MatPlus.Net

 Website founded by
Milan Velimirović
in 2006

16:59 UTC
ISC 2024
 
  Forum*
 
 
 
 

Username:

Password:

Remember me

 
Forgot your
password?
Click here!
SIGN IN
to create your account if you don't already have one.
CHESS
SOLVING

Tournaments
Rating lists
1-Jan-2024

B P C F





 
 
MatPlus.Net Forum General technical or artistic
 
You can only view this page!
(1) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Monday, Mar 1, 2010 14:32]

technical or artistic


In an announcement we can read: “Artistic studies with "database material" are welcomed, but please do not send technical endings without artistic content (this also applies to endings with more material!)”

I am wondering whether such a categorical demand is clear to understand.
Is there an obvious border between technical and artistic studies?
I would like to show two examples.

Yehuda Hoch
1st Pr Dobrescu-60 1993
(= 5+4 )

win

1.Re1+! Kxe1 2.Qe5+ Kf1 3.fxg4 Rh6+ 4.Qh5!! (Qh2?) Se4 5.Kh2 Sf6 6.6.Qh3+!! Kf2 7.Qxh6 Sxg4+ 8.Kh1! Sxh6 9.a5 +-

Oleg Pervakov
1st Pl XIV Championnat de Moscou 1992
(= 6+4 )

win

1.Qa4+!! Dxa4 2.Rd3+ Kb4+ 3.Kb2 Se5 4.Sc6+!! Sxc6 5.Be2!! a6 6.Bf1! Kc4 7.Rh3+ Kd5 8.Rh5+ Se5 9.Bg2+ Kc4 10.Rh4+ Kb5 11.Bf1+ Sc4+ 12.Rxc4 Qxc4 13.Sd6+ +-

I think that the answer is hidden here.
Both the studies were selected to the same FIDE Album, the Hoch’s with 12 points, and Pervakov’s with 8,5 points.
 
(Read Only)pid=4904
(2) Posted by Sarah Hornecker [Monday, Mar 1, 2010 16:38]

I wouldn't regard any of these technical. Technical is rather something like an endgame that nobody really understands and that has no points.

For a mix of technical and artistic I'd rather give the famous Kasparyan study (marked as theoretical endgame in hhdbiii):
(= 4+2 )

Shakhmaty v SSSR 1946
White wins

1.Ka2!! Rh3 2.Kb2 zz Rg3 3.Kc2 Rh3 4.Kd2 Rg3 5.Ke2 Rh3 6.Kf2 Ra3 7.Rb7 Ra5 8.h6 wins
(1.Kb2? Rh3! zz; 8...Rg5+!)
 
 
(Read Only)pid=4905
(3) Posted by Marek Kwiatkowski [Monday, Mar 1, 2010 19:00]

I quote:
“Technical is rather something like an endgame that nobody really understands and that has no points.”
Siegfried, I see it is your personal opinion, but what does the judge mean?
The two studies, mentioned by me, are very subtle compositions, but the second one seems to be, for me, an artistic great achievement. I can’t feel it looking at the first.
 
   
(Read Only)pid=4907
(4) Posted by Steven Dowd [Wednesday, Mar 3, 2010 20:06]

I offer the following two studies, both by Christer Jonsson, the Swedish helpmate king:

3rd Honor Mention TFs Tourney 1968

(= 4+5 )


Draw.

I would consider this a technical study, the draw being found as "a matter of technique," of understanding endgame principles.

It also has artistic merit with the try, but it is primarily technical.


2nd Prize, same tourney

(= 7+9 )


Win



Both studies are discussed in eg23, most of you know how to find those on-line. And your computers
will show you the winning and drawing lines quick enough or you can try them on your own.



The key is not hard to see in this one, but the subsequent play is beautiful. eg23 notes
the fine use of problem ideas here in a study, with "a Novotny on b5 and a Grimshaw on e5"!

Both are good studies, but it is hardly surprising that the second place winner far outstrips
its technical colleague. As an OTB player, I would appreciate the honorable mention problem as teaching
me something practical to remember in a similar situation; as a problemist I cannot help but
marvel at the beautiful things the 2nd prizewinner shows.

And today we talk even more of including problem themes in studies; this one was before its
time perhaps. No wonder so many beautiful helpmates find their way out of Christer's lab.
 
 
(Read Only)pid=4921

No more posts


MatPlus.Net Forum General technical or artistic