study round of that competitionin recent years.

Some solvers get angry at being asked togive moves that they consider trivial, for in-stance sequences leading to what to them is asimple mate or stalemate. Solving can’t be allabout tearing your hair out trying to decidewhat move comes next! Sometimes the trivialis inevitably present and the current markingrules for problems dictate that it has to be giv-en. We can help dispel any doubts and stopany protests in the study round by employing

Brian Stephenson : Selecting and marking studies for solving

– 323 –

a similar rule, such as the instructions as Iquote above, for studies.

In the last few years, following requestsfrom solvers, I have only given marks for se-quences of moves ending in a white move. Asfar as I understand it, this seems to be becausethat is how we mark problems and the solverswant consistency. To be honest, I don’t reallyagree. I have two reasons: (1) studies are notproblems and we shouldn’t necessarily markthem the same way (even bearing in mindwhat I have written in the previous para-graph!) (2) seeing good Black moves can beas difficult as seeing good White moves andthe solver should be rewarded in a similarway. Having said all that, I am prepared to ac-cept and follow such a rule if it is made offi-cial.

Section 4To my mind a solving director’s job should

be all about following the rules and only usingdiscretion when something happens that fallsoutside the rules. This is why I have consist-ently argued for the title ‘director’ rather than‘judge’. When each director uses his discre-tion differently, solvers are in the difficult po-sition of not knowing what is expected of

them and they understandably complain of alack of consistency. I know that I havechanged my opinions over the years and prob-ably other directors have too, so solvers some-times don’t get consistent treatment evenwhen they think they know what a particulardirector wants. All of this causes protests andappeals, which would not happen if we hadsome clear marking rules. Even if some solv-ers disagreed with some rules, at least theywould know what was expected of them. Iknow that protests are allowed for in the rules,but they take up valuable time, delay resultsand cause bad feeling. The aim should be toavoid them whenever possible. The best wayof doing this is to rigidly follow a set of clearrules. There should be only two reasons for aprotest: (1) when a solver believes that the di-rector hasn’t followed the rules and (2) fornew situations not so far covered in the rules.

I believe that we could make a good begin-ning by adding to the rules the guidance I havequoted in Section 3 above. This alone won’tstop all the trouble of course and we should beprepared to add further to the rules as situa-tions occur. Eventually, additions to the ruleswill become rare.

– 324 –

EARLY DAYS OF EG,AND THE NEW STATESMAN

PAUL VALOIS

I first met John Roycroft on March 19th1965 in the chess room at the St Bride’s Insti-tute, London. This was the occasion when theChess Endgame Study Circle (CESC) wasfounded and the decision to publish AJR’sbrainchild, the magazine EG, was taken. Elev-en people were present, six of them no longerwith us (Mike Bent, Hugh Blandford, GeorgeFisher, Don Stallybrass, Walter Veitch andBob Wade). Five are still hale and hearty, Bar-ry Barnes and Adam Sobey (both earlier thisyear at the BCPS Harrogate weekend), JohnTaylor (still competing in the British SolvingChampionship), AJR and myself. I was namedGeneral Editor, and indeed I edited the firsttwo issues of EG; if they strike you as a bitthreadbare, that is why! From issue 3 on-wards, John quite rightly took over the editor-ship and found a new publisher, Drukkerij vanSpijk (the start of the Dutch connection). Icontinued to contribute for a while, especiallywith translations from Russian, but “GeneralEditor” was not really correct after issue 2.But other people were coming in to help, nota-bly Walter Veitch with his column “WalterVeitch Investigates” from issue 3 onwards,starting a tradition of checking the soundnessand originality of studies published in EGwhich is very much alive today. The first issueof EG appeared in July 1965, in which its firstdiagram was the AJR original which gracesthe wrapper of Test Tube Chess, and also theback of a jersey knitted long ago and wornonce more by AJR on June 13th at the MaxEuwe Centrum. The stated aim of EG was toreproduce the finest recent original studies,though this soon changed to the publication ofrecent study awards, still a major feature ofEG. EG became known for its up-to-date re-

viewing of study and endgame books (a taskwhich AJR is still carrying out 40 years later),and for its attention to the computer side. AJRwas the first to report on the work of KenThompson, and also the first to publish lists ofreciprocal zugzwangs. By January 1966 therewere 110 subscribers. There never seemed tobe enough subscribers for financial viability,yet John kept the magazine going. A greatscoop for him was the article “The techniqueof study composition” by Kasparyan, whichappeared in issue 6 (October 1966); Kaspary-an’s method of showing the various positionsthrough which his studies travelled beforereaching final form was repeated in his bookTainy etyudista (1984). John also started anextensive scheme of exchanges, which, partic-ularly in the case of the former Soviet Union,allowed John to receive many magazines andstudy awards and to build up a network ofcontacts in that country (fortified by numerousvisits in person). Another purpose of theCESC was to hold meetings; the first of them,in October 1965, at St Bride’s featured a lec-ture by Adam Sobey on “The modern minia-ture”. Subsequently, the meetings moved toJohn’s workplace at IBM in central London.After his retirement, the quarterly meetingstransferred to John’s house in north London(food provided by his wife Betty), and sincethe start of 2009 they have moved back toCentral London, at Pushkin House (very ap-propriately for such a Russophile as John!).

