English Chess Forum

Paul Cooksey's last post in the Nicky Chorley improvement thread led me to create this spin-off.

I quite like this one, whose author I have forgotten:

8/8/3P4/2r5/4B2k/4r1p1/8/5R1K
White to play and win

Hi Jack

I use these. I find the Reti one is too well known.

This is a good low level study. Like the Reti
Few pieces, like the Reti.
First glance 'no way' like the Reti.
And dead easy to remember when setting up on the board. (like the Reti).
When you get to my age you find the last reason is becoming important.

I too cannot recall who composed it.

That is quite shocking from the both of us Jack.
No joke, it is poor form.
Some of these studies are mini-masterpieces.
We do the composers an injustice.

Who ever you are mate. I thank you. (and Jack thanks the other lad who did his one.)

White to play and win.

[FEN "k7/P7/1P6/4p3/4Pp2/5K2/8/8 w - - 0 1"] 1. Ke2 Kb7 2. Kd3 Ka8 3. Kc4 Kb7 4. Kc5 {OK White has done it now. He cannot stop the Black f-pawn.} 4... f3 5. Kd6 {And now he is moving away from the Queenside. He has gone Bonkers.} 5... f2 6. a8=Q+ {Ahhhh....the penny drops.} 6... Kxa8 7. Kc7 f1=Q 8. b7+ Ka7 9. b8=Q+ Ka6 10. Qb6

Geoff Chandler wrote:Hi Jack

I use these. I find the Reti one is too well known.

This is a good low level study. Like the Reti
Few pieces, like the Reti.
First glance 'no way' like the Reti.
And dead easy to remember when setting up on the board. (like the Reti).
When you get to my age you find the last reason is becoming important.

I too cannot recall who composed it.

That is quite shocking from the both of us Jack.
No joke, it is poor form.
Some of these studies are mini-masterpieces.
We do the composers an injustice.

Who ever you are mate. I thank you. (and Jack thanks the other lad who did his one.)

White to play and win.

[FEN "k7/P7/1P6/4p3/4Pp2/5K2/8/8 w - - 0 1"] 1. Ke2 Kb7 2. Kd3 Ka8 3. Kc4 Kb7 4. Kc5 {OK White has done it now. He cannot stop the Black f-pawn.} 4... f3 5. Kd6 {And now he is moving away from the Queenside. He has gone Bonkers.} 5... f2 6. a8=Q+ {Ahhhh....the penny drops.} 6... Kxa8 7. Kc7 f1=Q 8. b7+ Ka7 9. b8=Q+ Ka6 10. Qb6

That's scary, that almost perfectly mirrors the finish I had against a 2100 on Chesscube last year. I'll see if I can dig it out tomorrow.

Geoff Chandler wrote: I find the Reti one is too well known.

This is a good low level study. Like the Reti
Few pieces, like the Reti.
First glance 'no way' like the Reti.

Here's another fitting that general description. Made a big impression on me when I first saw it, age 12.

Composed by L Prokes, 1947. White to draw.
[FEN "3K4/7p/3k4/P7/8/8/8/8 ="]

8/8/5p2/8/4P1P1/8/5k1K/8
White to play and win

This is an interesting one... http://www.gingergm.com/2012/03/19/puzzle-of-the-day/

Sorry, not sure how to post the board up on the forum here.

Here you go:

8/7r/8/6pP/7k/8/B6K/R7

White to play and win

Jack

Concerning the first study you posted on this thread. As has been stated elsewhere, this is by Gorgiev and dates from 1936. It is indeed very nice, but there is a flaw in that 7.Rxh3+ also wins. Perhaps in 1936 they didn't know that QvR is normally a win?

Brian Stephenson wrote:Jack

Concerning the first study you posted on this thread. As has been stated elsewhere, this is by Gorgiev and dates from 1936. It is indeed very nice, but there is a flaw in that 7.Rxh3+ also wins. Perhaps in 1936 they didn't know that QvR is normally a win?

Studies aren't problems. Duals are fine if they occur after the critical position.

Jack

You say: "Studies aren't problems. Duals are fine if they occur after the critical position."

In the 19th Century, in the English school of chess composition at least, duals in problems were almost always considered flaws. Other schools of composition had different views. In the years since then English Problemists have mellowed a lot and now accept some duals in problems in some situations.

As for duals in studies, I believe what you state is a matter of opinion, though not one I've heard before. Duals in the main line are always flaws, to a greater or lesser extent. This one is a minor flaw in my opinion. It can be easily cured by shortening the solution by a move. Which begs a question. Why didn't the composer do just that? Did he not notice the flaw, or did he not care? Not a question that we can answer, though I find it difficult to believe that a composer of Gorgiev's standing would notice the dual and then not make the simple cure.

I've just looked up Nunn in 'Secrets of Pawnless Endings' where he states that QvR has been known to be a win (though its difficulty underestimated until 1978) for 200 years, so I must assume that Gorgiev knew it was a win.

Sorry for the extended response, but your reply left me gasping