I found out about the EG-foundation meet-ing from a notice in the New Statesman,whose remarkable chess column, which con-tributed so much to the UK study scene, wasconducted between 1949 and 1976 by “Assi-ac”. This was Heinrich Fraenkel (1897-1986),

Paul Valois : Early days of EG, and the New Statesman

– 325 –

a German Jew. In the 1920s, he became a filmcorrespondent and screen writer in Berlin, in-cluding 2 years spent in Hollywood. He leftGermany upon the Reichstag fire in 1933,eventually settling in Britain. After the war, hebecame well-known for his biographies (withRoger Manvell) of Goebbels, Goering,Himmler and Hess. He was a very culturedman and I remember him in the 1960s and1970s as always being very dapper with abow-tie. In 1949, his friendship with NewStatesman editor Kingsley Martin led to himstarting a chess column on May 7th, 1949.This lasted until 24th September 1976, whenAssiac was unceremoniously dropped as col-umnist in favour of GM Tony Miles. Someamends were made when a later columnist,George Botterill, got the magazine to an-nounce an Assiac Memorial Tourney in 1987,the award appearing between December 1988and February 1989. Chess ceased in the NewStatesman in 2000. Assiac was a natural jour-nalist, and he would write about recent tourna-ments, new books (frequently from Germany),game or study topics that caught his fancy.There were some problems in the column, butAssiac concentrated on studies (saying thatthere were plenty of other sources that fea-tured problems). Each issue would have agame position plus 2 studies to be solved, withchess book tokens for the winners (AJR wasone of several solvers who won regularly).The first formal tourney for studies was in1950-51, and subsequently Assiac got into thehabit of announcing a new study tourney eve-ry time the serial number of his columnreached a century mark. Originals which ap-peared in the column itself were never in-volved in any tourney.

In the third tourney, AJR won 3rd prizewith the study V1. In this aesthetically pleas-ing position (all units on white squares),White wins by: 1.Sf4+ Kg7 2.Sxg6 Sc5+3.Kd5 Kxh7 4.Bc2. Now bS is in trouble, forif 4...Sd7 5.Sf8+ wins. The main line is4...Sb7 5.Se5+,Se7+ (an organic dual) Kg76.Sc6 (trapping bS, but also stopping wK from

V1. John Roycroft3rd prize New Statesman 1954XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+k+P09-+-+-+n+09+-+N+-+-09-+-+K+-+09+L+n+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

e4f7 0017.10 Win

getting at it) Kf7 7.Ba4 (preventing bK fromhelping bS by 7...Ke8, because of 8.Sa5+, an-other discovered check) Kf8 8.Bb5 Kf7 9.Ba6Kf8 10.Bxa6 wins. The other line of the solu-tion is 4...Sa6 5.Kd6 Sb4 6.Bb1 Kg7 7.Se5Kf8 8.Sd7+ Ke8 9.Sc5 Kd8 10.Bf5 Ke811.Se6 Kf7 12.Bb1 Kf6 13.Sc7 and now wKcan capture bS. AJR was joint judge for theNew Statesman tourneys from 1965 onwards.

V2. A. HerbergNew Statesman 2vii1955XIIIIIIIIY9-+-tr-+-mk09+-+P+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-tr09+-mK-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+RtR-0

c3h8 0800.10 Win

A nice feature of this tourney was that afterthe 2nd prizewinner, a double-rook study byHerberg, was cooked by New Statesman read-ers, the German composer dedicated study 2to them, challenging the New Statesman“Kraftlöser”, as he called them, to cook it.1.Rf7 (threatening 2.Rgf1 and 3.Rf8+) Rd42.Rh1+ Kg8 3.Rhh7 Rh4 4.Rhg7+ Kh85.Rg5 (threatening 6.Rgf5 and 7.Rf8+) Rd46.Rf8+ Rxf8 7.Kxd4 Rd8 8.Rd5 wins.


– 326 –

V3. Don H.R. StallybrassNew Statesman 8ix1961XIIIIIIIIY

9-+-+-+-mk09+-+-+-+p09-+-+-zP-zP09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-mK-+-09-+-tr-tRptR09+-+-+-+-0

e3h8 0500.22 Win

Most of the originals appeared when Assiachad a “Readers Own” column, featuringgames, positions and compositions sent in byreaders. Most of the studies were light but sat-isfying affairs, such as V3, where wK avoidsthe desperado rook after: 1.Rhxg2 Rd3+2.Kf4 Rd4+ 3.Kg5 Rd5+ 4.Kh4 Rh5+ 5.Kg4Rh4+ 6.Kf5 Rf4+ 7.Kg5. Assiac’s columnundoubtedly stimulated a generation of Britishstudy composers such as AJR himself, EricAllan, C.J. Morse (before the task twomoverclaimed him), Danny Cohen, Don Stallybrass,J.R. Harman, Adam Sobey, Timothy Whit-worth and others. Someone who was a goodsupporter of the column was Harold Lommer,who acted many times as tourney judge.

V4. H.M. LommerNew Statesman 15v1954XIIIIIIIIY

9-+-+-+-sN09zp-zpkzp-mK-09P+-+-+-+09zP-+-+-+R09-+-+-+-zP09+-+-zp-+-09-+-+p+-+09+-+-+-+-0

g7d7 0101.35 Win

V4 is very pleasant: 1.Rd5+ Ke6 2.Sg6Kxd5 3.Sf4+ Ke4 4.Sxe2 Kf3 5.Sc3 Kg46.Kg6 (a Réti-like feint) Kxh4 7.Kf5 andWhite wins. If 1...Kc6 2.Sg6 and as per the so-lution. Or 1...Kc8 2.Sf7 c6 3.Rc5 e1Q4.Rxc6+ Kd7 5.Se5+ Kd8 6.Sf7+ perpetualcheck. And if 1...Ke8 2.Sf7 e6 3.Rd8+ Ke74.Se5 Kxd8 5.Sd3,Sf3 wins. This sub-text of 4mates by wR and wS after bK diagonal flightswas later developed by Lommer (see TestTube Chess, diagram 151).

V5. J.N. Baxter2nd prize New Statesman 1961XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+lmk-+-+09+p+p+p+p09-+-mK-zPp+09zP-+-zP-zP-09-+-+-+-zP09+-+-+L+-0

d4d6 0040.55 Win

One more incident in the New Statesmandeserves to be mentioned. In 1961, judges Ha-rold Lommer and André Chéron gave 2ndprize to the Tasmanian composer Dr J.N. Bax-ter for V5. Black has weak pawns at b5,d5 andf5 which bB must defend, and White willeventually win by exchanging off a3 and b5,and getting his bishop to e8. There are conju-gate squares here, and ...Bd7 by Black losesimmediately to Bd3. White starts: 1.h4 (butnot 1.h3? Bd7 draws) Be8 (1...gxh3 e.p.would open up bPh5 for attack as well) 2.Be2Bc6 3.Bd1 Bd7 4.Bb3 (4.Bc2? Be6! draws)Be6 5.Bc2 (5.a4? is premature, for after5...bxa4 6.Bxa4 Bf7 and wB cannot get to e8)Bc8 6.a4 bxa4 7.Bxa4 Be6 8.Be8 Bg8 9.Bxh5wins. Further comments on this study aremade by John Beasley in British EndgameStudy News.


– 327 –

V6. André ChéronNew Statesman 10xi1961XIIIIIIIIY9-+-mk-+-+09+-+l+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+p+p+p+p09-+-+-zPp+09zP-+-+-zP-09-+-+P+-zP09+-+-+LmK-0

g1d8 0040.55 Win

Chéron said that he studied this “conjugatesquares” position for 4 months before the

award appeared, and for a further 6 months af-ter it, producing V6, which cleverly extendsBaxter’s work. Chéron called it “the most pro-found study that I have composed”. wK mustclearly get to d4 first, so we start with: 1.Kf2Kc6 2.Ke3 Kd6 3.Kd4 Bc6. Now 4.e3? willnot win against 4...Be8! and White must gaina tempo by means of 4.h3 Be8 5.Bg2 Bc66.h4 (6.e3? Bb7!) Ba8 7.Bf1 (threatening 8.e4and forcing Black’s next) Bc6 8.e3 Be8, andnow we have the same position as in Baxterafter 1.h4 Be8. White wins as before by 9.Be2Bc6 10.Bd1 Bd7 11.Bb3 Be6 12.Bc2 Bc813.a4 bxa4 14.Bxa4 Be6 15.Be8. A remarka-ble extension of Baxter’s position!

From left to right: Rainer Staudte, Geurt Gijsen, John Roycroft,Harrie Grondijs and Ed van de Gevel.

– 328 –

BENT (MT AWARD)STRAIGHTENED

JOHN ROYCROFT

cf. EG173 July 2008 (the definitive awardfollowing publication of the provisional awardin The Problemist in July 2007)

The studies in this award did not let EGreaders down, but the text, alas, did. It was asad failure to ‘get it right first time’, a maga-zine’s duty to subscribers.

Firstly, the year ‘2007’ was in error, be-cause the closing date for entries was30vi2006. Secondly, the now included photoof Mike Bent in mid-air volleying at the net,taken at the Woolton Hill club, where he morethan once won the singles championship, wasinexplicably omitted. It was one of two fa-vourite photos chosen by Mike’s widow Viola.Our third point is the omission, also tardilymade good here, of the comments by the tour-ney’s only FIDE judge on the (finally) hon-oured entries. Number four: the word‘stubborn’ is used with no supporting evi-dence, an innuendo directed at – whom? Fifth-ly, and lastly, the present writer is stated tohave withdrawn ‘when most of the work hadbeen done’, implying a dereliction of duty onhis part. In fact the opposite was the case, asthe facts show.

Detail is crucial. A major principle, part ofany experienced judge’s armoury, is highlyrelevant. It is that before a ranking can bemade all eliminations for anticipation and un-soundness must be established. A friendlymeeting of the three judges (David Friedgood,Timothy Whitworth and AJR) took place onSaturday 28th October 2006 for this purpose,enjoying Timothy’s hospitality at his house inCambridge.

Meanwhile the October 2006 EG166 hadappeared with ‘50 word’ statements by ‘the

three Johns’ Beasley, Nunn and Roycroft.These set out their (distinct) standpoints onthe live ‘big topic’, namely the judging of ‘da-tabase’ studies. Naturally I expected my fel-low judges to take cognisance, especially asneither of my good friends had at that timemade comparable public statements of theirown.

At Cambridge eliminations were agreedwith little difficulty, leaving two cases unre-solved, of which one was controversial. Thestrongest analyst of us being David Friedgood,he undertook to settle the soundness poser‘before Christmas’. Fully expecting this tohappen I gained time by preparing my judge’scomments on all likely candidates for honours(a normal practice in any case), never doubt-ing that my co-judges would use the time tothe same effect. In this way the desirable si-multaneous publication of the provisionalaward in January 2007 in both The Problemist(it was a tourney of the BCPS) and EG wouldbe eminently feasible.

So what happened next? Nothing, despitee-mails to and fro. Weeks, indeed months,passed. Christmas and New Year too.

It was not until early April 2007 that the an-alytical knot was unravelled – the entry wassound. The moment that that was established,and not before, it became possible to ex-change final rankings. I did so at once, in ac-cordance, where appropriate, with my EG166judging principles. Only then did it emerge, tomy great surprise, that Timothy and Davidboth dissented. Within 48 hours I had with-drawn from judging.

AJR’s comments (but only on studies in thefinal award) made before publication of the

John Roycroft : Bent (MT award) straightened

– 329 –

provisional award, and irrespective of rank-ing.

EG17316474 Attractive positional draw with re-

ciprocal zugzwangs.16475 Letztform!16476 When compared with the content the

economy of material leaves something to bedesired.

16477 Prolonged tactical-practical, withwK already in check.

16478 ‘5.Qxh6’ raises an eyebrow, if notboth.

16479 (not selected)16480 The disguised introduction is an im-

provement on the partial anticipation.16481 Wide variety of play and counter-

play in a game-like setting.

C.M. Bent

– 330 –

*C* GBR CLASS 0023 – A WIN.WHAT ABOUT 0061.10?

JOHN ROYCROFT

Two bishops win against a knight. Supposewe add a pawn alongside the knight, whatthen?

If the pawn can promote safely that willwin, so we shall disregard such cases. But thepawn can be a serious handicap, tying theknight, which values its mobility, down to thedefence. Unless there is a fortress, such posi-tions are lost, for bishops in general can lose amove, while a knight cannot. In addition, theking of the bishops, since it cannot be perma-nently incarcerated, will always threaten toapproach the pawn.

Therefore, barring rare exceptions and thepawn exercising threats to advance, a fortressrequires the edge of the board to be an ally, soas to provide defensible breathing space.

The best pawn for such a fortress will sure-ly be a bishop’s pawn on the third rank, onefeels. But before we look more closely at thebishop’s pawn let’s examine a relatively ad-vantageous position for White, with a centrepawn on, say d2. Surely there won’t be adraw?

[All the moves in our examples are selectedusing the user-friendly online k4it EikoBleicher ‘Nalimov’ site, its ’take back’ optionbeing, we believe, due to a suggestion wemade to Eiko. As usual, ‘*’ denotes a uniquefor the purpose, and whenever there is just onealternative, and that move is made next, weparenthesise it. Move numbers are omitted asbeing a distraction, since depth (the distancemetric is to mate, not to conversion) is somuch more important. To assist in followingthe play we group moves (paired plies) at nomore than five to a line. ]

R1 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-vl-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-mK-+09+-+-+-+l09-+NzP-+-+09+-+-+-+k0

f4h1 0061.10 WTM

With wK and wS centralised Black facesdifficulties, not because of a fortress or a pris-on, but because of the pawn’s ability to ad-vance, each time with greater potential andfacing Black with a hard choice of whether tomove his king or a bishop.d4, Kg2 {99}; d5, *Bc7+; Ke4, *Kg3;Se3, Kh4 (Bd8); d6, *Bd8; Sd5, *Kg5;Ke5, *Bg4; Se7, Bd7 (Bb6); Kd5, *Bb6;Sc6, *Kf6; Sb8, *Ba4; Sa6, Bg1;Sc5, *Bb5; Se6, Kf7; Sg5+, Ke8;Sf3, Bf2; Se5, Bg3; Ke6, *Kd8;Kd5, Ba4; Sd3, Bd1; Sc5, Be2;Sb7+, Kc8 [Ke8? *Kc6]; Sc5, Bh2; Ke6, Bg1;Sb3 Bg4+; Ke7, Bf2; wins.

From this we see that White can make anuisance of himself, once his pawn is suffi-ciently advanced: by ‘marking time’ verymuch as he does in the 5-man pawnless ver-sion; by threatening in turn one or other ofBlack’s men; and in the final phase by ‘con-fining’ bK to his home rank – with the pawn’sassistance. But Black has tempo-resources toovercome these obstacles, despite being una-ble to drive wK out of the centre. But it is

John Roycroft : *C* GBR class 0023 – a win. What about 0061.10?

– 331 –

small surprise to learn that if Black starts offjust one whit worse then d2-d4 will draw.

R2 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-vl09+-+-sN-+l09-+-zPK+k+09+-+-+-+-0

e2g2 0061.10 BTM

Kg3 {80}; or Kh2 {94};. But Kg1? or Kh1?both draw to *d2-d4.

Now for the cP.

R3 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+l+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+N+-vl-+-09-+P+-+-+09+K+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09mk-+-+-+-0

b3a1 0061.10WTM draws, BTM wins

BTM: *Bg3 {101}; Sc3, *Bf2; Se4, *Be3; Sf6,*Bc6; Sd5, Bc5/Bf2;

– and Black has made progress. White is al-most paralysed and bK soon gets a piece ofthe action. The pawn, which is no threat, willbe lost. Choosing Bc5; (instead of Bf2;) wemight continue: Sb4, *Bg2; Sd3, *Be7; Sf4, Bc6;Sd5, Bf8; Sc3, Bf3; Kc2, Bh5;Kb3, Bf7; Sd5, Kb1{89};

WTM (sample line): Sc3, Bd4; *Sa4, Bc6; Sc3, Bf2;*Sa4, Kb1; *c5, Be1; Sb6, Bb5;

Sa4, Kc1; Sb6, Ba5; Sc4, Be1;Sd6, Bc6; Sc8, Kd2; Sa7, Bf3;*c6, Bg3; Kc4, Bb8; *Kb5, Bxa7;*Ka6, Bf2; *c7, Bg4; *Kb7, Bf3+;*Ka6, draw.

The pawn, we infer, must be pushed beforeBlack can activate his monarch. Obvious, re-ally, as the pawn is White’s only major card.There must be many similar draws based onan advanced pawn.

Let’s see if there is a draw with wPc4.

R4 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-vl-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+P+-+-+09+-mK-+-+-09-+-sN-+-+09+k+l+-+-0

c3b1 0061.10 BTM

Ka1? *c5 draws.Kc1? *Se4 draws: Bf3; *Sg5, Bg2; *Se6, Be7;and now c5, and Sf4, both draw.

But *Ka2 {79}; wins, because bK gets intoplay.

So, now we consider our money-on conjec-ture for a fortress, ie wPc3.

R5 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-vl-+09+-+-+l+-09-+k+-+-+09+-zP-+-+-09NmK-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

b2c4 0061.10 WTM

WTM has *Ka3, and if BTM plays Be7;then this allows a S-move, for either b4 or c1

John Roycroft : *C* GBR class 0023 – a win. What about 0061.10?

– 332 –

is safe, when wS is ready to return. Simple!Yes, it’s a fortress.

Can Black’s position be improved?

R6 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-vl-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-zP-+-+-09NmKlmk-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

b2d2 0061.10 WTM

But there s still no zugzwang. WTM Ka1,or Ka3, suffice, as the ‘well-placed’ bBc2 ac-tually blocks the square bK hankers after, butif the light bishop is on any other aggressivesquare then either b3 or b1 is made safe forwK.

Or:

R7 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+k+-+-+09+-zP-+-+-09NmK-vl-+-+09+-+l+-+-0

b2c4 0061.10 WTM

WTM *Ka3 is perfectly safe, and it is thesame if the light bishop is on a4..

The only win seems to be:

R8 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-+-vl-+-09-+-+l+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+-+-+09+-zP-+-+-09N+-+-+-+09+K+k+-+-0

b1d1 0061.10 BTM

Here *Ba3; wins. But this set-up can neverbe forced. WTM always has either Kb2, orSb4, to draw.

And an odd position?

R9 *C*XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+-vl-+-+-09-+-+-mk-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-+KzP-+09+-+-sN-+l09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

e4f6 0061.10 BTM

A fork is threatened, so either bK or hisdark bishop must shift. But then *f5, follows,after which the light bishop is movebound –surprisingly, the blockade of the bishop cannotbe lifted, provided White deploys his king toprevent bK from reaching, especially, g3when BTM *Bf4; wins (though WTM mayhave *f6, as a saver). That position (withbBf4) is not even a zugzwang because BTMhas *Bg5;. But with the dark bishop not ini-tially vulnerable to an immediate fork (say onb8) Black wins, by playing his light bishop toc8, to d7 or to e6.

– 333 –

CHARM 1

JOHN ROYCROFT

The word ‘charm’ is a favourite of minewhen drafting an award. I’m always on thelook-out for this quality. When I find charm ina study, I mark it up.1

But what is charm? Is it as elusive and cir-cular as the standard dictionary definition sug-gests?

As far as studies are concerned I have ananswer, one that combines the two senses ofwhat a definition is as recognised by Aristotle,namely: listing the attributes; and listing thecomponents, which in classical formal logic iscalled ‘extension’.

Here goes.Charm in a study is: the cumulative effect of

two or more distinct features, each one simplein itself, integrated into the whole without lossof economy.

A study without charm may be impressivein many respects but will not persist in thememory for as long as a study with charm.Heaviness loses out to lightness.

C.M. Bent2XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09vL-+-+-+-09P+-vl-+-+09+-+-+-+-09L+-+-+-+09zp-mk-+-+K09-+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0

h3c3 0050.11 Win

An ideal example is to hand. It was foundamong some 70 diagrams in the papers of thelate Mike Bent. All were clipped together witha covering scrap reading PROBABLY NOTGOOD ENOUGH.

1.Bd4+ Kxd4 2.a7 a2 3.a8Q a1Q 4.Qa7+!!(Qh8+?) and bQ is lost next move.

position after 3...a1QXIIIIIIIIY9Q+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-09-+-vl-+-+09+-+-+-+-09L+-mk-+-+09+-+-+-+K09-+-+-+-+09wq-+-+-+-0

h3d4 4040.00 3/3

The following features contribute to thestudy’s charm:

1. A natural position.2. A miniature.3. Following the sacrificial key bK has

complete mid-board freedom of movement:eight flights replace five.

4. If White plays 2.Bb3? to stop the blackaP, the opponent mirrors the manoeuvre withhis own bishop.

5. The temptation 4.Qh8+? is met by4...Bf6.

6. The foregoing defence Bf6; is obviatedby the minimalist change of line for wQ after4.Qa7+!! The space-devouring power of the

1. First published in John Beasley’s British Endgame Study News in ix.2008.2. Mike’s manuscript has wKg2. The correction to h3 is due to John Beasley.

John Roycroft : Charm

– 334 –

queen is effective here only with this insignifi-cant move.

7. After 4.Qa7+!! bK may move to any oftwo dark, or four light, squares. The dark al-ternatives are met by 5.Qg7+, when interfer-ence by bB is invalidated, and the lightalternatives allow a bishop check (with duals)followed by wQa7xbQa1. The shorter diago-nal (from g7 to a1) works while the longer(h8-a1) failed.

8. The ‘interference’ 4...Bc5 is a ‘thematic’bonus. There is a diagonal echo in that the c5-

d4 black piece-pair relationship also crops upon d6-e5 in a deliciously compact transfer ofblocking.

9. bB’s contributions permeate every line ofplay, with perfect economy of force.

10. wK does not participate but remainsseated in the h3 ‘Royal Box’ loggia. Throughopera glasses he serenely and approvingly ob-serves the coronation of his consort and herarrival on the discreet square a7

.

– 335 –

REVIEWS

Editor:JOHN ROYCROFT

Studien für Praktiker, Mark Dvoretsky andOleg Pervakov. 2009. 256 pages. ISBN978-3-933365-14-9. Hard cover. In Ger-man (from the Russian).

There is no GBR code diagram retrieval fa-cility, and exact sources are omitted – the au-thors chose not to repeat Van der Heijdendatabase data – from this genuinely rich as-sembly of nearly 200 fine studies (and a fewgame extracts) targeting players rather thanstudies enthusiasts. Not being an active playerI cannot tell if the aim succeeds – only saleswill tell this – but the chapter grouping cer-tainly helps. However, there is no doubt at allthat any studies enthusiast will gain muchpleasure from this volume, which is the latestin the Jusupow series.

The award of the Dvoretsky jubilee tourneyrun for the celebrated trainer occupies over 30pages and is the sole joint contribution, withcommentary smoothly alternating. Followingthat are two Pervakov ‘thematic’ selections,then 100 pages from Dvoretsky paying hom-age to Austrian composer Alois Wotawa with35 solving ‘exercises’ and then inviting play-er-readers to pair off to take sides ‘over-the-board’ in tackling complex, double-edgedstudies. The last section is Pervakov’s, with apersonal selection of stimulating themes and,finally, studies by world champions and lead-ing players.

Presentation and commentary are firstclass. Stipulations are replaced by emoticon‘smileys’, black blobs signal BTM, and theplentiful diagrams, usually several to eachstudy, ‘framed’ on all four sides by diminutivea-h and 1-8 edgings, are unnumbered. Thereader-friendly effect of this is a reduction ofdiagram clutter – all one needs is some knowl-edge of the German language.

This new title was a great present to mefrom Yochanan Afek, who could not attend theEuwe Centre event, but arrived in Amsterdamlater.

Within Nalimov’s Enclosure, Harrie Gron-dijs. 2009. 24 pages. Edition size: 35(5 handbound). No ISBN. “Nalimov in-strument: www.k4it.de .” Harrie’s presentation at the Euwe Centre

was the climax, the Usain Bolt of the day. Hewas unstoppable, and since he confesses him-self incapable of producing a summary, theonus is on me to give some account of whatthose few of us who were there experienced,and of which this small book of microscopicedition size seems to be the only evidence.

Harrie extrapolates today’s 6-man Nalimovdatabases to the ultimate 32. His metaphor is agarden with limitless black and white flowers,which are not chess positions but which repre-sent chess positions, each one unique. Thegarden is complete. Exiguous paths (moves)link certain flowers, and each flower is la-belled with its Nalimov truth value. At the farend of the garden is an enclosure where everyflower has one of three truth labels: mate,stalemate or “un-winnable”.

Harrie does not stop there. He launchess ustowards a meta-chess galaxy. In his ownwords, “We can play games of a secondary or-der, games with the shape of the solutions [atrail ending in the certified ‘Won Zone’], theirrepresentation, the way the positions connect..... The Enclosure of Nalimov is not a normalgarden: it is a graveyard: all games have beenplayed for all to see and play with.”

Harrie proceeds to demonstrate his thesiswith an example – an extrapolation of his ownon the David Joseph theme, accompanied by asort of graph, which we reproduce.

Reviews

– 336 –

H. Grondijs, 1994NeverEnding Quest of Type C, Volume A,

The Endgame Study-As-ProblemXIIIIIIIIY9rmk-mK-+-+09+p+-+-+-09-zP-+-+-+09+-+-+-zpQ09-+-+-+-zp09+-+-+-+-09-+p+-+-+09+-+-+q+-0

d8b8 4300.23 3/7 Win

Harrie expounds: it is a “complete logicalform. Two incorrect solving paths are boltedtogether to form a single correct path.” .... “If,starting from diagram 1, I turn left 1.Qe8 withthe intention 1...Qf7 2.Qe5 and mate, then1...Qf5! defeats [the microscopic word on thegraph is ‘REFUTATION’] me. If I turn right1.Qh8 Qa1, then, likewise, after 2.Qe8 Qg7defeats me. The solution is that I do turn to theright initially, but then after 1.Qh8 Qa1 justbefore the point of refutation, I cross over a

bridge to the other side with 2.Qg8 Qa23.Qe8 Qf7 4.Qe5+ and mate."

Harrie treats of other database related mat-ters too, with sub-headings Nalimov’s laby-rinth, Serendipity, The Nalimov challengeto study composition, Embellishment (i.e.,one approach to the database dilemma), Cor-rections (a rich field), Seeking out Duals inthe Nalimov Enclosure, and Scientific Anal-ysis. A huge mouthful for such a small book.

Pages 12 and 13 have 16 further diagrams,the inevitable 4-man Saavedra being no.12.There is food for thought in Harrie’s commen-tary for depth-conscious composers whochoose ‘database’ lines of play.

“After 1.c7 {26} Rd6+ {25} 2.Kb5 {25}Rd5+ {24} 3.Kb4 {24}, it appears that 3...Kb2{23} is the best move, i.e. deferring mate long-est, whereas the logically best move to hu-mans is 3...Rd4+ {20}, after which move4.Kb3/Kc3 {20} is a minor dual of little con-sequence, but after 4.Kb3 {20} Rd3+ {19}5.Kc2 {19}, 5...Rf3 {18} is stronger than theaesthetically much more pleasing 5...Rd4+{7}.”

– 337 –

SNIPPETS

Editor:JOHN ROYCROFT

1. – What connects chess nymph CAISSAand the relationship between the diameter andcircumference of a circle, or π? Answer: Wil-liam Jones. But not the same William Jones.Known as ‘Oriental’ Jones (1746-1794) fromhis familiarity with eastern languages the au-thor of the famous chess poem was the son ofa mathematician of the same name (1675-1749) who ought to be better known. The page

reproduced here is from Palmariorum Math-esos which he published in 1706 and showsthe very first use of the Greek letter with itsmodern meaning. This was a year before the

birth of the genius Swiss mathematician Leon-hard Euler whose name is commonly associat-ed with this claim of first usage.

2. – Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977) is wellknown to chessplayers as the Russian born,but later naturalised American, author of thenovel The Defence (Эащита Лужина), thetragedy of a grandmaster who commits sui-cide. The book contains a single reference tothe endgame, where an incomplete positionwith five white pieces is mentioned, but noblack ones. But Nabokov also became serious-ly hooked on composing chess problems.There seems to be no record of him compos-ing a study, but that he was familiar with themis abundantly clear from his autobiographySpeak, Memory. In the course of Chapter 14he describes in some detail the pleasures ofcomposing and lists the features of nationalschools – finishing off with praise of the Rus-sian school of endgame studies.

3. – Issue 2/2009 of the Ukrainian compo-sition magazine Problemist Ukrainy devotesno fewer than eight of its 84 pages to AJR’s80th. My English autobiographical text, fivephotos (the earliest shows me at nine years ofage) and five studies have all been retained.Translation into Russian (chiefly by SergeiDidukh, but also Sergei N. Tkachenko) isbravely tackled. OK, there were cross-culturalpitfalls, e.g. ‘dormitory, ‘Charing Cross’,‘Foyles’, ‘public school’ and ‘Bank of Eng-land’. [“общежитие“, “Charring Cross”,“Foyle”, "государственного" and "одном избанков", are wholly excused.] But "дурацкимжуком" for the V1 (Vergeltungswaffe Eins)‘doodle-bug’ isn't bad at all! My gratitude andadmiration are unbounded.

– 338 –

FAREWELL!

JOHN ROYCROFT

The magazine’s founder and long-servingchief editor has decided to take the wise ad-vice of whoever it was who said ‘quit whileyou’re ahead’. The sporting scene is litteredwith heroes who tried to ‘make a come-back’and didn’t make it, with the spectacular – andalways fleeting – exception. That mistake, atleast, will be avoided.

But I’m already suffering withdrawalsymptoms. I wonder who will take over themantles of obtaining and preparing awardsfrom Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Cauca-sus, and of reviewing books. I’ll get over it,and may occasionally offer something – themore unpredictable the better, to keep you onyour toes! – to the supremely computer-com-petent specialists already in place.

I thank everyone – not so few no longerwith us – for their support and encouragementover the years, including umpteen correspond-ents in FSU-land. Readers may not know thatARVES has generously maintained my dec-ades-old ‘tradition’ of sending EG at nocharge to up to 45 addressees ‘over there’. Thepurpose was long-term reciprocity in the formof awards, information, and magazine ex-changes – and the unexpected. It has been aroller-coaster ride but enormously rewarding.

Maybe I’ll still be around when EG over-comes the hurdles of going 100% on-line. Iwish the best of good fortune to you all andespecially to my successors in maintaining thehighest standards of EG, summed up in theideal of ‘getting it right first time’.

14ix2009

STUDY OF THE YEAR 2008The Study of the Year award for 2008 has been granted by the PCCC (Permanent Commission

for Chess Composition) to the following study.

Velimir Kalandadze1st Special Prize Nona JT, 2008 XIIIIIIIIY9-+-+-+-+09+q+P+-+K09-+-+-mk-+09+-+-+-+-09Q+-+-+-+09zp-+-+-+-09P+-+-+-+09+-+-+-+-0xiiiiiiiiy

White to play and win

1. Qf4+ Ke6 (Ke7) 2. Qf7+ Kxf7 3. d8=S+ Kf6+ 4. Sxb7 Ke55. Kg6 Kd4 6. Kf5 Kc3 7. Ke4 Kb2 8. Kd3 Kxa2 9. Kc2 Ka1

10. Sc5 Ka2 11. Sd3 Ka1 12. Sc1 a2 13. Sb3#

Studies sub-committeeRio de Janeiro, 2009

John Roycroft, acting speaker

Table of contentsPreliminary, by John Roycroft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

ARVES day at the Euwe Centre, Amsterdam, on Saturday 13th June 2009, by John Roycroft 308

Greetings and tributes, by John Roycroft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

On being a chess endgame impresario, by John Beasley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

Selecting and marking studies for solving, by Brian Stephenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

Early days of EG, and the New Statesman, by Paul Valois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324

Bent (MT award) straightened, by John Roycroft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

*C* GBR class 0023 – a win. What about 0061.10?, by John Roycroft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

Charm, by John Roycroft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333

Reviews, by John Roycroft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335

Snippets, by John Roycroft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337

Farewell! by John Roycroft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338

ISSN-0012-7671Copyright ARVES

Reprinting of (parts of) this magazine is only permittedfor non-commercial purposes and with acknowledgement.

eg 178 special - arves · 2017-08-23 · and world-renowned chess book collector jur-gen stigter....

Documents